View single post by BloodyBob64
 Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 09:52 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Sun Jul 13th, 2008
Posts: 23

  back to top

I agree with much that has been said. I think Forrest obviously should have had commmand of all the cavalry forces and not Wheeler.(Therefore I don't think Wheeler should have had command of the entire West)But I don't think Forrest's strong suit would have been in administering to a large army. I really think in the end Joseph Johnston should have been given more of a chance in the war, especially in the West. Its interesting, because Lee fought the war with the idea that the Confederacy had to end it as soon as possible due to a dwindling amount of resources. Yet it seemed Johnston fought the war to preserve those precious resources and thus pro-long it as much as possible. Lee obviously had great success with his strategy but in the end he was unable to get that one battle that just wiped out the Army of the Potomac. Johnston meanwhile was never really given a chance to let his defensive ideas develop. He either got hurt or was removed by Davis. I think with guys like Forrest and Morgan, who were the masters of adminstering destruction to the enemy with little damage to themselves, Johnston could have been very successful in the West. Although he was given an opportunity with what he thought was a nominal command, I tend to agree with Johnston in that he should have been given a command in the field. If not Johnston, I probably would have went with Hardee as well. He was experienced in the West and would probably have been a better poltical pick than Taylor or Gordon. However I love the idea of Gordon playing a bigger role in that war.

 Close Window