Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Questions on Leadership in the West
- In a message dated 8/31/2004 11:07:42 PM Central Daylight Time, tmix@... writes:
While Stuart was a courageous and fine commander he was not equal to Forrest. Jackson had a history of being fine as an independent commander but not as a cooperative commander working in conjunction with joint actions. Chancellorsville was fine example of his great independent but his performance at Antietam left something to be desired as well as during the 7 days. Where as Cleburne, Cheatham, Stewart, and others worked very well together in joint actions, they just had to deal with Bragg and Hood.
Specifically in regard to Forrest, I must disagree. In 1863, Forrest was wholly unsuited for senior cavalry command, and when he got it, he failed repeatedly to provide the kind of Intel Bragg desperately needed during either Tullahoma, the crossing of the Tennessee, or during Chickamauga. Unfortunately for Bragg, Wheeler was even worse.
Forrest was an independent raider. He was only good in that role until late in 1864, which by then was far too late for the South.
Of the two corps commanders and 4 division commanders holding that rank during Chickamauga, only two stand out in the AOT - William T. Martin, who was a transfer from the ANV to run a brigade and then a division under Wheeler, and Frank Armstrong, who took over Forrest's Division. The quality of their day to day reports and their understanding of the cavalry role were head and shoulders above the rest. Below them comes Wharton. Forrest was very uneven, Wheeler and Pegram complete failures.