What do you think?
Rate this book
Born to Battle: Grant and Forrest--Shiloh, Vicksburg, and Chattanooga
Born to Battle examines the Civil War’s complex and decisive western theater through the exploits of its greatest figures, Ulysses S. Grant and Nathan Bedford Forrest. These two opposing giants squared off in some of the most epic campaigns of the war, starting at Shiloh and continuing through Perryville, Vicksburg, Chickamauga, and Chattanooga—battles in which the Union would slowly but surely divide the western Confederacy, setting the stage for the final showdowns of the bloody, protracted conflict. Grant is widely regarded as the man most responsible for winning the war for the Union, Forrest as the Confederacy’s most fearsome defender in the West. Both men had risen through their respective hierarchies thanks to their cunning and military brilliance, and despite their checkered pasts. Grant and Forrest were both “lower”-born officers who struggled to overcome particular, dubious reputations (Forrest’s as a semi-literate rustic and Grant’s as a doltish drunkard). In time, however each became renowned for his intelligence, resourcefulness, and grit. Indeed, as Hurst shows, their familiarity with hardship gave both men a back-against-the-wall mindset that would ultimately determine their success—both on the battlefield, and off it.
Beginning with the Union victory at Tennessee’s Fort Donelson in February 1862 (when Grant handed the Union the largest force ever captured on American soil, refurbishing his reputation and earning himself the nickname “Unconditional Surrender Grant”), Hurst follows both men through the campaigns of the next twenty months, showing how this critical period—and these two unequaled leaders—would change the course of the war. Again and again, Grant’s hardscrabble tactics saved Federal forces from the disastrous decisions of his fellow commanders, who seemed unable to think outside of the West Point playbook. Just as often, Forrest’s hot temper and wily, frontier know-how would surprise his Federal adversaries and allow him to claim astonishing victories on behalf of the Confederacy. But as Grant pressed south and east over the course of these twenty months, routing Confederate forces at such critical strongholds as Corinth, Vicksburg (“Gibraltar of the Mississippi”), and Chattanooga, the systemic differences between the North and South began to tell. The more inclusive, meritocratic Union allowed Grant to enter into the military’s halls of decision, whereas the proudly aristocratic Confederate high command barred Forrest from contributing his input. As Hurst vividly demonstrates, that disparity affected, and possibly dictated, the war’s outcome. Thoroughly disgusted with his disdainful superiors and their failure to save his home state of Tennessee from the clutches of the Union, Forrest eventually requested a transfer to a backwater theater of the war. Grant, by contrast, won command of the entire Union army following his troops’ stunning performance at Chattanooga, and would go on to lead the North to victory over the forces of another exceptional Southern general: Robert E. Lee.
An utterly American tale about class, merit, and their role in one of the most formative wars in the nation’s history, Born to Battle offers an impassioned account of two visionary Civil War leaders and the clashing cultures they fought—in some cases, quite ironically—to protect. Hurst shows how Grant and Forrest brought to the battlefield the fabled virtues of the American working-class: hard work, ingenuity, and intense determination. Each man’s background contributed to his triumphs on the battlefield, but the open-mindedness of his fellow commanders proved just as important. When the North embraced Grant, it won a stalwart defender. When the South rejected Forrest, by contrast, it sealed its fate.
Beginning with the Union victory at Tennessee’s Fort Donelson in February 1862 (when Grant handed the Union the largest force ever captured on American soil, refurbishing his reputation and earning himself the nickname “Unconditional Surrender Grant”), Hurst follows both men through the campaigns of the next twenty months, showing how this critical period—and these two unequaled leaders—would change the course of the war. Again and again, Grant’s hardscrabble tactics saved Federal forces from the disastrous decisions of his fellow commanders, who seemed unable to think outside of the West Point playbook. Just as often, Forrest’s hot temper and wily, frontier know-how would surprise his Federal adversaries and allow him to claim astonishing victories on behalf of the Confederacy. But as Grant pressed south and east over the course of these twenty months, routing Confederate forces at such critical strongholds as Corinth, Vicksburg (“Gibraltar of the Mississippi”), and Chattanooga, the systemic differences between the North and South began to tell. The more inclusive, meritocratic Union allowed Grant to enter into the military’s halls of decision, whereas the proudly aristocratic Confederate high command barred Forrest from contributing his input. As Hurst vividly demonstrates, that disparity affected, and possibly dictated, the war’s outcome. Thoroughly disgusted with his disdainful superiors and their failure to save his home state of Tennessee from the clutches of the Union, Forrest eventually requested a transfer to a backwater theater of the war. Grant, by contrast, won command of the entire Union army following his troops’ stunning performance at Chattanooga, and would go on to lead the North to victory over the forces of another exceptional Southern general: Robert E. Lee.
