American civil war: the first modern war in history (3 Viewers)

[jazzeum]

This may be of interest to some. The Gettysburg National Military Park has a winter lecture series and in his blog, Student of the Civil War, Al Mackey has been reporting on some of the lectures. This one deals with Chickamauga and Rosecrans and Bragg, http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/chickamauga/

 

[swalterh]

This may be of interest to some. The Gettysburg National Military Park has a winter lecture series and in his blog, Student of the Civil War, Al Mackey has been reporting on some of the lectures. This one deals with Chickamauga and Rosecrans and Bragg, http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/chickamauga/

This is just a side note, but with Brad's last post we've reached 100 replies for the thread. {bravo}} Congratulations to the thread's creator Poppo and everyone else who has contributed their perspectives. I think that it has been an enjoyable and intellectually stimulating conversation.

Thanks again,

Shane

 

[swalterh]

Ok, hopefully this one will get some more activity going here.

Best/Favorite ACW Cavalry commander?

For me it’s John Buford. His contribution to the Battle of Gettysburg is absolutely vital to the entire epic. His main mission was to provide a screening force that could locate elements of Lee’s army and report back any significant pieces of intelligence to higher headquarters. Once the rebels were located he quickly determined the enemy’s intentions. He maintained communication with the lead elements of the Army of the Potomac and on his own initiative shifted his role from that of operational reconnaissance to the tactical defense.

It took a significant amount of intuition and tactical foresight for a division commander of the mounted arm to recognize the key positions (Cemetery & Culp’s Hills) needed to be held. Not only did Buford accomplish this, he also realized that his own force was incapable of holding off the amount of combat power he expected to be brought to bear on his smaller force. Based on this assessment, he devised and executed a plan that allowed his troopers to trade space for time. By positioning his forces on the outskirts of the northwest side of town, he was able to hold off the vanguard of the Army of Northern Virginia until supporting Union forces could arrive on the scene.

Plus who can resist a charachter played by the legendary Sam Elliot.

“We’re gonna hold ‘em in the morning. We’ll have to fight like the Devil to hold our own until supports arrive.”

 

[swalterh]

This may be of interest to some. The Gettysburg National Military Park has a winter lecture series and in his blog, Student of the Civil War, Al Mackey has been reporting on some of the lectures. This one deals with Chickamauga and Rosecrans and Bragg, http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/chickamauga/

So Bragg graduated 5th in his class @ the Point and McClellan 2nd. Does this mean people should be cautious about their initial impressions of people with high class rankings and grade point averages???

Conversely Grant graduated 21 out of 39. That's in the bottom half.

 

[Poppo]

Ok, hopefully this one will get some more activity going here.

Best/Favorite ACW Cavalry commander?

For me it’s John Buford. His contribution to the Battle of Gettysburg is absolutely vital to the entire epic. His main mission was to provide a screening force that could locate elements of Lee’s army and report back any significant pieces of intelligence to higher headquarters. Once the rebels were located he quickly determined the enemy’s intentions. He maintained communication with the lead elements of the Army of the Potomac and on his own initiative shifted his role from that of operational reconnaissance to the tactical defense.

It took a significant amount of intuition and tactical foresight for a division commander of the mounted arm to recognize the key positions (Cemetery & Culp’s Hills) needed to be held. Not only did Buford accomplish this, he also realized that his own force was incapable of holding off the amount of combat power he expected to be brought to bear on his smaller force. Based on this assessment, he devised and executed a plan that allowed his troopers to trade space for time. By positioning his forces on the outskirts of the northwest side of town, he was able to hold off the vanguard of the Army of Northern Virginia until supporting Union forces could arrive on the scene.

Plus who can resist a charachter played by the legendary Sam Elliot.

“We’re gonna hold ‘em in the morning. We’ll have to fight like the Devil to hold our own until supports arrive.”

View attachment 118105

For me it is Forrest.....Aften the war Lee said:" the best of my soldiers is one I never met: Nathan Forrest"

 

[Louis Badolato]

Thomas J. Jackson. Trained as an artilleryman, he was the best infantry commander this country ever produced.

