Nah... First try Nathan Bedford Forrest: and His Critter Company (Southern Classics Series) by Andrew Nelson Lytle. Lytle was one of the so called southern Agrarians and Fugitive Poets.
And you need the collectible action figure which is available on ebay.
I think his role at Fort Pillow is misrepresented. The Union garrison at Fort Pillow consisted of about 600 men, divided almost evenly between black and white troops. He even served notice and gave the Union commanders the option to surrender: "I now demand unconditional surrender of your forces, at the same time assuring you that you will be treated as prisoners of war. ... I have received a new supply of ammunition and can take your works by assault, and if compelled to do so you must take the consequences." Bradford replied, concealing his identity as he did not wish the Confederates to realize that Booth had been killed, requesting an hour for consideration. Forrest, who believed that reinforcing troops would soon arrive by river, replied that he would only allow 20 minutes, and that "If at the expiration of that time the fort is not surrendered, I shall assault it." Bradford's final reply was, "I will not surrender." Forrest ordered his bugler to sound the charge, and they overwhelmed the Fort. All evidence indicates the Forrest had reason to believe the fort would be resupplied and butressed by reinforcements. Strategically, it was a sound move. Union losses where less than 300 men.
The fact that the Confederates had that many killed and wounded that you just accurately cited negates the criticism we hear so often about this battle. The Israelites in the Bible made use of black flag tactics. It's obvious the Confederates did not consistently carry out black flag tactics, because they had a sizable number of prisoners from Fort Pillow. I think this battle is misrepresented, and it was used for propaganda purposes during the time to justify and rationalize Union mistreatment of Confederate POW's.
If you want to get in an uproar about perceived racism on the southern side, then ask yourself why some of the black Union soldiers were NOT armed? You think that's just a coincidence.
Likewise, don't get dismayed when us southern boys remind our northern counterparts about the sins of the north that they didn't really learn about in school. To the victors go the spoils, and the privilege of setting the tone of the history books.
Well, then read the Critter Company book, and you did respectfully bring up and make mention of the Confederate POW camp at Andersonville, and I laid out the case against northern atrocities and crimes.
About "firstest with the mostest" It is not a very good book in my opinion.
The first two I would not hold against him, if properly understood and in context. The deathbed conversion story has been around for a while & is not credible in my opinion.
He was a great general, arguably one of only 3 or 4 world class generals America has ever produced. To allow Yankee propaganda to discredit him is missing the point of reading military biography.
As well, I found it laughable how some enlightened Yankees (notice I use the word "some") get so much amusement outta being agitprops and always challenging and disputing history and politics with southerners about the late war between the states. And they always get their rhetorical jabs and punches in, and make it point to hold some son of the south in ill repute. And yet, we so often hear, it's southerners who dwell on the war.
As well, I found it laughable how some enlightened Yankees get so much amusement outta being agitprops and always challenging and disputing history and politics with southerners about the late war between the states. And they always get their rhetorical jabs and punches in, and make it point to hold some son of the south in ill repute. And yet, we so often hear, it's southerners who dwell on the war.
Isn't "world-class" subjective anyway?
Bill, that you left Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson outta your little list shows me it's not "world-class" enough.
I think it's in bad taste that you guys jump up and gang up on somehow and start calling their historical knowledge "poor." Can't you disagree and rebut without being so prone to ad hominems and personal attacks?
I won't call your knowledge of history "poor" as you called Kevin's, but that you chose Eisenhower over Montgomery and Patton in your world-class WWII list of generals shows me you are grounding your selections more on the basis of who could win a popularity contest than actual operational command abilities. After getting Carlo D'Este's book on Eisenhower, I see him as a politician more than a General.
Rich, I do think in aggregate most Union Generals were too cautious, and never pressed advantages they had. To say they were "dupes" doesn't do all of them justice, but this thread was about Nathan Forrest, the General, not Union dupes. This thread has gone beyond its "culminating point."
Confederate General Braxton Bragg who was Jefferson Davis' favorite son in the eastern theater was certainly a Confederate dupe, and a poor tactician to boot. It's not a coincidence a U.S. military base is named after him either. He was arguably the Union's best General. No pun intended.
The southern Generals tended to be more daring and bold, but their boldness sometimes cost them heavily in terms of casualties, because they pressed their advantage too much as Jackson did at Chancellorsville. IHO Jackson went pass his culminating point as you said. But hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to understand his daring all the same. To say he isn't "an able operational commander" does not do him justice however. He most certainly was; his mistakes notwithstanding.