An utterly American tale about class, merit, and their role in one of the most formative wars in the nation’s history, Born to Battle offers an impassioned account of two visionary Civil War leaders and the clashing cultures they fought—in some cases, quite ironically—to protect. Hurst shows how Grant and Forrest brought to the battlefield the fabled virtues of the American working-class: hard work, ingenuity, and intense determination. Each man’s background contributed to his triumphs on the battlefield, but the open-mindedness of his fellow commanders proved just as important. When the North embraced Grant, it won a stalwart defender. When the South rejected Forrest, by contrast, it sealed its fate.
512 pages, Hardcover
First published May 29, 2012
9 people are currently reading
84 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
January 10, 2022
I usually don’t rate books this low, but I found Jack Hurst a tough author for me to follow. I chose this book because I’ll be traveling to Vicksburg Miss. next month and plan on touring the sight of the siege of that City in 1863. The premise of Born to Battle, chronicling the the path of Union commander U.S. Grant and Confederate commander Nathan Bedford Forrest on their twenty month campaign in the West in 1862 -1864 (a key element of which was my upcoming tour of Vicksburg and an earlier battle in Shiloh (which I had visited and toured in 2021).
The author, Jack Hurst, is heavy on facts, it reads like a school history book, and the volume is more than I needed. BUt I believe he’s a respectable source of research and knowledge. I’ll just continue to search for those authors who write more concisely, and who structure the historical stories in a more interesting way for a common layman reader such as myself.
The author, Jack Hurst, is heavy on facts, it reads like a school history book, and the volume is more than I needed. BUt I believe he’s a respectable source of research and knowledge. I’ll just continue to search for those authors who write more concisely, and who structure the historical stories in a more interesting way for a common layman reader such as myself.
February 16, 2023
I really enjoyed this book and felt like it delivered on it's premise: Grant and Forest were both exceptional commanders during their time, but southern elitism and snobbery held back Forest while Grant was able to rise through the ranks.
I had not read extensively about the war in the west, so the detail and explanation Hurst provided not just about the campaigns, but about how events like the Emancipation Proclamation impacted the day to day operations of the army were very informative.
My opinion on the framing was that the author tried to be fair about Grant, mentioning his drinking and the reports of the time, while also relating them in context.
On Forest, I can see how some people feel like he didn't criticize as rigorously as he did Grant. However, in my opinion, it's because he does not have to. It does not require a lot of comment to unpack the fact that Forest did not count the African Americans he killed in the war. His regular outbursts of temper, his violence toward members of his own staff, and his history as a slave trader prior to the war all speak for themselves.
In contrast, Grant's egalitarianism is often speckled by comments and orders, especially in relation to Jewish merchants. Forest was wrong on multiple levels in his personal beliefs, and thus does not need a ton of unpacking. Grant's virtues are more closley examined to avoid hero worship.
At the end of the day, the point of this book is to lay out the abilities of both generals (they excelled at different things), and how those abilities were evaluated and deployed by their respective militaries. The author achieved that.
I had not read extensively about the war in the west, so the detail and explanation Hurst provided not just about the campaigns, but about how events like the Emancipation Proclamation impacted the day to day operations of the army were very informative.
My opinion on the framing was that the author tried to be fair about Grant, mentioning his drinking and the reports of the time, while also relating them in context.