 

[swalterh]

For me it is Forrest.....Aften the war Lee said:" the best of my soldiers is one I never met: Nathan Forrest"

Interesting you mentioned Nathan B. Forrest. Forrest was a brilliant self-taught military commander. He was a successful business man before the war (selling slaves). When war broke out he recruited his own cavalry unit and equipped them out of his own pocket.

During his service he seemed to always be around the action that occurred in the western theatre. At Ft. Donelson he led his men on a daring escape to evade the eventual surrender that befell the rest of the garrison. He narrowly escaped with his life covering Beauregard’s retreat following the Union counter-attack at Shiloh.

He was probably most famous for his exploits as a raider. Throughout the western theatre his presence was a severe threat to any union supply line or rear area. His victory at Brice’s Crossroads (1864) could be considered one of the most brilliant tactical uses of the mounted arm in the annals of warfare. Unfortunately Forrest never seemed to get on well with his superiors. He probably suffered his worst personality conflict with Bragg (the guy who couldn’t even get along with himself). The situation between the two men became so tense that Forrest was eventually transferred away from Bragg’s command.

Perhaps William T. Sherman afforded Forrest the greatest complement stating something to the effect of Forrest needed to be hunted down even if the effort bankrupted the entire federal treasury.

One of the more notorious episodes of his military career was the unwarranted executions of Union African-American POW’s following the fight at Fort Pillow.

At the end of the war Forrest returned to business and was rumored to be associated with the white supremacist organization the KKK. Despite these damaging aspects to his reputation, Forrest is still revered as one of the finest cavalry commanders America has ever produced. Some of his back-country military maxims are still applicable today. One of the more famous being “Get there first with the most men.” The more theoretical terminology being mass your combat power at the decisive point.

 

[swalterh]

Thomas J. Jackson. Trained as an artilleryman, he was the best infantry commander this country ever produced.

I agree that Jackson probably did get the most out of his infantry formations than any other American commander. During the 1862 Valley Campaign his force defeated three federal armies in a running operational contest that took his men up and down the valley in a ducking and dodging consortium of deception and maneuver. IMO the marches and counter-marches conducted by his army in the valley will never be equaled. Had he possessed more horsemen available to unleash on his foes after he put them to flight, Jackson may have been able to inflict a more crippling blow against northern morale.

I would say that Winfield Scott ranks up there with Jackson. Scott’s command of the regular infantry battalions at the Battles of Chippewa and Lundy’s Lane were some of the first examples of solid US infantry performance since the Revolutionary war. Of course Scott’s campaign against Mexico City during the Mexican American War (1846-48) can be considered nothing less than the first successful full-scale offensive operation on foreign soil in US military history.

 

[jazzeum]

In reference to Shane's post about Forrest, "Remember Fort Pillow!" was the rallying battle cry for many a soldier of the USCT and was shouted at the Confederates at the Battle of the Crater, also the scene of another massacre of Black troops.

This famous painting by Don Troiani shows Mahone's counterattack against the men of the USCT.

 

[lancer]

Interesting you mentioned Nathan B. Forrest. Forrest was a brilliant self-taught military commander. He was a successful business man before the war (selling slaves). When war broke out he recruited his own cavalry unit and equipped them out of his own pocket.

During his service he seemed to always be around the action that occurred in the western theatre. At Ft. Donelson he led his men on a daring escape to evade the eventual surrender that befell the rest of the garrison. He narrowly escaped with his life covering Beauregard’s retreat following the Union counter-attack at Shiloh.

He was probably most famous for his exploits as a raider. Throughout the western theatre his presence was a severe threat to any union supply line or rear area. His victory at Brice’s Crossroads (1864) could be considered one of the most brilliant tactical uses of the mounted arm in the annals of warfare. Unfortunately Forrest never seemed to get on well with his superiors. He probably suffered his worst personality conflict with Bragg (the guy who couldn’t even get along with himself). The situation between the two men became so tense that Forrest was eventually transferred away from Bragg’s command.

Perhaps William T. Sherman afforded Forrest the greatest complement stating something to the effect of Forrest needed to be hunted down even if the effort bankrupted the entire federal treasury.

