Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

High command

Expand Messages
  • philip@twinoaks.org
    Hello Civil War West Discussion Group, I just joined this group last week, went back and read all of the messages since January( just to get up to speed), and
    Message 1 of 10 , May 23, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Civil War West Discussion Group,
      I just joined this group last week, went back and read all of the
      messages since January( just to get up to speed), and now it
      appears that the group is either dying or at the very least
      slumbering. The most recent messages almost all involve fine
      points about artillary, and May has had only eight contributions to
      the discussion.
      Part of the reason I have been reading the archive of messages
      is to see whether you folks would hit on the subject that I am most
      interested in. You have hit all around it, but never really mentioned
      it. I think that it may be a critical piece to understanding the war in
      the west, and may be one of the more important reasons for the
      loss of the war. It is a speculative subject, or at least I am not
      aware of any studies verifying or denying this theory.
      There has been much discussion about the military genius of
      Nathan Bedford Forrest. There is much agreement about the
      talents of Pat Cleburn. Both of these men exhibited traits that
      demanded further investigation into whether they should have been
      promoted to command the AoT. Almost all discussions of
      Richmonds choices were largely limited to Johnston, Bragg, and
      finally Hood. I maintain that this was no mistake, and that it may
      have cost the war.
      Nathan Bedford Forrest's name cannot be mentioned without
      the words military genius following close behind, and yet he
      remained a cavalry officer commanding relatively few men and, to
      my knowlege, was never offered command of an army. If he was
      such a genius, then why not? His talents may have proved just as
      effective in a larger sphere. We will never know. As an aside, I
      cannot help adding to the comments defending Forrest in spite of
      his having been a slave trader. It has been pointed out that we
      should not judge him by 20th century standards, and I agree. In
      his favor, I believe that he was a man of honor. He fervently
      believed in the Code of the Southern Gentleman. His was quick to
      protect his honor and lived a chivalrous life toward women. He was
      also a rough and a profane man. He came from a humble
      background, and was not above grabbing a subordinate officer, who
      refused to pull his own weight, by the scruff of the neck and
      throwing him overboard. He must have been tremendously
      powerful. To reach down and haul a Yankee soldier onto his
      saddle as a shield must have taken enormous strength. But I
      maintain that he was judged by 19th century standards and found
      wanting. Slave traders were considered a low bunch of characters
      by the very people they sold to. Southern high society would not,
      could not, ever fully accept him into their midst.
      The aristocracy was a very select crowd. It is the definition of
      an aristocracy to be select. It was the aristocracy that pushed for
      war, and it was the aristocracy that prosecuted it. Their definition
      of the ultimate attainment of society was one in which this select
      group of people was allowed to pursue all of humankind's greatest
      callings (arts, sciences, politics, and military) because of the
      leisure time afforded to them by the labor of others. This select
      group maintained a monopoly on the state goverments of the
      South. It was these same legislatures that selected the
      conventions for secession. I do not maintain that they dragged the
      South into the war unsupported by the general populace at all, but
      they certainly knew that once secession came, and if the North
      invaded, then the other 75% of the population would immediately
      rise to protect their homes and their lands from the invaders,as all
      good Americans would. The aristocracy prosecuted the war for the
      South. I believe the evidence is there. Nathan Bedford Forrest and
      Pat Cleburn were not of the aristocracy, and I expect were
      repugnant to them. Pat Cleburn was an Irishman of humble
      beginnings, just one step above the Negro in those days. It was
      probably a stretch to promote those guys as far as they did, but
      after all, things were pretty desperate.
      Now let's look at the other side. Abraham Lincoln was a hick
      from Illinois. He was an embarrassment to high society in
      Washington, but they learned to tolerate him. He certainly had no
      hesitation about promoting whoever aided his ability to prosecute
      the war. We are all familiar with the long sad list of generals that
      he went through before he found the one. Lincoln's relentless
      search was strictly a talent search, and instead of restricting the
      pool from which he was allowed to choose from(as the South did),
      he was ever widening it. Many of the same people who spend time
      touting N.B. Forrest and Pat Cleburn also spend a fair amount of
      time degrading Grant and Sherman. But look where they came
      from. Grant was pretty much a failure at everything that he did
      other than wage war. He had quit his army career with a drinking
      problem, and didn't accomplish much more than that until the war.
      Sherman was a volatile character who turned down a commission
      in the early stages of the war because of his disgust with the