On Forest, I can see how some people feel like he didn't criticize as rigorously as he did Grant. However, in my opinion, it's because he does not have to. It does not require a lot of comment to unpack the fact that Forest did not count the African Americans he killed in the war. His regular outbursts of temper, his violence toward members of his own staff, and his history as a slave trader prior to the war all speak for themselves.
In contrast, Grant's egalitarianism is often speckled by comments and orders, especially in relation to Jewish merchants. Forest was wrong on multiple levels in his personal beliefs, and thus does not need a ton of unpacking. Grant's virtues are more closley examined to avoid hero worship.
At the end of the day, the point of this book is to lay out the abilities of both generals (they excelled at different things), and how those abilities were evaluated and deployed by their respective militaries. The author achieved that.
January 10, 2019
This book had one very good idea but it was held back but muddled storytelling and some questionable whitewashing.
The good idea was that the CSA army was held back by it's aristocratic leadership prizing class over capability while the USA army wasn't not impacted by that (as much), and uses the different career trajectories and successes of Grant and Forrest in the battles of the West to explain that.
However, there was too much emphasis on simply reporting who did what when (focusing on at least 20 generals from each side) and not enough explaining or contextualizing why the decisions, innovations, and tactics mattered. I still have no idea why Forrest is regarded as an innovating cavalry tactician. And i think it is possible to highlight the mistaken classism of the CSA without mythologizing and valorizing Forrest (and minimizing his slave-owning, racism, and KKK leadership!).
The good idea was that the CSA army was held back by it's aristocratic leadership prizing class over capability while the USA army wasn't not impacted by that (as much), and uses the different career trajectories and successes of Grant and Forrest in the battles of the West to explain that.
However, there was too much emphasis on simply reporting who did what when (focusing on at least 20 generals from each side) and not enough explaining or contextualizing why the decisions, innovations, and tactics mattered. I still have no idea why Forrest is regarded as an innovating cavalry tactician. And i think it is possible to highlight the mistaken classism of the CSA without mythologizing and valorizing Forrest (and minimizing his slave-owning, racism, and KKK leadership!).
March 24, 2013
This was supposed to be some sort of comparative analysis of two very important Civil War commanders (who happened to be among the war's greatest strategists). Author gives good overall analysis of what these generals did in three major camapains: Shiloh, Vicksburg and Chattanooga. The result is that Grant overcame great adversity and took top command of Union forces, resulting in the Federalist Army defeating the South. However, Forrest was unable to overcame the favortism in the Confederate gov't of the southern genteel society, and even Pres. Jefferson davis later admitted that the South was mistaken in not giving him a top commanding position.
August 5, 2018
i don't know if this book is quite the Jay-Z/Nas showdown it's title implies. more like Jay-Z/Jah Rule.
November 24, 2018
I enjoyed this book, but as I read, I became more and more concerned at some of the bias and by the time I was finished, I really had to wonder what the point of this book was. Hurst presents a dual biography of Grant and Forrest, largely discussing how they both existed (and struggled) within the military leadership framework of their army. It's well written and engaging and if I knew nothing else of the subject, I think I would have enjoyed it. However, this is not my first Civil War history. Grant's sections are presented in a fairly organized manner. However, Hunt is constantly criticizing Grant's drinking, his friendship with Sherman, and many of his actions/inaction with regard to the military command. Forrest's sections, on the other hand, are presented in a very muddled fashion and I found several of them hard to follow from a chronological standpoint. Largely the narrative seems to be Forrest went to X location, then he went to Y location, then he had some oh-so-Southern reply to some superior and told him. Over and over. Forrest is always made out to be a misunderstood hero, and rarely are his actions criticized (unlike every other Southern military commander who can't seem to do anything right). It feels like some comparison is being made between the two men, but it is never clear what exactly it is.
However, what really ruined this book was Hunt's constant implying that Grant is racist and an anti-Semite. There is some historical basis for this (although while there was the occasional 'in the context of the day' aside, that idea never seemed explored). Forrest, on the other hand, is presented as a misunderstood figure whose history as a slave dealer is presented in a positive light (he could command men! he could plan! he knew the territory!). Fort Pillow is dismissed in a few sentences (while Grant is attacked several times for believing instances of Southern forces killing African-American soldiers were isolated incidents). He is 'alleged' to have been involved with the KKK (really, just alleged? just involved?). It even claims he found Jesus at the end of his life and went farther than Abraham Lincoln to promote racial equality. It actually makes that claim.