One of the more notorious episodes of his military career was the unwarranted executions of Union African-American POW’s following the fight at Fort Pillow.

At the end of the war Forrest returned to business and was rumored to be associated with the white supremacist organization the KKK. Despite these damaging aspects to his reputation, Forrest is still revered as one of the finest cavalry commanders America has ever produced. Some of his back-country military maxims are still applicable today. One of the more famous being “Get there first with the most men.” The more theoretical terminology being mass your combat power at the decisive point.

Just a note on Forrest's ability. During the run-up to the battle at Franklin in Nov., 1864, Forrest reported the Federal positions to Hood and explained that they were dug in and ready to stand. With Hood's decision to attack, Forrest said a frontal assault was not neccesary and that if he could borrow some infantry as support to his cavalry, he could then flank the Federals out of their positions. He proposed this and pushed for it, but Hood would have none of it. Forrest was furious at Hood's bull headed decision to make the assault. -- Al

 

[Poppo]

Interesting you mentioned Nathan B. Forrest. Forrest was a brilliant self-taught military commander. He was a successful business man before the war (selling slaves). When war broke out he recruited his own cavalry unit and equipped them out of his own pocket.

During his service he seemed to always be around the action that occurred in the western theatre. At Ft. Donelson he led his men on a daring escape to evade the eventual surrender that befell the rest of the garrison. He narrowly escaped with his life covering Beauregard’s retreat following the Union counter-attack at Shiloh.

He was probably most famous for his exploits as a raider. Throughout the western theatre his presence was a severe threat to any union supply line or rear area. His victory at Brice’s Crossroads (1864) could be considered one of the most brilliant tactical uses of the mounted arm in the annals of warfare. Unfortunately Forrest never seemed to get on well with his superiors. He probably suffered his worst personality conflict with Bragg (the guy who couldn’t even get along with himself). The situation between the two men became so tense that Forrest was eventually transferred away from Bragg’s command.

Perhaps William T. Sherman afforded Forrest the greatest complement stating something to the effect of Forrest needed to be hunted down even if the effort bankrupted the entire federal treasury.

One of the more notorious episodes of his military career was the unwarranted executions of Union African-American POW’s following the fight at Fort Pillow.

At the end of the war Forrest returned to business and was rumored to be associated with the white supremacist organization the KKK. Despite these damaging aspects to his reputation, Forrest is still revered as one of the finest cavalry commanders America has ever produced. Some of his back-country military maxims are still applicable today. One of the more famous being “Get there first with the most men.” The more theoretical terminology being mass your combat power at the decisive point.

This time I don' t agree with you......

1.Forrest was one of the confederate chiefs who freed his slaves.

2.At Fort Pillow were indiscriminate killings: also the whites were killed in great number.

3.Forrest became Great Master of KKK and tried to make this association become a social club for helping the confederate veterans but he didn' t succed as it had become just a criminal racist association, so HE CLOSED THE KKK.

4. Don' t forget that he saved with his cavalry the "army of tennesee"( general HOOD) retreating from the Franklin' s and Nashville's defeats: for this he was made liutennant general.

 

[jazzeum]

I think the above post could derail this thread, which is mostly devoted to military matters and not the larger issues (which I find fascinating but also controversial) so I would suggest that if you want to discuss the non-military Forrest, I would recommend that it be done in a separate thread.

 

[Poppo]

I think the above post could derail this thread, which is mostly devoted to military matters and not the larger issues (which I find fascinating but also controversial) so I would suggest that if you want to discuss the non-military Forrest, I would recommend that it be done in a separate thread.

I just replied the points raised by Shane, I didn' t add anything new....And only one point is referring about after the war, and it is a reply also. Moreover, the post was also about Forrest' s life and reputation, not only military.

 

[swalterh]

I think the above post could derail this thread, which is mostly devoted to military matters and not the larger issues (which I find fascinating but also controversial) so I would suggest that if you want to discuss the non-military Forrest, I would recommend that it be done in a separate thread.

I just replied the points raised by Shane, I didn' t add anything new....And only one point is referring about after the war, and it is a reply also. Moreover, the post was also about Forrest' s life and reputation, not only military.

Again I wish to extend my apologies,

I thought long and hard about whether or not to include the more controversial stuff regarding Forrest’s life & service record. I decided to go ahead with it to see what came of it. I think the nature of Forrest’s association/involvement with these controversial issues will be debated amongst amateur and professional historians for a long time to come. Again, I didn’t mean to start a huge flair up, but I have to admit that being involved in the back and forth on these topics has been mildly entertaining. Hope no one has become overly offended about these lines of discussion, but IMO they are pertinent to the conversation since the war was about slavery and the subsequent treament of African-Americans in this country.

Best
Shane

 

[Poppo]

Again I wish to extend my apologies,

I thought long and hard about whether or not to include the more controversial stuff regarding Forrest’s life & service record. I decided to go ahead with it to see what came of it. I think the nature of Forrest’s association/involvement with these controversial issues will be debated amongst amateur and professional historians for a long time to come. Again, I didn’t mean to start a huge flair up, but I have to admit that being involved in the back and forth on these topics has been mildly entertaining. Hope no one has become overly offended about these lines of discussion, but IMO they are pertinent to the conversation since the war was about slavery and the subsequent treament of African-Americans in this country.

Best
Shane

I agree Shane, it is good you express all your thoughts! And don' t worry,I never get offended...I can feel passionate on a subject sometimes, but never offended {sm4}


And thank you for animating the "historical session" of this forum which was rather sleepy.....Go on please, it s interesting dialogue and exchange of informations...

 

[jazzeum]

Shane,

Nothing to apologize for and I will address the issues when I have time. However, the facts at Fort Pillow speak for themselves and being a slave trader has to be the lowest of the low. That Poppo would try to rationalize this is not at all surprising.

Just to show the truism of the Faulkner statement, the Memphis City Council recently debated the changing of the name of Bedford Forrest Park. Obviously this caused controversy. One of the suggestions was to change it to Wells Forrest Park in honor of Ida Wells. In the end they punted and changed it to Health Sciences Park, a name I don't clearly understand. If you do a Google search, you can find out more.

 

[Poppo]

Some extra information on Forrest....

"slave traders were not all hard and cruel people: Nathan Bedford Forrest, a wealthy merchant of slaves from Memphis, before selling one of his slaves, took information about the buyer: if this man was cruel and treated badly the slaves, refused outright sale "And again:" Since the beginning of the war the cavalryman had offered his slaves voluntary enlistment as drivers of wagons, promising liberation at the end of the conflict, but 18 months before the conflict was over, fearing to be killed and then could no longer keep his word, he gave all of them, who had faithfully served the letter of emancipation. " Prof.Raimondo Luraghi

the south in 1860 had inherited the " peculiar institution" from more than 200 years and slaves were brought and sold by the northern merchants from " New England" who made a lot of money with this.

Studying history, we have to consider the facts in the historical background they happened; we can' t see history with today' s point of view.

Unfortunately, a serious, objective study of history has been severely damaged by the "politically correctness" stream which took place from the US in the 60ies and spread all over the world. This is not a study of history, but a systematic deformation of it by certain " ideologies", " dogmas"...In this way history becomes a sort of "fairy tale", and in my opinion" politically correctness" is as dangerous as " negationism". Both must be avoided in my opinion; the mind must be free from any prejudice, and just the sources must be analized considering the background of the studied period.

 

[BLReed]

..... the Memphis City Council recently debated the changing of the name of Bedford Forrest Park. Obviously this caused controversy. One of the suggestions was to change it to Wells Forrest Park in honor of Ida Wells. In the end they punted and changed it to Health Sciences Park, .....

The rest of the story:
"The Memphis City Council moved quickly this week to rename three parks that honor the Confederacy before state legislators could block the changes.
Confederate Park will now be Memphis Park. Jefferson Davis Park, named after the president of the Confederacy, becomes Mississippi River Park. Nathan Bedford Forrest Park, named after a Confederate general, will now be known as Health Sciences Park. The changes will be temporary until a newly formed committee helps the council decide on permanent names for the parks...."

 

[jazzeum]

Some extra information on Forrest....

"slave traders were not all hard and cruel people: Nathan Bedford Forrest, a wealthy merchant of slaves from Memphis, before selling one of his slaves, took information about the buyer: if this man was cruel and treated badly the slaves, refused outright sale "And again:" Since the beginning of the war the cavalryman had offered his slaves voluntary enlistment as drivers of wagons, promising liberation at the end of the conflict, but 18 months before the conflict was over, fearing to be killed and then could no longer keep his word, he gave all of them, who had faithfully served the letter of emancipation. " Prof.Raimondo Luraghi

the south in 1860 had inherited the " peculiar institution" from more than 200 years and slaves were brought and sold by the northern merchants from " New England" who made a lot of money with this.

Studying history, we have to consider the facts in the historical background they happened; we can' t see history with today' s point of view.

Unfortunately, a serious, objective study of history has been severely damaged by the "politically correctness" stream which took place from the US in the 60ies and spread all over the world. This is not a study of history, but a systematic deformation of it by certain " ideologies", " dogmas"...In this way history becomes a sort of "fairy tale", and in my opinion" politically correctness" is as dangerous as " negationism". Both must be avoided in my opinion; the mind must be free from any prejudice, and just the sources must be analized considering the background of the studied period.

This post is just utter nonsense. Slave traders marketed in human flesh and very few had compunction about breaking up families. Why do you think Forrest and other traders did not want to buy or sell slaves that had been badly treated? Out of kindness, no because they would not be able to sell them or sell them for high profits. Buyers were not stupid and in the slave market they would examine what they were buying. If a slave had been badly treated, there was less likelihood they would be of utility, particuarly as field hands. Before you start posting nonsense, I suggest you do some serious reading. I would start with Soul by Soul by Walter Joshnson, a study of the New Orleans slave market.

There is no doubt that the North was involved in the economy that made slavery. However, that doesn't lessen or justify the behavior that human beings received as slaves. I would suggest you read some slave accounts. A good place to start is with Frederick Douglass' Narrative of the Life of an American Slave.

This political correctness that you write about, no doubt taken from your "Professor," is also ludicrous. In fact, what we have in the last forty years is a better balanced study of what happened, looking at records that have been looked at before and presenting a more balanced view, getting away from the reconciliationist school of thought.

 

[swalterh]

Some extra information on Forrest....

"slave traders were not all hard and cruel people: Nathan Bedford Forrest, a wealthy merchant of slaves from Memphis, before selling one of his slaves, took information about the buyer: if this man was cruel and treated badly the slaves, refused outright sale "And again:" Since the beginning of the war the cavalryman had offered his slaves voluntary enlistment as drivers of wagons, promising liberation at the end of the conflict, but 18 months before the conflict was over, fearing to be killed and then could no longer keep his word, he gave all of them, who had faithfully served the letter of emancipation. " Prof.Raimondo Luraghi

the south in 1860 had inherited the " peculiar institution" from more than 200 years and slaves were brought and sold by the northern merchants from " New England" who made a lot of money with this.

Studying history, we have to consider the facts in the historical background they happened; we can' t see history with today' s point of view.

Unfortunately, a serious, objective study of history has been severely damaged by the "politically correctness" stream which took place from the US in the 60ies and spread all over the world. This is not a study of history, but a systematic deformation of it by certain " ideologies", " dogmas"...In this way history becomes a sort of "fairy tale", and in my opinion" politically correctness" is as dangerous as " negationism". Both must be avoided in my opinion; the mind must be free from any prejudice, and just the sources must be analized considering the background of the studied period.

Poppo
I agree with your comments regarding opinions and analysis of historical events. When examining the actions of individuals from the past I think it important to understand the context within which these actions took place. Our “historical heroes” lived and operated under different societal norms and expectations than we do today. Just as we preach tolerance and acceptance of other cultures and views in today’s world, I believe it important to exercise the same consideration for the cultural norms and societal views of the time period under historical discussion. I think that this is especially true when examining the exercise of force (i.e. war or some other form of military/violent behavior).