      politicians who brought about that awful mess, and later had a
      'nervous breakdown' that many thought signaled the end of his
      career. In spite of these beginnings, both of these men were
      catapaulted to the commands of large armies that eventually wore
      down their opponents and won the war. Incidentally, I don't agree
      that Grant was a poor general. One of you pointed out very clearly
      the striking characteristics of the map of the campaign that
      eventually holed Lee up in Richmond and Petersburg. That dance
      of those two armies as they moved, sidestepping as they went, is
      the most eloquent testimony to Grant's generalship. He was pitted
      against a brilliant and wily opponent who would have taken
      advantage of any serious misstep that he made. He only made
      one: the Wilderness. He almost lost it there. I don't agree that
      Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor were two battles where Lee beat
      Grant, as someone has suggested. He was experimenting with
      trying to break through entrenchments. There were numerous
      generals in the first World War who spent four years trying to do
      the same thing and lost a lot more men than Grant. Grant almost
      cooked Lee's goose at Spotsylvania when Lee pulled his artillary
      too soon. Grant is also the only man who ever stole the march on
      Lee. Imagine his exultation to have left Lee wondering where his
      army had gone when he crossed the James on the way to
      Petersburg. Imagine his fury when he failed to take the city in
      time. The turning point of the war was when Grant turned toward
      Richmond after the Wilderness in stead of retreating as so many
      other generals had done.
      So I maintain that one of the most important reasons why the
      South lost the war was that an aristocracy will always fail against a
      democracy, given enough time. At the beginning of the war, the
      South had the greatest talent. The aristocracy naturally trained
      their sons in the arts of riding and shooting. They sent their sons
      for military training. They were by nature more militant than the
      North. But as time went on, that select group would get narrower
      and narrower as death took its toll. In the North, with a larger
      population to begin with, and with a policy of promoting talent
      regardless of their backgrounds, it was merely a matter of time.
      Philip Callen
    • philip@twinoaks.org
      Hello Civil War West Discussion Group, I just joined this group last week, went back and read all of the messages since January( just to get up to speed), and
      Message 2 of 10 , May 23, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Civil War West Discussion Group,
        I just joined this group last week, went back and read all of the
        messages since January( just to get up to speed), and now it
        appears that the group is either dying or at the very least
        slumbering. The most recent messages almost all involve fine
        points about artillary, and May has had only eight contributions to
        the discussion.
        Part of the reason I have been reading the archive of messages
        is to see whether you folks would hit on the subject that I am most
        interested in. You have hit all around it, but never really mentioned
        it. I think that it may be a critical piece to understanding the war in
        the west, and may be one of the more important reasons for the
        loss of the war. It is a speculative subject, or at least I am not
        aware of any studies verifying or denying this theory.
        There has been much discussion about the military genius of
        Nathan Bedford Forrest. There is much agreement about the
        talents of Pat Cleburn. Both of these men exhibited traits that
        demanded further investigation into whether they should have been
        promoted to command the AoT. Almost all discussions of
        Richmonds choices were largely limited to Johnston, Bragg, and
        finally Hood. I maintain that this was no mistake, and that it may
        have cost the war.
        Nathan Bedford Forrest's name cannot be mentioned without
        the words military genius following close behind, and yet he
        remained a cavalry officer commanding relatively few men and, to
        my knowlege, was never offered command of an army. If he was
        such a genius, then why not? His talents may have proved just as
        effective in a larger sphere. We will never know. As an aside, I
        cannot help adding to the comments defending Forrest in spite of
        his having been a slave trader. It has been pointed out that we
        should not judge him by 20th century standards, and I agree. In
        his favor, I believe that he was a man of honor. He fervently
        believed in the Code of the Southern Gentleman. His was quick to
        protect his honor and lived a chivalrous life toward women. He was
        also a rough and a profane man. He came from a humble
        background, and was not above grabbing a subordinate officer, who
        refused to pull his own weight, by the scruff of the neck and
        throwing him overboard. He must have been tremendously
        powerful. To reach down and haul a Yankee soldier onto his
        saddle as a shield must have taken enormous strength. But I
        maintain that he was judged by 19th century standards and found
        wanting. Slave traders were considered a low bunch of characters
        by the very people they sold to. Southern high society would not,
        could not, ever fully accept him into their midst.
        The aristocracy was a very select crowd. It is the definition of
