Thought-provoking and worth reading

I know you don’t like Forrest much, however I do believe he did more under more difficult circumstances than any other cavalry commander could do. He wasn’t just a Morgan-esque style raider, given his participation in the battles of Shiloh, Chickamauga, Brices Cross Roads, Tupelo, Franklin-Nashville campaign among others. As for the racism aspect, I’m hard pressed to find many Civil War commanders on both sides, who weren’t racist by todays standards. He was probably more progressive in race relations in the 1870s than most of his era. The fact that there were a few thousand Afican Americans at his funeral is a tribute to that.

I think Lee makes an excellent point. Forrest’s racist views were put into (sometimes bloody) practice on a number of occasions. Although it’s only tangential, I’d add that Forrest’s reputation as a virtually infallible tactician/cavalryman takes a well-researched hit in Dave Powell’s Failure in the Saddle, a study of Forrest’s conduct during the Chickamauga campaign. which is just out. Adams also ought to be more careful in his use of “sources”. One of them is the book Jack Hinson’s Civil War, which is based on skeletal facts and much speculation/invention by the author.

Never call me a cavalry man (LOL). Seriously, if you want to talk about artillery I’m your guy but my “expertise” on the horse soldiers might fill a thimble and much of what I do know comes from buying Eric’s books. I do recommend the Powell book, however, for a detailed look at Forrest in one campaign.

I didn’t really like Adams’ article all that much because some of his historical points are arguably superficial.

However, his article makes a good point. Forrest was awesome at War, and sometimes we, as a people, must have War… and if we do, we too must be awesome at it. And Forrest is as good an American example as any about how to go about being awesome at it. I’d surely want a Nathan Bedford Forrest next to me in battle, if not leading me into it. The only problem is he was on the fire eating, radical side of the Civil War, i.e. the radical Islam or despotic Arab side of the War.

U.S. Grant or William Tecumseh Sherman would be better models to write about, I think, because despotic and violent, radical Islam is going to unfortunately have to be beaten down over time by the United States just like the Confederacy was. Vanquishing the Taliban in Afghanistan or the despotic Saddam in Iraq is something akin to Grant liberating Mississippi or Sherman marching to the Sea. A lot of Lincoln is needed from our leaders, and a lot of Forrest is needed in our soldiers (or really Grant and Shermans, among many others).

JLittle,

The radicalism I’m talking about is the radicalism of slavery… not the radicalism of rebellion or how Forrest fought. It’s not a perfect analogy for sure, I grant you that. However, slavery was an institution that had to go. It was intolerable to the ideals of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. It was intolerable to the great American experiment. Just as despotism and the radical Islamic life is intolerable to America today.

Forrest, as much as he loved the Constitution and America, just was on the wrong side of the slavery issue. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were as well. Myriad ancestors of mine were too, from Virginia House of Burgesses members to widowed plantation owners in Civil War Louisiana. In no way am I’m saying that they were the exact Osama bin Ladens of their time… they weren’t… but they were upholders of an institution that had to be vanquished, much like bin Laden’s violent jihad culture or Saddam Hussein’s brand of despotism must be stood up to and vanquished.

Again, it’s definitely not a perfect analogy… but we’re still the same country of Lincoln (with the same ideological commitments), yet now our interests span the breath of the world, and not just below the Mason-Dixon line.