American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/

Rating the Generals: Part 24 of 24 (Phil Sheridan)
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=22843		 Page 6 of 8
Author:  Tex McSwain [ Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rating the Generals: Part 14 of 24 (William Sherman)
Quaama wrote:
Tex McSwain wrote:
Not worth arguing with Paul. He is obviously a lost causer.

"There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South... Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow... Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and Slave... Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered. A Civilization gone with the wind..."


I put forth verifiable quotes and source documents to support my ascertain that Sherman was not "a winning commander" against armed men. You, while hiding behind a pseudonym, only offer slurs against my character ("Not worth arguing with" "obviously a lost causer") and a quote from a novel designed to imply that I am dreaming.
If you have any arguments in support of Sherman having military prowess against armed men you should present any such facts that support that view.
If you are a supporter of Sherman's aggression against civilians you should consider whether you belong on our side of the Club.



Image
Author:  Christian Hecht [ Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rating the Generals: Part 15 of 24 (Nathan B. Forrest)
Smaller is enough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAlTOfl9F2w
Author:  Quaama [ Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rating the Generals: Part 14 of 24 (William Sherman)
Tex McSwain wrote:
Quaama wrote:
Tex McSwain wrote:
Not worth arguing with Paul. He is obviously a lost causer.

"There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South... Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow... Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and Slave... Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered. A Civilization gone with the wind..."


I put forth verifiable quotes and source documents to support my ascertain that Sherman was not "a winning commander" against armed men. You, while hiding behind a pseudonym, only offer slurs against my character ("Not worth arguing with" "obviously a lost causer") and a quote from a novel designed to imply that I am dreaming.
If you have any arguments in support of Sherman having military prowess against armed men you should present any such facts that support that view.
If you are a supporter of Sherman's aggression against civilians you should consider whether you belong on our side of the Club.



Image


As suspected, you have nothing to argue for Sherman.
Author:  Quaama [ Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rating the Generals: Part 15 of 24 (Nathan B. Forrest)
C. Hecht wrote:
Smaller is enough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAlTOfl9F2w


LOL, no surprise there. You have as much to support Sherman as McSwain.
Author:  Christian Hecht [ Wed Mar 23, 2022 3:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rating the Generals: Part 15 of 24 (Nathan B. Forrest)
Simple, Sherman's efforts in rolling up the Rebs from behind were a large contribution to winning the war. Argue like you want, I prefer a Sherman who does what is needed to win the war anytime over other generals that win battles but loose the war.
Author:  warhorse123 [ Wed Mar 23, 2022 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rating the Generals: Part 15 of 24 (Nathan B. Forrest)
:lol:

Attachments:
Screenshot_20200527-170724_Facebook.jpg
Screenshot_20200527-170724_Facebook.jpg [ 34.91 KiB | Viewed 7279 times ]
Author:  Blake [ Wed Mar 23, 2022 3:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rating the Generals: Part 15 of 24 (Nathan B. Forrest)
mihalik wrote:
If Forrest doesn't deserve four stars, no general in the Civil War does.

First witness: General Sherman

"After all, I think Forrest was the most remarkable man our Civil War produced on either side."-William Tecumseh Sherman

True, Forrest didn't get along with Bragg, but neither did anybody else.

He led Hood's cavalry during the Nashville campaign and is responsible for saving what was left of the army after the battle.

Don't have time to list all of his many accomplishments during the war, but promotions from private through lieutenant general indicates to me that his services were appreciated by the people in charge.


I don't think Forrest gets four stars. Any commander should find a way to work well with others around him. They are a team all working towards the same goal. Easier said than done. But Forrest's personality was such that he did not suffer fools lightly. As a result, he clashed with everybody around him. He damned Wheeler, Hood, Bragg, Johnston, Pillow, Buckner... etc. etc. Forrest excelled in independent command for obvious reasons. But when he was attached to the main army his performances were unremarkable. The regular army officers simply didn't know how to best use him when attached to their forces. Stuart is the ideal cavalrymen for the Confederacy as he could work well with his superiors and conduct operations with the main army. Stuart could also ride around the enemy army and raid with the best of them. As great at Forrest was, it's hard to see him ever being able to lead a cavalry division or corps like Stuart did and to affect that sort of relationship with his superiors that Stuart did.