        an aristocracy to be select. It was the aristocracy that pushed for
        war, and it was the aristocracy that prosecuted it. Their definition
        of the ultimate attainment of society was one in which this select
        group of people was allowed to pursue all of humankind's greatest
        callings (arts, sciences, politics, and military) because of the
        leisure time afforded to them by the labor of others. This select
        group maintained a monopoly on the state goverments of the
        South. It was these same legislatures that selected the
        conventions for secession. I do not maintain that they dragged the
        South into the war unsupported by the general populace at all, but
        they certainly knew that once secession came, and if the North
        invaded, then the other 75% of the population would immediately
        rise to protect their homes and their lands from the invaders,as all
        good Americans would. The aristocracy prosecuted the war for the
        South. I believe the evidence is there. Nathan Bedford Forrest and
        Pat Cleburn were not of the aristocracy, and I expect were
        repugnant to them. Pat Cleburn was an Irishman of humble
        beginnings, just one step above the Negro in those days. It was
        probably a stretch to promote those guys as far as they did, but
        after all, things were pretty desperate.
        Now let's look at the other side. Abraham Lincoln was a hick
        from Illinois. He was an embarrassment to high society in
        Washington, but they learned to tolerate him. He certainly had no
        hesitation about promoting whoever aided his ability to prosecute
        the war. We are all familiar with the long sad list of generals that
        he went through before he found the one. Lincoln's relentless
        search was strictly a talent search, and instead of restricting the
        pool from which he was allowed to choose from(as the South did),
        he was ever widening it. Many of the same people who spend time
        touting N.B. Forrest and Pat Cleburn also spend a fair amount of
        time degrading Grant and Sherman. But look where they came
        from. Grant was pretty much a failure at everything that he did
        other than wage war. He had quit his army career with a drinking
        problem, and didn't accomplish much more than that until the war.
        Sherman was a volatile character who turned down a commission
        in the early stages of the war because of his disgust with the
        politicians who brought about that awful mess, and later had a
        'nervous breakdown' that many thought signaled the end of his
        career. In spite of these beginnings, both of these men were
        catapaulted to the commands of large armies that eventually wore
        down their opponents and won the war. Incidentally, I don't agree
        that Grant was a poor general. One of you pointed out very clearly
        the striking characteristics of the map of the campaign that
        eventually holed Lee up in Richmond and Petersburg. That dance
        of those two armies as they moved, sidestepping as they went, is
        the most eloquent testimony to Grant's generalship. He was pitted
        against a brilliant and wily opponent who would have taken
        advantage of any serious misstep that he made. He only made
        one: the Wilderness. He almost lost it there. I don't agree that
        Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor were two battles where Lee beat
        Grant, as someone has suggested. He was experimenting with
        trying to break through entrenchments. There were numerous
        generals in the first World War who spent four years trying to do
        the same thing and lost a lot more men than Grant. Grant almost
        cooked Lee's goose at Spotsylvania when Lee pulled his artillary
        too soon. Grant is also the only man who ever stole the march on
        Lee. Imagine his exultation to have left Lee wondering where his
        army had gone when he crossed the James on the way to
        Petersburg. Imagine his fury when he failed to take the city in
        time. The turning point of the war was when Grant turned toward
        Richmond after the Wilderness in stead of retreating as so many
        other generals had done.
        So I maintain that one of the most important reasons why the
        South lost the war was that an aristocracy will always fail against a
        democracy, given enough time. At the beginning of the war, the
        South had the greatest talent. The aristocracy naturally trained
        their sons in the arts of riding and shooting. They sent their sons
        for military training. They were by nature more militant than the
        North. But as time went on, that select group would get narrower
        and narrower as death took its toll. In the North, with a larger
        population to begin with, and with a policy of promoting talent
        regardless of their backgrounds, it was merely a matter of time.
        Philip Callen
      • Bill Brown
        ... Clearly, Forrest was a excellent cavalry commander on the division/brigade level and operating as an independent commander, but I have serious doubts at
        Message 3 of 10 , May 24, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          >Nathan Bedford Forrest's name cannot be mentioned without
          >the words military genius following close behind, and yet he
          >remained a cavalry officer commanding relatively few men and, to
          >my knowlege, was never offered command of an army. If he was
          >such a genius, then why not? His talents may have proved just as
          >effective in a larger sphere.