While some of these issues could be debated, and I think arguments could be made for the vilification of Forrest by later historians, this is not that. Instead it seems to be fantasy and wishful thinking presented as two very uneven biographies.
However, what really ruined this book was Hunt's constant implying that Grant is racist and an anti-Semite. There is some historical basis for this (although while there was the occasional 'in the context of the day' aside, that idea never seemed explored). Forrest, on the other hand, is presented as a misunderstood figure whose history as a slave dealer is presented in a positive light (he could command men! he could plan! he knew the territory!). Fort Pillow is dismissed in a few sentences (while Grant is attacked several times for believing instances of Southern forces killing African-American soldiers were isolated incidents). He is 'alleged' to have been involved with the KKK (really, just alleged? just involved?). It even claims he found Jesus at the end of his life and went farther than Abraham Lincoln to promote racial equality. It actually makes that claim.
While some of these issues could be debated, and I think arguments could be made for the vilification of Forrest by later historians, this is not that. Instead it seems to be fantasy and wishful thinking presented as two very uneven biographies.
September 30, 2021
Author shows what the U S. civil war's cost the U.S. in terms of human lives, hardship, and maiming. It was hard to listen to the loss of lives, national stability, and well-being of all Americans due to false beliefs. He shows the humanness of all involved with strengths and weaknesses revealed. Author shows the bias and the maniacal fervor, hatred, conceit, and arrogance of Forrest. Grant is portrayed as a soldier who hadn't expected to advance as he did but gave his all to help save the country. A bit long in parts but I appreciated the details, backstory, and possible other interpretations surrounding mythologized stories, such as that of Emma Sansom.
August 10, 2022
The comparison between Grant and Forest is not well done. I am not quite sure what the author was trying to accomplish there anyway given the disparity in their positions. As well, there is definitely some hero worship of Forest in this book.
January 20, 2018
Good book but I did not see the comparison between Grant and Forrest was valid.
January 19, 2021
Listened to this on audio book.
April 11, 2022
Not interested in Nathan Bedford Forrest and comparisons to General Grant. There are better books on the Civil War and Nathan Bedford Forrest was not a pivotal general in that conflict.
February 7, 2023
I think I would learn more if I read separate books on the two. Maybe you will feel differently. Enjoy!
October 15, 2016
This book takes you through Grant and Forrest during their career intersection at Shiloh, Vicksburg, and Chattanooga.
For many today Nathan Bedford Forrest is a villain and events following Chattanooga might validate that, but until the point of Fort Pillow in 1864, Forrest was perhaps the best underutilized talent that South had. Being not of the plantation class he was dismissed as capable of leading troops and was undercut left and right by 'his betters.'
Grant also, as the son of a tanner, and with a reputation for drinking had the same experience. Yet the two managed to change some perspective by demonstration of abilities. Both felt that you had to do something. To change a sport term, it is better to offend than to defend and you get both by doing so. And offend Grant and Forrest did both superiors, but also opponents.
Lee and Virginia get a lot of Civil War press and certainly Grant became part of that campaign, but the west in the Civil War was the place where the South lost. Virginia was the result, and I'm not saying that because I live in the western theatre. Jack Hurst explains it well here.
Btw, in 1875, Forrest made a speech to an African American political rally for the Democratic Party. He came, he said, despite "the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong." He further said he would "do all in my power to elevate every man-to depress none. I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going." Sounds like he had a change of heart from his Klan associations.
Back to Shelby Foote soon for his fine prose.
For many today Nathan Bedford Forrest is a villain and events following Chattanooga might validate that, but until the point of Fort Pillow in 1864, Forrest was perhaps the best underutilized talent that South had. Being not of the plantation class he was dismissed as capable of leading troops and was undercut left and right by 'his betters.'