Forrest is, hands down, the best raider of the war and probably the best fighter. But he is still second to Stuart in terms of the overall package.
Author:  warhorse123 [ Wed Mar 23, 2022 3:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rating the Generals: Part 15 of 24 (Nathan B. Forrest)
If we're still talking about Sherman, I give you one last quote in a letter to John C Calhoun:
"... I want peace, and believe it (can) only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success.

But my dear sirs when Peace does come, you may call on me for any thing-Then I will share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter."
Author:  Quaama [ Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rating the Generals: Part 15 of 24 (Nathan B. Forrest)
warhorse123 wrote:
If we're still talking about Sherman, I give you one last quote in a letter to John C Calhoun:
"... I want peace, and believe it (can) only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success.

But my dear sirs when Peace does come, you may call on me for any thing-Then I will share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter."


But, of course, Sherman did nothing of the sort. Instead, he waged war on largely defenceless Indians and in doing so implemented a campaign to eradicate buffalo to further subjugate them. His aim can be summed up in his own words “we must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children” (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/where-the-buffalo-no-longer-roamed-3067904/).

That's the sort of man Sherman was.
Author:  warhorse123 [ Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rating the Generals: Part 15 of 24 (Nathan B. Forrest)
One war at a time. I'm not advocating anything Sherman did to the Native American...but we were talking about the Civil War and Sherman's total war against the South.
I think what Sherman was saying was that this all could be ended by the surrender of their armed forces.
Author:  mihalik [ Wed Mar 23, 2022 7:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rating the Generals: Part 15 of 24 (Nathan B. Forrest)
warhorse123 wrote:
One war at a time. I'm not advocating anything Sherman did to the Native American...but we were talking about the Civil War and Sherman's total war against the South.
I think what Sherman was saying was that this all could be ended by the surrender of their armed forces.


Actually that appears to be pretty much what happened.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/575 ... nds-of-war

Surprised to learn that the parolees were afforded free rations at union army posts and free transportation to their homes when and where available.
Author:  mihalik [ Wed Mar 23, 2022 8:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rating the Generals: Part 15 of 24 (Nathan B. Forrest)
Blake wrote:
mihalik wrote:
If Forrest doesn't deserve four stars, no general in the Civil War does.

First witness: General Sherman

"After all, I think Forrest was the most remarkable man our Civil War produced on either side."-William Tecumseh Sherman

True, Forrest didn't get along with Bragg, but neither did anybody else.

He led Hood's cavalry during the Nashville campaign and is responsible for saving what was left of the army after the battle.

Don't have time to list all of his many accomplishments during the war, but promotions from private through lieutenant general indicates to me that his services were appreciated by the people in charge.


I don't think Forrest gets four stars. Any commander should find a way to work well with others around him. They are a team all working towards the same goal. Easier said than done. But Forrest's personality was such that he did not suffer fools lightly. As a result, he clashed with everybody around him. He damned Wheeler, Hood, Bragg, Johnston, Pillow, Buckner... etc. etc. Forrest excelled in independent command for obvious reasons. But when he was attached to the main army his performances were unremarkable. The regular army officers simply didn't know how to best use him when attached to their forces. Stuart is the ideal cavalrymen for the Confederacy as he could work well with his superiors and conduct operations with the main army. Stuart could also ride around the enemy army and raid with the best of them. As great at Forrest was, it's hard to see him ever being able to lead a cavalry division or corps like Stuart did and to affect that sort of relationship with his superiors that Stuart did.

Forrest is, hands down, the best raider of the war and probably the best fighter. But he is still second to Stuart in terms of the overall package.