          Clearly, Forrest was a excellent cavalry commander on the division/brigade
          level and operating as an independent commander, but I have serious doubts
          at his ability as leading anything higher than a division. He was brave in
          combat, but a divisional commander can not get into "personal" fights and
          still overall handle more than two brigades in action aganist the enemy.
          Look at times when he operated within the scope of an army, his abilities
          do not stack up aganist a commander such as Wade Hampton or David Gregg.
          At Chattanooga, he could have materially assisted the Confederate defense,
          but he allowed himself to get in a personal confrontation with Gen. Bragg.
          At Franklin and Nashville, his cavalry did not assist General Hood's
          attempted advance nor stop Gen. Wilson's cavalry.

          >Nathan Bedford Forrest and
          >Pat Cleburn were not of the aristocracy, and I expect were
          >repugnant to them. Pat Cleburn was an Irishman of humble
          >beginnings, just one step above the Negro in those days. It was
          >probably a stretch to promote those guys as far as they did, but
          >after all, things were pretty desperate.

          Steven Woodworth has made a good point that Cleburne was part of that
          Anti-Bragg cabel, and a student of Lt. Gen. William J. Hardee. This fact
          alone probably were strikes aganist promoting Cleburne to corps commander.
          Major General W. J. Walker probably used the weapon of rumor to keep
          Cleburne from corps level to benefit Gen. Walker.

          Thanks,
          Bill


          "When it comes to War, I do not like to take sides!"
          Sgt. Schutz [Hogan's Heroes]

          *******************************
          William H. (Bill) Brown, C.A.
          Governors' Records Archivist
          North Carolina State Archives
          4614 Mail Service Center
          Raleigh, NC 27601-4614
          919-733-3952 (T), 919-733-1354 (F)
          wbrown@...
          *******************************

          "Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my
          agency."
        • Bill Brown
          ... Clearly, Forrest was a excellent cavalry commander on the division/brigade level and operating as an independent commander, but I have serious doubts at
          Message 4 of 10 , May 24, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            >Nathan Bedford Forrest's name cannot be mentioned without
            >the words military genius following close behind, and yet he
            >remained a cavalry officer commanding relatively few men and, to
            >my knowlege, was never offered command of an army. If he was
            >such a genius, then why not? His talents may have proved just as
            >effective in a larger sphere.

            Clearly, Forrest was a excellent cavalry commander on the division/brigade
            level and operating as an independent commander, but I have serious doubts
            at his ability as leading anything higher than a division. He was brave in
            combat, but a divisional commander can not get into "personal" fights and
            still overall handle more than two brigades in action aganist the enemy.
            Look at times when he operated within the scope of an army, his abilities
            do not stack up aganist a commander such as Wade Hampton or David Gregg.
            At Chattanooga, he could have materially assisted the Confederate defense,
            but he allowed himself to get in a personal confrontation with Gen. Bragg.
            At Franklin and Nashville, his cavalry did not assist General Hood's
            attempted advance nor stop Gen. Wilson's cavalry.

            >Nathan Bedford Forrest and
            >Pat Cleburn were not of the aristocracy, and I expect were
            >repugnant to them. Pat Cleburn was an Irishman of humble
            >beginnings, just one step above the Negro in those days. It was
            >probably a stretch to promote those guys as far as they did, but
            >after all, things were pretty desperate.

            Steven Woodworth has made a good point that Cleburne was part of that
            Anti-Bragg cabel, and a student of Lt. Gen. William J. Hardee. This fact
            alone probably were strikes aganist promoting Cleburne to corps commander.
            Major General W. J. Walker probably used the weapon of rumor to keep
            Cleburne from corps level to benefit Gen. Walker.

            Thanks,
            Bill


            "When it comes to War, I do not like to take sides!"
            Sgt. Schutz [Hogan's Heroes]

            *******************************
            William H. (Bill) Brown, C.A.
            Governors' Records Archivist
            North Carolina State Archives
            4614 Mail Service Center
            Raleigh, NC 27601-4614
            919-733-3952 (T), 919-733-1354 (F)
            wbrown@...
            *******************************

            "Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my
            agency."
          • charles tinder
            ... He came from a humble background, and was not above grabbing a subordinate officer, who refused to pull his own weight, by the scruff of the neck and
            Message 5 of 10 , Jun 3, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In civilwarwest@egroups.com, philip@t... wrote:
              He came from a humble
              background, and was not above grabbing a subordinate officer,
              who
              refused to pull his own weight, by the scruff of the neck and
              throwing him overboard. He must have been tremendously
              powerful. To reach down and haul a Yankee soldier onto his
              saddle as a shield must have taken enormous strength.
              Philip Callen

              Can you give me a reference or references to the incident of
              Forrest using a yankee soldier as a shield?
              Was told this by a memember of a cw club online but no sources
              have been produced so far. Was told it happened at Shiloh when
              Forrest was in same area as U.S.Grant. We recently had a discussion
              on Forrest at Fort Pillow.
              I have 3 books on Forrest and also Mortons book on the Artillery of
              NBForrest's Cavalry, but no mention is made of this incident.
              Chuck in Illinois
            • charles tinder
              ... He came from a humble background, and was not above grabbing a subordinate officer, who refused to pull his own weight, by the scruff of the neck and
              Message 6 of 10 , Jun 3, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In civilwarwest@egroups.com, philip@t... wrote:
                He came from a humble
                background, and was not above grabbing a subordinate officer,
                who
                refused to pull his own weight, by the scruff of the neck and
                throwing him overboard. He must have been tremendously
                powerful. To reach down and haul a Yankee soldier onto his
                saddle as a shield must have taken enormous strength.
                Philip Callen

                Can you give me a reference or references to the incident of
                Forrest using a yankee soldier as a shield?
                Was told this by a memember of a cw club online but no sources
                have been produced so far. Was told it happened at Shiloh when
                Forrest was in same area as U.S.Grant. We recently had a discussion
                on Forrest at Fort Pillow.
                I have 3 books on Forrest and also Mortons book on the Artillery of
                NBForrest's Cavalry, but no mention is made of this incident.
                Chuck in Illinois
              • philip@twinoaks.org
                To: civilwarwest@egroups.com From: charles tinder Date sent: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 15:35:57 -0000 Send reply
                Message 7 of 10 , Jun 5, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                  From: "charles tinder" <carpmaster@...>
                  Date sent: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 15:35:57 -0000
                  Send reply to: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                  Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: High command

                  > --- In civilwarwest@egroups.com, philip@t... wrote:
                  > He came from a humble
                  > background, and was not above grabbing a subordinate officer, who
                  >
                  > refused to pull his own weight, by the scruff of the neck and
                  > throwing him overboard. He must have been tremendously powerful.
                  > To reach down and haul a Yankee soldier onto his saddle as a
                  > shield must have taken enormous strength.
                  > Philip Callen
                  >
                  > Can you give me a reference or references to the incident of
                  > Forrest using a yankee soldier as a shield?
                  > Was told this by a memember of a cw club online but no sources have
                  > been produced so far. Was told it happened at Shiloh when Forrest was
                  > in same area as U.S.Grant. We recently had a discussion on Forrest at
                  > Fort Pillow.
                  > I have 3 books on Forrest and also Mortons book on the Artillery of
                  > NBForrest's Cavalry, but no mention is made of this incident.
                  > Chuck in Illinois

                  Hi Chuck,
                  Someone else has already responded to this, but I thought I would,
                  too. I found two references to the incident: one in Shelby Foote's
                  trilogy, and one in Jack Hurst's biography of Forrest. The incident
                  is supposed to have taken place after Shiloh when Forrest was in
                  charge of the rear-guard action. Hurst seems to have reason to
                  believe that the story was first told by Forrest's son to a biographer.
                  So maybe the story is apocryphal just keeps being repeated
                  because it sounds so great (that's redundant isn't it?). I have no
                  knowlege of primary sources that would verify it.
                  Philip
                • philip@twinoaks.org
                  To: civilwarwest@egroups.com From: charles tinder Date sent: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 15:35:57 -0000 Send reply
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jun 5, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                    From: "charles tinder" <carpmaster@...>
                    Date sent: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 15:35:57 -0000
                    Send reply to: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                    Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: High command

                    > --- In civilwarwest@egroups.com, philip@t... wrote:
                    > He came from a humble
                    > background, and was not above grabbing a subordinate officer, who
                    >
                    > refused to pull his own weight, by the scruff of the neck and
                    > throwing him overboard. He must have been tremendously powerful.
                    > To reach down and haul a Yankee soldier onto his saddle as a
                    > shield must have taken enormous strength.
                    > Philip Callen
                    >
                    > Can you give me a reference or references to the incident of
                    > Forrest using a yankee soldier as a shield?
                    > Was told this by a memember of a cw club online but no sources have
                    > been produced so far. Was told it happened at Shiloh when Forrest was
                    > in same area as U.S.Grant. We recently had a discussion on Forrest at
                    > Fort Pillow.
                    > I have 3 books on Forrest and also Mortons book on the Artillery of
                    > NBForrest's Cavalry, but no mention is made of this incident.
                    > Chuck in Illinois

                    Hi Chuck,
                    Someone else has already responded to this, but I thought I would,
                    too. I found two references to the incident: one in Shelby Foote's
                    trilogy, and one in Jack Hurst's biography of Forrest. The incident
                    is supposed to have taken place after Shiloh when Forrest was in
                    charge of the rear-guard action. Hurst seems to have reason to
                    believe that the story was first told by Forrest's son to a biographer.
                    So maybe the story is apocryphal just keeps being repeated
                    because it sounds so great (that's redundant isn't it?). I have no
                    knowlege of primary sources that would verify it.
                    Philip
                  • mobile_96
                    ... incident ... biographer. ... Thats not the first story to be made real from everyone quoting a bad source. But not going to put it in that pile for a while
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jun 5, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In civilwarwest@egroups.com, philip@t... wrote:

                      >
                      > Hi Chuck,
                      > Someone else has already responded to this, but I thought I would,
                      > too. I found two references to the incident: one in Shelby Foote's
                      > trilogy, and one in Jack Hurst's biography of Forrest. The
                      incident
                      > is supposed to have taken place after Shiloh when Forrest was in
                      > charge of the rear-guard action. Hurst seems to have reason to
                      > believe that the story was first told by Forrest's son to a
                      biographer.
                      > So maybe the story is apocryphal just keeps being repeated
                      > because it sounds so great (that's redundant isn't it?). I have no
                      > knowlege of primary sources that would verify it.
                      > Philip

                      Thats not the first story to be made real from everyone quoting a bad
                      source. But not going to put it in that pile for a while yet. Member
                      of a cw club online was told this by a tour guide at Shiloh. I didn't
                      find anything in my OR-CD or in the Navy OR-CD, but think I'll go
                      back and try again. Wish I knew someone that has the new 2nd set of
                      the OR that has finally been published (100 Vol.)so they could take a
                      look for me. Even a mention in a diary or a letter, by someone at
                      Fallen Timbers might shed some light.
                      Anyway thanks for the info.
                      Chuck in Illinois
                    • mobile_96
                      ... incident ... biographer. ... Thats not the first story to be made real from everyone quoting a bad source. But not going to put it in that pile for a while
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jun 5, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In civilwarwest@egroups.com, philip@t... wrote:

                        >
                        > Hi Chuck,
                        > Someone else has already responded to this, but I thought I would,
                        > too. I found two references to the incident: one in Shelby Foote's
                        > trilogy, and one in Jack Hurst's biography of Forrest. The
                        incident
                        > is supposed to have taken place after Shiloh when Forrest was in
                        > charge of the rear-guard action. Hurst seems to have reason to
                        > believe that the story was first told by Forrest's son to a
                        biographer.
                        > So maybe the story is apocryphal just keeps being repeated
                        > because it sounds so great (that's redundant isn't it?). I have no
                        > knowlege of primary sources that would verify it.
                        > Philip

                        Thats not the first story to be made real from everyone quoting a bad
                        source. But not going to put it in that pile for a while yet. Member
                        of a cw club online was told this by a tour guide at Shiloh. I didn't
                        find anything in my OR-CD or in the Navy OR-CD, but think I'll go
                        back and try again. Wish I knew someone that has the new 2nd set of
                        the OR that has finally been published (100 Vol.)so they could take a
                        look for me. Even a mention in a diary or a letter, by someone at
                        Fallen Timbers might shed some light.
                        Anyway thanks for the info.
                        Chuck in Illinois
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.