Replies

For example, if Davis had unleashed Forrest on Sherman's supply lines in the spring and summer of 1864, Sherman would have been forced to call off his attack on Atlanta...

You badly over state Forrest's effectiveness. In the first place his force was never big enough to pose a threat. When Sherman went south towards Atlanta with 130,000 men he left a like number behind to guard his supply lines. And during the Atlanta campaign Forrest WAS running around Tennessee and Alabama. Never caused Sherman to miss a beat. And look at Hood's last campaign. While Sherman was on his way to the sea Hood was running around Tennessee with his entire army. When questioned about the dangers Sherman said, "If Hood wants to go to the Ohio I will give him the rations. My business is down south." Sorry, Forrest was a thorn in the side of the Union advance but was never a threat to derail it.

No, Durning the Atlanta Campaign Forrest was engaged in defending Mississippi from several waves of Northern invasions. Began with Sooy Smith in Febuary, then Sturgis (I believe-at Brices Cross Roads), then two invasions by A. Smith, the first which ended at Tupelo, the second when Forrest raided Memphis and nearly caught General Hurlbut (don't you envy his last name?), which drew the large invasion force out of Mississippi and back to Tennessee. Atlanta fell on September 2, 1864, after the Battle of Jonesboro. Forrest did not embark on his raid into North Alabama until September 16, and by then it was to late to save Atlanta. As far as the debacle in Tennessee with Hood: as wild as it seems when you consider the odds, Hood had a fine chance to destroy the Union forces at Spring Hill. Cleburne's Division alongside Brown made great headway into the Union lines, and had not the chain of command been fouled up (I blame Hood as he was in the end the comanding general), Cleburne and Brown's Division would have cut Schofield's army in two and commenced to destroy it, as Schofield could not have been accused of much good sense. He disobeyed orders from Thomas (a fine genreral-from Virginia!), and nearly saw his army disapear. But Hood bungled things even worse, with help of course, and would destroy his army, both materially and in morale, the next day at Franklin.

You also overestimate Sherman's prowess as a military man. He was not the grand soldier so often depicted. It took him a very long time (considering the odds were so heavily stacked in his favor) to pound south to Atlanta, taking heavy casualties at several very bloody engagements such as Picket's Mill, Reseca, Kenesaw Mountain, etc. Of course, like Grant to the north, he suceeded by simply moving his much larger force around the flanks of the Confederate army. In his previous actions in which he commanded smaller forces, he had a very poor record-my favorite of which was at Tunnel Hill during the Battle of Missionary Ridge. Patrick Cleburne trounced his massively superior forces, and Sherman, no doubt incised that the day had been carried by other Union troops so excellently, prepared a whopper of a report in which he presented several boldfaced lies to explain his defeat at the hands of one division and an Irishman. His record at Shiloh (had it not been for Breckinridges reenforcements-which Grant and Sherman incredibly spurned after the battle!-the Union army would have collapsed) and Chickasaw Bluff, where he threw his command agaisnt one of the best defensive positions in the South-and failed miserably- are telling. He simply was not the military genius he is made out as. His burning of Georgia certainly didn't endear him either:)