Grant also, as the son of a tanner, and with a reputation for drinking had the same experience. Yet the two managed to change some perspective by demonstration of abilities. Both felt that you had to do something. To change a sport term, it is better to offend than to defend and you get both by doing so. And offend Grant and Forrest did both superiors, but also opponents.
Lee and Virginia get a lot of Civil War press and certainly Grant became part of that campaign, but the west in the Civil War was the place where the South lost. Virginia was the result, and I'm not saying that because I live in the western theatre. Jack Hurst explains it well here.
Btw, in 1875, Forrest made a speech to an African American political rally for the Democratic Party. He came, he said, despite "the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong." He further said he would "do all in my power to elevate every man-to depress none. I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going." Sounds like he had a change of heart from his Klan associations.
Back to Shelby Foote soon for his fine prose.
February 8, 2017
I had so many issues with this book. The author seems determined to drag down every general on either side (Grant a drunk, Sherman timid, Bragg useless, etc) while glorifying Forrest. The author also apparently has special knowledge about the battles he describes, I have read many books on Grant, Sherman and the civil war in the west. None of them agree with the authors take on these battles. But back to NBF. This is an evil man. Suddenly, he is not responsible for the massacre of USCT at Fort Pillow (yet, he helped found the KKK). The author delights in pointing out what a brilliant General he is, only held back by the southern aristocracy. Little things like disobeying orders or not being where he was supposed to be are not even presented as possible reasons as to why he was not given more authority. At best, NBF was a thorn in the union's side, nothing more. Finally, what you read cannot be unread. The author, virtually on every page, interjects his opinion as to what was said behind closed doors while no record exists of the conversation. I truly wish I had not read this.
April 3, 2015
I was underwhelmed by this book. Although it provided a good history of the battles of Shiloh, Vicksburg, and Chattanooga, the narrative felt disjointed. Moreover the author's reverence for Forrest showed through the lines on the page and his conclusions of Forrest's choices often felt at odds with the facts and circumstances.
I learned a lot about Forrest through this book, having already been quite familiar with Grant's career. I would like to give the author the benefit of the doubt as I know he has done his time researching and reading Forrest's actions and writings, but I just couldn't get over this fan-boy admiration even though I could see what he was trying to say. I also felt that the author tried to gloss over some of Forrest's more negative qualities (having been the first leader of the KKK), while at the same time ascribing far more weight and time to Grant's alcoholism.
With that notable exception, this book was worth the read.
I learned a lot about Forrest through this book, having already been quite familiar with Grant's career. I would like to give the author the benefit of the doubt as I know he has done his time researching and reading Forrest's actions and writings, but I just couldn't get over this fan-boy admiration even though I could see what he was trying to say. I also felt that the author tried to gloss over some of Forrest's more negative qualities (having been the first leader of the KKK), while at the same time ascribing far more weight and time to Grant's alcoholism.
With that notable exception, this book was worth the read.
August 4, 2014
I listened to this book on audio and could not wait too get in my car to listen. I don't think the war would have been won by the South if they had used Forrest more effectively, but it definitely would have gone longer.
The similarities between the lives of Grant and Forrest was interesting. Pre war perceptions of both Grant and Forrest stymied their careers but Forrest never overcame his till too late in the war.
The similarities between the lives of Grant and Forrest was interesting. Pre war perceptions of both Grant and Forrest stymied their careers but Forrest never overcame his till too late in the war.
November 7, 2016
Highly detailed account of Grant and Forrest's personal, political and battle struggles in the Western Campaigns. Hurst's gives you an appreciation of how seemingly small events of an interrupted supply line, poor judgment on the part of leadership, personal slights etc. had huge impacts on the outcome of the war. If General Bragg and Jefferson Davis had only had only gotten beyond their own class prejudice towards Nathan Bedford Forrest, the war very well may have ended quite differently.
February 21, 2014
My view of Grant went up during the reading of the book. I remember Shelby Foote talking about Forrest during Ken Burns Civil War. Didn't really know why, certainly know more now.
December 5, 2023
There is a lot in this book that may distract the reader (or listener, in my case) from the main point: despite their many differences, these two men were fighters.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews