Replies

Forrest is high on the list, but not at the top. Jackson, I think, stands at the top because he was such a complete commander. He excelled at independent command and as part of Lee's team. He was ruthless, daring, driven, and focused on one thing, winning. One measure I tried to use was could the confederacy or the Union have won without that general. With Jackson, the sad fact is that any slight chance the south had for winning the Civil War died with Jackson. With Forrest I think that the answer is clear. As outstanding commander of cavalry that he was, Nathan Forrest did not impact the outcome of the war. He did not appreciably delay the fall of Vicksburg or Atlanta. He did not prevent Sherman's march. Had Forrest not existed at all I don't think that the Union victory would have come any sooner. Forrest consistently embarassed Union commanders sent against him. But in the end, the Union army found ways to work around him and he was an irritant rather than a factor. Was he in the top 10? Certainly. But top three? No, and certainly not number one.