# Nathan Bedford Forrest Biographies?



## RamistThomist (May 7, 2007)

What are some good biographies on Nathan Bedford Forrest? Preferably bios that are not written to appease the Southern Poverty Law Center. I am not looking for books, on the other hand, that sugarcoat him but I do want to read those who appreciate his military genius.


----------



## Ivan (May 7, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> What are some good biographies on Nathan Bedford Forrest? Preferably bios that are not written to appease the Southern Poverty Law Center. I am not looking for books, on the other hand, that sugarcoat him but I do want to read those who appreciate his military genius.



This might be a possibility:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Nathan-Bedford-Forrest-Jack-Hurst/dp/067974830X"]Amazon.com: Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography: Books: Jack Hurst[/ame]


----------



## RamistThomist (May 7, 2007)

looks interesting


----------



## Puritanhead (May 7, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> looks interesting



Nah... First try _[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Bedford-Forrest-Critter-Southern-Classics/dp/1879941090/?tag=websitemaven-20"]Nathan Bedford Forrest: and His Critter Company[/ame]_ (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.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 7, 2007)

Puritanhead said:


> 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.



LOL! That is great.


----------



## Kevin (May 8, 2007)

Lytle! None better in my opinion.

BTW I met the great man himself about 15 years ago at his home (log cabin, natch) while visiting a friend at Sewanee.


----------



## Kevin (May 8, 2007)

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.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 8, 2007)

*Fort Pillow*



trevorjohnson said:


> They almost gloss over his role at Fort Pillow...


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.

I personally agree with Stonewall Jackson, and believe the Confederates were too lenient throughout much of the war. No quarter and the black flag should have been the order of battle against an invading army. The Union army did a lot worse things to the south than surprise raids and the bombardment of forts. Ask the daughters of the south who were victimized.

"Never stand and take a charge...charge them too." 
-General Nathan Bedford Forrest, CSA 

"There is a class of people (in the South), men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order." 
-General William T. Sherman, Union Army


----------



## Kevin (May 8, 2007)




----------



## Puritanhead (May 8, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Killing prisoners is always sin of the most heinous kind. It is also misrepresentation to sugarcoat the evils of 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.

I wish more Civil historians felt this way with regards to the crimes perpetrated by Sherman's Army. They do a very good job at sugar-coating rape and pillage, as little mention is made in contemporary historical chronicles despite colloboration with historical annals and journals.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 8, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Again:
> 
> the race of the soldiers was a consideration in the casualties. Of the black members of the garrison, only 58 (around 20%) were marched away as prisoners; 168 (almost 60%) white soldiers were ...
> 
> ...


 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.  

I would be apt to call it a massacre if they did not discontinue fighting and take so many prisoners. Making a big deal about Fort Pillow is just political correctness of historians. It was small battle that didn't last that long at all. There are innumerable accounts of Union and Confederate soldiers continuing hostilities in other battles when unneccessary, and no one makes a big deal about it, because there is no race card to be played.

And at Andersonville, the Confederate prison guards were starved and famished as well, and their was hardly any food left for miles, because the Union plundered the south of her productive farm-land. A Union soldier James Madison Page who was imprisoned there wrote an account of his capture, and exonerated the Confederate prison commander Henry Wirz. Page points out how the Union consistently refused to do prisoner exchanges in spite of awareness of the miserable state of affairs in the south, and the lack of provisions. In sharp contrast, the Union had their own veritable hell-hole prisons like Elmira and Point Lookout. The difference between the Union and Confederate prisons is that the Union had an ample stock of food and medical supplies to offer their prisoners, and yet they withheld them consciously as a matter of policy, and on order from President Lincoln no less. Their neglect costs the lives of countless POW's, and unlike Andersonville, they could have avoided it. 

During Reconstruction, in the deep south states, the supposed _benevolent_ northern overseers sat idle, while up to one-third of the black population died in some states as they were starved and famished. But I don't hear too many complaints on your part about that, because in all reality you have never heard about it. And yet you seem to think altriusm overall guided the actions of Union political and military leaders. It's not like Union Generals issued orders banning Jews from being in their military district or engaging in commerce.

Forrest spoke affectionately of the colored men under his command and said there were few braver men.

Proverbs 18:17 states, "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him."


----------



## Puritanhead (May 8, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> We should report history as history. We should neither exaggerate as the northerners do, or forget the evils of men like Forrest like southerners do in their efforts to defend otehr southrons.......
> 
> I am not attacking the SOuth here. I am just asserting that some massacring took place. The north did it too. But, if you want facts about Forrect, don't get dismayed if you turn over a few skeletons in his closet...


 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.  

The war is over, and it came about because our nation's enlightened political leadership in the mid-19th century would rather let hostility, human passions, and sin flare than ameliorate the crisis through deliberative compromise and a more prudent spirit of reconciliation. There was a heavy blood toll in Mr. Lincoln's War.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 8, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Yes, that all may or may not be true.....
> 
> But the thread is about Forrest...and so I have restricted any evaluations on my part to him. And the account I read of him, First with the Most was a sugar coat job.


 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.


----------



## Kevin (May 8, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Yes, that all may or may not be true.....
> 
> But the thread is about Forrest...and so I have restrcited any evaluations on my part to him. And the account I read of him, First with the Most was a sugar coat job.



 About "firstest with the mostest" It is not a very good book in my opinion.

About fort Pillow you are off base, also in my opinion. Your previous post re race and casulties is missing the point. Is this (race) a causitive or a correlative factor? Your argument is more than a bit post facto urgo promtor hoc.

Many factors could have played into the causulty numbers other than homicidal racial hatred on the part of Gen Forrest. This is the stock criticism of Forrest that you seem to accept.

Other possibilities include; disparity in training between white and coloured Union troops, dispairity in combat expirience, differences in quality of leadership, variations in "esprit d' corps". Equipment issuied to the various units could have varied (it was fairly common to not equip coloured troops with firearms in all situations), the disposition of the troops within the fort vis the point of attack, The command structure/ order of battle could have exposed one group to greature risk of casualties, a mindset on the part of the Union leadership thet view the coloured troops as cannon fodder, distrust of coloured troopers by their white counterparts. 

Any one of these COULD be possibilities. I am not saying that they are the cause just that the modern "firstest with the worstest" interpretation of motives and actions by our southern fathers rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 8, 2007)

Kevin, I would have thought just the fact that so many of the 2nd U.S. Colored Light Artillery and the 6th U.S. Colored Heavy Artillery were unarmed explained their higher casualties? How do you defend yourself without a gun?

Last year, I did extensive blogging on Confederate History Month in April 2006.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 9, 2007)

Kevin said:


> 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.



1. I think your knowledge of American military history is relatively poor if you believe we've only produced 3 or 4 world class generals.

2. Most scholars of the Civil War would disagree that propaganda about the Civil War has been to paint Southern generals in a bad light. In fact, the very opposite is true. Being the losing side, Southerners tended to dwell more upon the conflict and a preponderance of the military histories written over the last century and a half have been written from a decidedly Southern bias. A visiting scholar on military history visited the Command and Staff college who taught in Pennsylvania. The professor noted that when the Southern students were asked about the Civil War they could name all their ancestors that fought while very few of the Northerners were able to recall such information.

The typical lesson you'll get is this: Southern generals were geniuses while Northern generals were a bunch of dopes who only understood attrition warfare and won on sheer firepower alone.

I've walked the ground and studied many of the Civil War battlefields from a tactical and operational perspective. While I like Stonewall Jackson's faith in the Lord and believe he was a good leader, I don't really think he was a very able operational commander. I don't believe he understood culminating point too well. Chancelorsville might have been even more successful if he didn't always push beyond his culminating point.

I've also walked the ground of Gettysburg a number of times at different ranks and with different perspectives. I agree with Pickett that the famous charge should have been named after the man who insisted upon it: Robert E. Lee. Of course such talk is heresy to some that never want to attribute blunder to the man. He was a gentlemen but if you've ever walked that 1 km out in the open, you have to question the decision that led to the massacre of so many men. There are more than a few places at Gettysburg where Meade out-generaled Lee on that field of battle. The biggest mistake Meade made was not pressing the counterattack when Lee saw fit to decimate his own force.


----------



## Herald (May 9, 2007)

> The biggest mistake Meade made was not pressing the counterattack when Lee saw fit to decimate his own force.



Rich - you're absolutely correct. Meade was pressed by Halleck to finish off the enemy:



> *Halleck to Meade, 7 July 1863*
> 
> You have given the enemy a stunning blow at Gettysburg, follow it up and give him another before he can cross the Potomac.



Two days prior Meade wrote to his wife:



> They awaited one day, expecting that, flushed with success, I would attack them when they would play their old game of shooting us from behind breastworks - a game we played this time to their entire satisfaction.



Had Meade possessed any inkling of the massive trains of wounded that would stretch from Fairfield to Gettysburg, he would have attacked and probably destroyed Lee's army. But history is a harsh judge of events. Meade was more than capable. 

Kevin, I have to concur with Rich. Your knowledge of American military history must be poor if you think that only three or four world-class generals have graced this nation. American military victories were not won by our overwhelming force or superior technology. Those things help, but they are useless in the hands of inept commanders. Here are some "world-class" generals to consider:

*Benedict Arnold, Revolutionary War*

Yes, a despicable traitor. But Benedict Arnold was a master tactician. His winter March into Canada and victories at Saratoga and Lake Champlain are legendary. 

*George Washingon, Revolutionary War*

NOT just our first President but the glue that held the revolution together. Military genius and consummate politician. Both skills were used to win United States independence.

*Robert E. Lee, Civil War*

Waged a war that most thought would be over in the first month. He attacked when wisdom demanded restraint and fought defensively when the situation called for an attack. All in all he prolonged a war that gave the South opportunities for both a military and political victory. No other general could have held together an army that was often ill equipped with weapons and food.

*Ulysses S. Grant*

Believed that the horror of war was the only way to end the same. Grant was not afraid to press his advantage and would not allow the enemy a chance to breath. His victory in New Orleans denied the Confederacy one its most important ports of entry. His ability to snatch survival out of sheer defeat at Shiloh was a master stroke.

*John J. Pershing, WWI*

Commander of the American Expeditionary Forces in Europe. His command decisions that allowed the AEF to break out of the Argone shortened the war. While overlooked by many historians, Pershing is revered by military commanders to this day.

*George Patton, World War II*

Along with British general Bernard Montgomery, he drove German general Rommel out of Africa. His sprint to Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge ended any remaining chance the Germans had of victory.

*Dwight D. Eisenhower, World War II*

Supreme Allied Commander. I think that qualifies for "world class."

*General Douglas MacArthur, World War II & Korean War*

"I will return" and he did. World-class all the way.

*Norman Schwarzkopf*

Commanded a multi-nation coalition of military forces in order to free Kuwait. His ability to handle this delicate situation made him world-class.

Okay, that is nine on my list...so far. I've left off quite a few, but I think I have proved that is more than three or four.


----------



## Kevin (May 9, 2007)

Come on Bill, Schwazkopf???  

Patton...possibly, although I would have liked to have seen what he could have done is the roles were reversed and and he had as little fuel as Rommel.

George Washington...certainly.

Grant??? Just being on the winning side is not enough in my opinion.

Lee, Natch.

MacArthur, probably.

Eisenhower, Not a chance. His possition was pure politics, and Monty was far better at, well at everything.

No, I stand by what I said before 3,or 4, (poss 5) Lee, Washington, Forrest, other then that I am not sure.

I know that many have been great men, manny have been able or successfull commanders, but truely great? on the level of Wellington, or Napoleon? No way. Such men are rare that is wht they stand out.


----------



## Herald (May 9, 2007)

Kevn - I see our definitions of "world-class" are different. So be it. I'll leave you to your 1860's revisionist world view.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 9, 2007)

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. 



BaptistInCrisis said:


> Kevin, I have to concur with Rich. Your knowledge of American military history must be poor if you think that only three or four world-class generals have graced this nation.



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.


----------



## Kevin (May 9, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Kevn - I see our definitions of "world-class" are different. So be it. I'll leave you to your 1860's revisionist world view.




My definition of world class is if you had to name, say 20 or 25 "greatest" generals in history who would you put on the list.

The idea that "Stormin Norman" would even make the top 500 of that competition is laughable.

(BTW I do have a BA in history from an American University)


----------



## Herald (May 9, 2007)

> Bill, that you left Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson outta your little list shows me it's not "world-class" enough.



I left him out on purpose. I wanted to provide a representative sampling of Generals other than Jackson since he was already being discussed. I cited one Confederate and one Union general. I honestly believe both of those were great generals. I could have included Longstreet and Sherman, but I thought two was enough.

I think it is laughable how some Confederate supporters (notice I use the word "some") go to the infth degree to defend a dead cause. The South has a rich heritage and it should be proud of it. But Rich was right, most in the north doesn't give these matters a passing thought. Is that because we dislike the south or habor ill will? Not at t'all. I love the South and I enjoy discussions about Civil War history. But enough already with trying to win a war of rhetoric. No army wins because it was bigger and badder. History teaches us that larger armies have often lost. The North did not win because it was larger or more industrialized. It won on the battlefield and (arguably) the nation was better for it. 

I've argued for a long time that the South never could have won, at least not militarily. There was no way a permanent Confederacy would have survived on our trans-continent. Hostilities may have ceased for a period of time, but eventually the conflict would have to be settled, either militarily or politically. It is a shame and a disgrace to both sides that so many men were killed. Those of us who study the war tend to see it as a romantic endeavor. Gentlemenly rules. Flags of truce. Letters from the battlefield from privates to their sweethearts. The truth is that it was a terrible, horrible war that destroyed the south, lead to the assassination of a sitting President, and robbed countless mothers of their sons. It's hard to ask what side God was on when you stand over the graves.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 9, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I think it is laughable how some Confederate supporters (notice I use the word "some") go to the infth degree to defend a dead cause.


 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.


----------



## Herald (May 9, 2007)

Puritanhead said:


> 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.



This is my point. You use the term "son of the south." You don't ever hear, "son of the north." Why? Because it's not an issue. When a side loses a war the fighting may cease but the cause seldom does. Anger, resentment, denial run their course. Mixed with lore you can build a culture around it. 

You're right when you reference "enlightened Yankees." I am ardent supporter of maintaining the Union, but I am not a Boston blue-blood. My reasons for being sympathetic to the Union has more to do with continuity of government and necessity of maintaining one nation on the trans-continent. I never saw slavery as a reason to fight the war. It resulted (intended or not) with the abolition of the practice for which I am thankful. Both sides have their extremists. Blue-blood Yankees and Rise of the South Rebels. I suppose the good part about both groups is that add spice to the discussion.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 9, 2007)

Who said the war was over anyway? We just had a cease-fire.


----------



## Herald (May 9, 2007)

Puritanhead said:


> Who said the war was over anyway? We just had a cease-fire.



Need I say more?


----------



## Puritanhead (May 9, 2007)

I'm going to the promised land.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 9, 2007)

Kevin said:


> No, I stand by what I said before 3,or 4, (poss 5) Lee, Washington, Forrest, other then that I am not sure.
> 
> I know that many have been great men, manny have been able or successfull commanders, but truely great? on the level of Wellington, or Napoleon? No way. Such men are rare that is wht they stand out.



And I stand by what I said before that you are ignorant of military history.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 9, 2007)

Puritanhead said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Ryan,

When a man makes an ignorant statement, I'm going to call him on it. I'm frankly unimpressed with credentials of a BA in history. Most men might be obliquely familiar with historical events and some particulars of battles but even a historian does not a *military historian* make. Most historians might understand a bit about tactics but tactics is the work of Colonels and below while Generals fight campaigns. Even those that are familiar with the operational level of war have a poor appreciation for the challenges of logistics and the sustainment of combat power. Even fewer understand strategy and policy.

I believe I've got the right, based on a Masters of Military Studies, with well over 10 months of daily detailed study from Strategy and Policy, Operational level of War, and numerous battle studies across the spectrum of military history to speak with at least a modicum of knowledge on the subject. I've also been in the thick of studying the military art for 21 years. I'm no scholar but am not purpoting myself to be. I'm at least well enough studied to know posers when I see them.

A man who dismisses politics as out of the realm of what Generals do does not understand generalship. A man that dismisses what Eisenhower did (for whom Montgomery had the deepest respect) does not understand generalship. There are a number of modern generals to include the current I MEF CG, LtGen Mattis, as well as the current Commandant, General Conway, who would favorably stack up to some of the best in military history.

If people don't want to be called ignorant then they ought not to speak with authority for things they know little about.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 9, 2007)

Incidentally, Ryan, I agree that the Union had a string of Commanders that were too cautious. At the same time, however, most people only look at single battles as I noted above and miss some key considerations that end up winning wars.

McClellan, for instance (who was a classmate of Jackson's at West Point and somwhat of a child prodigy) ended up being a bit too cautious but he did manage to do a great job of training the Army of the Potomac and that paid dividends later in life.

You won't see me arguing against the fact that the North had a material advantage and I don't completely disregard the strengths of some Southern generals.