Well, you are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine, but I am curious to know where you got yours. I've read several books on Forrest and am aware he had differences with Bragg and Wheeler, as well as Stephen Lee, but he others you mention are a mystery to me, particularly the etc etcs. Unless you feel he should have kept his mouth shut and surrendered at Ft Donelson instead of requesting permission to withdraw his command when the decision was made to surrender. He did indeed lead a cavalry corps at Chickamauga and led the cavalry of the AoT during the Nashville Campaign of 1864. And unlike Stuart, he was where he needed to be at those times and not off chasing glory with his best brigades when his army commander needed him most.
Author:  Thomas Marshall [ Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Rating the Generals: Part 15 of 24 (Nathan B. Forrest)
I've been following this discussion with much interest. I think the different perspectives, offered by so many knowledgeable contributors, make the wider point that historical figures don't fit in neat boxes; and that's why they're so compelling to read about.

Blake's point about Forrest being a particularly difficult subordinate (to put it mildly) is well taken. But I'm pretty sure we've all been in hierarchical organisations, whether it's school, work, the military, whatever & something goes wrong and a potential fix is available and it's being ignored. Maybe it's not a big deal the first time, maybe there's a benefit of the doubt there, etc so you leave it. But if time and time again, costly mistakes occur, then of course you're going to blow your top. I'm sure we'd all agree that costly command mistakes were not a rarity for the men of the Army of Tennessee. Their courage repeatedly demanded better than they got & nobody was better placed to see this than Forrest.

Largely thanks to US Grant (who I believe deserves four stars because without Grant I don't see Vicksburg falling or a successful Union effort to force Lee off the Rappahannock line, therefore I am unsure than Lincoln gets re-elected in 1864), the Confederate war in the west was a total defeat which gradually gathered momentum. I believe Forrest (Wilder was independently doing very similar things for the Union, with the additional benefit of better weaponry) was developing a blueprint for a form of mobile warfare that would have been virtually impossible for the Union to subdue. That said, this would have involved immense human tragedy & I'm glad it didn't happen.
Author:  Adam Brookes [ Thu Mar 24, 2022 3:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rating the Generals: Part 15 of 24 (Nathan B. Forrest)
Georgian here.

I hate to burst bubbles but we don't spend much time thinking of ole Sherman in the SEC. Its football, hunting, fishing, and then football. We get right mad when Yankees come down here and dance around and dangle his actions in our faces when we know they are just trying to get a rise out of us. That's what ticks me off more than anything with Sherman. I ain't real impressed that you are doing a touchdown dance in my state over the actions of an army and general that happened over 150 years ago. Grow up.

But I don't hate Sherman. Seems like a dude you could go hunting with and come back the next day stinking drunk and wondering where the matching tattoos came from.
Author:  Blake [ Fri Mar 25, 2022 12:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rating the Generals: Part 16 of 24 (Joe Hooker)
Joseph Hooker

Bright, aggressive, personally courageous, tactically skilled, an effective leader of men, and a competent administrator, Joseph Hooker had the makings of a fine general officer, but he was also afflicted with an abrasive personality, an egocentric orientation, overweening ambition, opportunistic lapses in loyalty, and a lack of personal discipline, all of which tended to turn subordinate officers, colleagues, seniors, and civilian politicians against him. Hooker's great strength was his individual aggressive initiative, a quality sorely lacking in Union commanders early in the war. This, however, was also the source of his greatest weakness, what U.S. Grant described as a personal ambition that cared "nothing for the rights of others" and a tendency "when engaged in battle, to get detached from the main body of the army and exercise a separate command." In more modern terms, Hooker was not a team player. When his brash, self-centered self-confidence was put to the ultimate test against Robert E. Lee at Chancellorsville, Hooker failed catastrophically and for this reason is remembered - unjustly - for more for his personal peccadilloes (a legendary, probably exaggerated, overfondness for strong drink and women of easy virtue, and an addiction to gambling) than he is for his very real, if flawed, achievements as a military officer.

HISTORIANS RATING: TWO STARS


I'm good with all that. Hooker's plan at Chancellorsville was solid. It's the sort of battle that if it was replayed 10 times, Lee likely loses it in 9 of them.

Did Lee and Jackson win that battle, or did Hooker lose it? That might be a more interesting debate.
Page 6 of 8 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/