My only point is that I've studied it enough to recognize the imbalance in the presentation of facts. Sherman, for instance, was studied by the Germans for his military prowess. He can only be thought of as a byword in the South and not appreciated for his military genius.

I have nothing against Forrest but people need to be honest about the facts of military history. Whether or not the South is unfairly reviled in American History circles is not a point in dispute. Military history has always been a bit of a different animal, however, and it is indisputable that military history has not been completely balanced with respect to the Civil War.

This is true of many wars and there tends to be less study of people who are distant from us or against us. American military success in WWII was quite amazing but we tend to deprecate the work of the Red Army as the true Center of Gravity on the ground in Europe or the fact that the Chinese pinned down so many Japanese in the Pacific. It's just the nature of the beast. But for those of us who have to go into harms way and we need to be brutally honest about what we can learn from campaigns and battles, all the dross of patriotism tends to get burned away when it really counts.


----------



## turmeric (May 9, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I think it is laughable how some Confederate supporters (notice I use the word "some") go to the infth degree to defend a dead cause... The truth is that it was a terrible, horrible war that destroyed the south, lead to the assassination of a sitting President, and robbed countless mothers of their sons. It's hard to ask what side God was on when you stand over the graves.



It's poetry time!



> We cannot revive old factions
> We cannot restore old policies
> Or follow an antique drum.
> These men, and those who opposed them
> ...


----------



## Kevin (May 10, 2007)

Ouch!

Come on Rich, that was a bit over the top wasn't it? when did I "pose" as an "expert"?

For the record; I am not a military historian, I am not a professional historian, I hold no advanced degrees in any subject, I have published no books on any subject, I have published no articles on any aspect of military history, I subscribe to no historical journals, I am not a member of any society or association of historians, I am not an officer in any military of any country in the world, and once more for the record I do not claim any special or advanced knowledge in this field. QED.

I defer in every way to your obviously superior academic credentials, your superior practical experience, and you are clearly much smarter then me, and no doubt you could beat me at any contest of physical strength. If you were here in the room I would offer you the appropriate salute. 

In my own defense (if allowed?) let me say only this. I have noticed a tendency on the part of one or two members to discount all contrary views as being only a matter of "personal opinion". I cited my little 'ol BA in history not as a credential of expertise, but only to show that I know how to read.
As my old prof Dr Needham (PhD) used to say "all a BA does is prove you know how to read and that you did. For at least four years."

So this only is my claim; I know how to read. And I do.

Beside my claim (to literacy) I offer only this, that I am a rather close aquantence with a suprisingly large number of individuals who hold advanced degree's in the field of history. Most of them hold the PhD. When we get together a popular parlor game that is played is who is the Greatest/Best General/Prime Minister/President/King over what ever period of time.

Interestingly enough (or not) when you have 3 or 4 "real" historians around these lists are very short. When people who make a living writing and teaching the subject put their minds to it they can ordinarily only come up with 5 or 6 American Generals to put on the list. Although I do recall one (ret) UTK prof who insisted that American Exceptionalism allowed him to put a much larger number on his list. He was however an exception.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 10, 2007)

Kevin said:


> Ouch!
> 
> Come on Rich, that was a bit over the top wasn't it? when did I "pose" as an "expert"?
> 
> ...



Fair enough. I disagree and have hung out with more than my fair share of military historians who would disagree - and not based merely on American exceptionalism.

I apologize for being so overbearing but placing Lee _and_ Forrest on the list of 3 or 4 great U.S. generals strikes me as partisan. It's not that I'm trying to speak up American generalship but neither am I going to be a proponent of overstating the South's generalship. Quite frankly, Meade outgeneraled Lee at Gettysburg and I wouldn't put Meade on the list.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 10, 2007)

Incidentally, here is one man's swipe at an American "Super Squad":
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=11719


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 28, 2007)

Puritanhead said:


> Draught Horse said:
> 
> 
> > looks interesting
> ...



I am currently reading Critter Company. It is masterfully done. The prose reaches stunning heights. There are moments when I am literally breathless. Such sheer manly heroism. Oh if I could only be a fraction of Forrest! Lytle does such a great job telling his exploits. Like the time when a mob wanted to hang a young boy. Forrest intervened and held off 3,000 men armed only with pistol and saber. Or the time when he was outnumbered 100-1 and all Union rifled fired on him. A bullet pierced all the way to his spine and Forrest still fought his way out. Truly, as the poet says, "He fought like a Titan and struck like a god!"

I must buy the action figure!


----------

