Angelica Schuyler Church, the charming Revolutionary era socialite, had her fair share of admirers, but none may be more intriguing than walking, talking, and writing contradiction in a greatcoat, Thomas Jefferson. While the third President of the United States had a reputation for solemnity after the early death of his wife, Angelica, a married woman herself, became the subject of Jefferson’s letters and attention. Did the flirtatious exchanges between the two hint at something more, or was it simply the 18th-century equivalent of breadcrumbing?   Angelica’s Many Loves Miniature believed to be of Angelica Schuyler Church, by Samuel Shelley, 18th century. Source: Picryl   As depicted in the Broadway smash Hamilton, Angelica Schuyler was no stranger to male attention. Known for her cutting wit, beauty, and intellect, she corresponded with many of the Founding Fathers, from George Washington to the world’s “favorite fighting Frenchman” Marquis de Lafayette. However, her most famous admirer might be Alexander Hamilton—her brother-in-law—though historians heatedly debate whether this relationship was playful but platonic or something significantly more. Her letters, to both Hamilton and Jefferson, reveal a woman who could charm with ease.   Angelica was romantically inclined, so much so that her marriage started off with a bang that shocked her wealthy and well-connected family. Angelica eloped with John Barker Church, a British businessman and man on the run. He’d fled England after a duel (he literally shot a man and ran—he would also go on to make duels a throughline in Angelica’s life). Despite his scandals, Angelica became famous for something far more gossipworthy: flirting. In this, as in many other areas, Angelica had a desire for the finer things. She only bestowed her interest on the most powerful men of the time.   Letter from Angelica to Jefferson, July 21, 1788. Source: Get Archive   Mrs. Schuyler Church’s platform was Europe’s elite salons and America’s glittering New York ballrooms. As biographer Ron Chernow once pointed out, Angelica’s connection with Hamilton was so intense that some of their contemporaries assumed they were lovers. Yet, Hamilton was not the only statesman caught in Angelica’s web of charm. She also exchanged playful correspondence with Thomas Jefferson, who at one point all but begged her to join him on a leisurely trip to America. Six months after they met, Jefferson proposed (in true Jefferson fashion) that they negotiate her visit as if he were trying to clinch an international trade deal. Angelica didn’t take him up on his offer.   In a time when women were expected to remain behind the scenes, Angelica Schuyler Church refused to stand quietly by the men in her life. Whether she truly had affairs or just knew how to write a saucy love letter, one thing’s for sure—Angelica’s pen was a force to be reckoned with.   Both Knew Alexander Hamilton Alexander Hamilton, by Charles Shirreff, c. 1790. Source: Picryl   It is impossible to talk about Angelica and Jefferson without acknowledging the elephant in the room—overachiever Alexander Hamilton. Not only was he married to Angelica’s beloved sister, Eliza, but he was also one of Jefferson’s most bitter political enemies.   Angelica Schuyler and Thomas Jefferson both had front-row seats to the Alexander Hamilton Show—and let’s just say, the reviews were vastly different. On the one hand, Angelica was, like many women of the time, captivated by the handsome, well-spoken man. Hamilton was the 18th-century version of a modern-day heartthrob. His aura was less powdered wig and more “troubled genius with a great jawline.” Even his contemporaries described him as “the youngest, best-looking, most controversial, and arguably the most brilliant of the major founders.”   Whether or not Angelica and Hamilton were ever more than dedicated friends has been the subject of many loud scholarly debates. Some argue that their relationship was purely platonic, driven by mutual respect and affection. If you write to someone saying you, “seldom write to a lady without fancying the relation of lover and mistress,” as Hamilton did in a missive to Angelica, you’re either angling for a scandal or you’ve got the flirt game on lockdown. Meanwhile, Angelica’s response to Hamilton’s charm was equally flirtatious. In a letter to Hamilton’s wife (yes, that Eliza), she joked that if her sister was as generous as the old Romans, she’d lend her husband out for a bit. How Eliza felt about this muddle of a relationship has never been proven by documentation or a primary source.   Eliza Hamilton, c. 1795. Source: Picryl   On the other side of this Hamilton-loving coin, there’s Thomas Jefferson. The two men’s dynamic was more clenched teeth and thinly veiled rage. They started out on vaguely cordial terms when they were both appointed to Washington’s cabinet—Hamilton as the Treasury Secretary and Jefferson as Secretary of State—but things quickly turned sour. While Hamilton was all about building a strong, centralized government, Jefferson had a very different vision of America. He envisioned an agrarian utopia where noble farmers toiled in the sun, free from the clutches of big government, corporate greed, or monarchists.   Quickly Jefferson became Hamilton’s arch-nemesis. He organized an entire political party—the Republican Party—to make Hamilton’s every move a bureaucratic nightmare. Jefferson suspected that Hamilton harbored secret plans to reinstate the monarchy and make himself king, something he didn’t mind sharing with their fellow movers and shakers. While Hamilton was busy winning over the hearts of the Schuyler sisters, Jefferson was crafting bitter manifestos about corrupt, money-loving Federalists plotting behind closed doors.   In the end, Angelica and Jefferson both experienced the Hamilton effect—but in very different ways. For Angelica, he was the dashing intellectual she could banter with, someone who would make her pulse race just a little faster. For Jefferson, Hamilton was more like a personal nemesis in a political cartoon: a larger-than-life character who seemed determined to ruin his idyllic pastoral vision for America. These men had one thing in common—they found themselves waiting on Mrs. Schuyler-Church’s next letter.   What Their Letters Say Letter from Angelica, 1804. Source: New York Public Library   Jefferson’s letters to Angelica are filled with affectionate musings, frequently bordering on flirtation. In one, he writes about the sadness he felt after she left Paris, comparing the sunlight to an unwelcome guest during his loneliness. While Jefferson often wrote intimately to women, the tone of his letters to Angelica shows a man deeply attached to her, yet with an awareness of her marriage. It is unknowable if they ever acted on the sentiments in their letters, but the letters themselves tell modern minds about their deep and decades-long affection.   One gem from Jefferson to Angelica says: “The morning you left us, all was wrong, even the sunshine was provoking, with which I never quarreled before.” Jefferson writes that mourning her departure, he quite literally hopped upon his horse and rode off in the direction she’d gone, presumably casting longing glances at the horizon.   Angelica and Jefferson’s friendship was deepened by the fact that their families were quite intertwined. Jefferson’s daughter, Martha, and Angelica’s son, Philip, became fast friends while they were all in France. Angelica’s daughter even stayed with the Jeffersons for a time. What an interesting household this must have made; Martha and Thomas’ daughters, Angelica’s own child with John Barker Church, and a young Sally Hemmings, who would go on to give birth to at least three of Thomas’s future children.   Daughters, by C.W. Eckersberg, 1820. Source: Raw Pixel   In August 1788, he boldly invited Angelica to join him in America, proposing a kind of rendezvous that sounds more suited to a lover’s getaway than a diplomatic mission. The letter lays out the flirtation, saying, “Think of it, my friend, and let us begin a negotiation on the subject. You shall find in me all the spirit of accommodation…”   Yet for all the innuendo, there was something else happening in these letters—a mutual admiration for the revolutionary ideals of the time. Angelica wasn’t just some charming figure in a pretty gown—she was actively involved in the political landscape, dabbling in espionage and intrigue. When she pitched in to organize a plot to free the Marquis de Lafayette from an Austrian prison, Jefferson must have been impressed.   By the 1790s, Jefferson’s letters still carried that warm undercurrent of affection, even while he was locking horns with Angelica’s brother-in-law, Alexander Hamilton. It is a testament to their friendship that despite all the political drama, Angelica kept corresponding with Jefferson—dodging his invitations to America but holding onto their connection all the same. Jefferson might have been a vice president by then, but to Angelica, he was still that sentimental man who couldn’t stand the sunshine when she was gone.   How History Remembers Them Remembrance Statue, The Founders of the Daughters of the Revolution. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Angelica Schuyler remains celebrated for her intelligence and grace, while Jefferson’s complex relationships with women continue to be a source of speculation. Whether or not their relationship was romantic, Angelica Schuyler and Thomas Jefferson certainly left an impression on each other, and on history.   Angelica Schuyler Church may not have achieved household name recognition until Hamilton gave her a few unforgettable solos, but she was making waves long before Lin-Manuel Miranda brought her sass and brilliance into the spotlight. It is a shame her fame today tends to focus on the men she was tied to. Angelica was a renegade, navigating a world that did not quite know what to do with a woman who was both sharp as a tack and unafraid to get her hands dirty. It was because of her patronage that many male painters were able to fund their art.   In a letter from Thomas Jefferson, he waxes poetic about Angelica’s wit and charm: “The urn is well worth acceptance, my dear Madam, on its own account … but it is more flattering to me to accept it on account of the giver.” He goes on to say, “I am with you always in spirit: be you with me sometimes.” That is 18th-century code for, “I really wish I could hang out with you more.”   Angelica’s death in 1814 didn’t end her influence. Though her exact grave remains a bit of a mystery, her marker stands at the Livingston Family vault in the Trinity Churchyard, right where tourists flock to visit her more famous in-laws, Alexander and Eliza Hamilton.   Thomas Jefferson, presidential portrait, by Rembrandt Peale, 1801. Source: The White House   It appears that brilliance and a streak of independence runs in the Schuyler blood. Take Angelica’s descendant Marian Cruger Coffin, for example. Born in 1876, Marian became one of America’s pioneering landscape architects, designing gardens for an East Coast elite clientele. At a time when women were expected to pick flowers rather than design where they bloomed, Marian broke the mold. She studied at MIT, one of just four women in her field at the time, and went on to craft some of the most famous gardens in the country. Angelica would have been proud.   Thomas Jefferson, a man who was just as obsessed with his legacy as he was with writing flowery letters, was no stranger to self-promotion. In his final years, he meticulously shaped how future generations would remember him, going so far as to draft his own epitaph. In classic Jefferson fashion, he highlighted his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and his founding of the University of Virginia, purposefully omitting his role as president. Perhaps he preferred to be remembered for writing the Declaration of Independence rather than for governing a nascent nation with messy politics. To Jefferson, education, and liberty were the cornerstones of his legacy. Despite his heavy-handed propaganda, the critics came for him, questioning his commitment to individual freedom while conveniently ignoring his role as a slaveholder.   Jefferson’s descendants have been making their own waves in the modern era. Shannon LaNier, his DNA-proven sixth great-grandson through Sally Hemings, has taken the complicated legacy of Jefferson head-on. LaNier, now an author and TV host, has been vocal about how he hopes his family’s history can play a role in healing the divisions in the United States. He continues to engage in conversations about race, identity, and the complexities of America’s past, navigating the mixed legacy Jefferson left behind.   Thomas Jefferson Statue at University of Virginia, by Kipp Teague. Source: Flickr   Angelica Schuyler and Thomas Jefferson were not simply characters in the background of revolutionary history. While Jefferson has been etched into marble and textbooks, Angelica, for all her social connections, intelligence, and audacity, has only recently started getting the credit she deserves. The small town of Angelica, New York, named in her honor by her son, might be far from the glamorous places she once called home, but it stands as a testament to the kind of woman she was—one who left her mark, whether or not history was paying attention. It might be time to give Angelica a bit more of the spotlight and recognize her as the feminine influencer she was. After all, a woman who could charm Jefferson and offer casual political advice to Hamilton is not someone who should be reduced to a footnote in someone else’s story.

  William Tecumseh Sherman was one of the most important Union generals of the Civil War. Sherman helped turn the tide early in the war with victories in the Western Theater and later with his infamous March to the Sea. After the war, he played a key role in the Reconstruction, served as commanding general of all US forces, and remained an influential voice in American affairs until his death. Sherman’s legacy remains one of the most powerful in American military history.   Early Life Portrait of a young William T. Sherman. Date Unknown. Source: Wikimedia Commons   William Tecumseh Sherman was born in Ohio in 1820 to Charles and Mary Sherman. When Sherman was only nine, his father died of typhoid fever, leaving his mother to care for eleven children. Sherman was sent to live with a neighbor, Thomas Ewing, a future US Senator from Ohio. Ewing sponsored the young Sherman’s application to the US Military Academy at West Point when he was just 16 years old. He wasn’t a top student academically, but stood out for his practical knowledge and leadership skills.   Graduating in 1840, at the age of 20, Sherman was commissioned as an officer into the artillery and served in Florida during the Seminole Wars before being sent to California during the Mexican-American War in 1848. While he didn’t see as much combat as other officers, his time out West gave him experience in the logistics of warfare, skills he would later use on his infamous “scorched earth” campaign across the American South.   It was during this war that Sherman met another junior officer, Ulysses S. Grant. The friendship between the two would become crucial in the conflict to come. After the war, he briefly left the army to work as manager of the San Francisco branch of the Bank of Lucas, Turner & Co. Sherman quickly found that civilian life did not suit him. In 1859, he became the first superintendent of the Louisiana State Seminary of Learning & Military Academy, now known as Louisiana State University (LSU).   The Western Theater of War Battle map depicting the third day of fighting at the Battle of Shiloh. Source: Wikimedia Commons   After several Confederate states seceded from the Union in 1861, Sherman resigned his position as superintendent. He initially did not rejoin the army in defense of the Union. He felt politicians had made a mess of halting secession, famously saying to his younger brother John, a Congressman from Ohio, “you politicians have gone and got things in a hell of a fix.” Sherman spent the next year as a civilian in St. Louis. When the Civil War broke out, Sherman rejoined the Army and was quickly assigned to key commands in the Western Theater.   Portrait of General William T. Sherman by Matthew Brady, c. 1864. Source: National Archives   Working closely with his old friend Ulysses S. Grant, he helped secure major Union victories at battles like Shiloh, Vicksburg, and Chattanooga. At Shiloh in 1862, Sherman’s leadership under fire helped prevent a total Union collapse during a surprise Confederate attack. A year earlier, Sherman was battling severe mental stress as a corps commander in Kentucky. Rumors swirled that he was unfit for command, and the press published newspapers calling Sherman “mad” and “insane.” In October of that year, he was relieved of command and spent several months at home recovering. Grant stood by Sherman during that time and welcomed him back to command in December 1861.   Shiloh, and the leadership Sherman showed during that time, proved that he had regained his mental state. By late 1863, newspapers no longer saw him as a liability; in fact, following successful engagements at Shiloh, Vicksburg, and Chattanooga, Sherman was seen as a rising star in the Union Army. His understanding of warfare was about to be put to the test as the war entered into its final years.   The Atlanta Campaign Various engagements of the Atlanta Campaign, in May-Sept 1864. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In 1864, Sherman was given command of Union forces in the West as Grant was reassigned to the East to take on Robert E. Lee. Sherman launched the Atlanta Campaign—a months-long effort to take one of the Confederacy’s last major metropolitan cities and a hub for commerce.   Capturing the city would devastate Southern morale and drastically diminish their capability to continue the war effort. Sherman faced off against Confederate generals like Joseph E. Johnston and John Bell Hood, pushing his troops through tough terrain and constant resistance as he made his way south from Tennessee into the heart of Georgia. While difficult, Sherman was able to consistently force the Confederates south towards the capital.   In September, Sherman finally took Atlanta. The victory was more than just a military win—it came at a critical time politically. President Abraham Lincoln was up for re-election and facing growing criticism over the war’s progress. Sherman’s capture of Atlanta helped turn public opinion in Lincoln’s favor and boosted Northern morale, leading to his reelection.   The March to the Sea Sherman’s March to the Sea, by F.O.C. Darley, c. 1868. Source: Library of Congress   After taking Atlanta, Sherman launched what would become his most famous, and controversial, campaign: the March to the Sea. In November 1864, he led 60,000 troops from Atlanta southeast to Savannah. Atlanta had not been enough to demoralize the South. The March to the Sea would showcase for the first time what Sherman called “scorched earth tactics,” more commonly known today as “total war.” His troops burned crops, bent rail lines, which famously became known as “Sherman’s neckties,” and raided supplies from local populations along the way. Sherman believed that by bringing the war directly to Southern civilians, he could force the Confederacy to surrender faster. The strategy worked. His army reached Savannah in December, facing little resistance. The city was spared destruction as Sherman believed it was too beautiful to burn, and Sherman offered it as a “Christmas gift” to President Lincoln.   The March to the Sea was effective, but it impacted the way military operations would be waged in the future. Sherman showed that to successfully wage a war, you must bring its devastation to everyone involved.   South Carolina Campaign Sherman’s neckties, confederate railroads destroyed by heating the rails in a bonfire and then twisting them, ruining them for later reuse. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Following his success in Georgia, Sherman turned his attention north. In early 1865, he marched his army through the Carolinas, aiming to link up with Grant’s forces in Virginia for a final push on Lee’s forces. The campaign was brutal. Sherman’s troops faced harsh weather and difficult terrain, but they pressed forward, capturing key cities like Columbia and Fayetteville. In Columbia, fires broke out, Sherman denied that he ordered the burning, but the event added to his already growing controversial legacy.   As he advanced, Confederate resistance crumbled. By April, General Joseph E. Johnston surrendered to Sherman in North Carolina, just days after Robert E. Lee had surrendered to Grant at Appomattox. Sherman’s campaign through the Carolinas helped seal the Confederacy’s fate. It also showed his commitment to this new tactic of total war. Though often overshadowed by the surrender at Appomattox, Sherman’s work in the final months of the war was crucial.   Reconstruction Era Sherman after the war, c. 1870. Source: Wikimedia Commons   After the war, Sherman stayed in the Army and took on several key roles during Reconstruction. He served as commander of the Military Division of the Mississippi, overseeing large portions of the South as it was being rebuilt. Sherman shared Lincoln’s view of restoring order and the old Union quickly, but had little patience for politicians. He often clashed with Radical Republicans in Congress who wanted more aggressive policies that would punish the South for secession and give sweeping rights to newly emancipated slaves.   While Sherman was firm in his belief that the Union had to be preserved at all costs, he didn’t always agree with the vision of what the postwar South should look like, as many at the time had differing viewpoints on the methods and goals of reconstructing the country. Many urged Sherman to run for President, and while he helped enforce federal law, it was clear he was more comfortable on the battlefield than in the halls of government, as he often said, if he were elected, he would never serve.   Legacy Dedication of the William Tecumseh Sherman Memorial in 1903, designed by Carl Rohl-Smith, and is located near the White House (E and 15th Street). Source: Wikimedia Commons   William Tecumseh Sherman remains one of the most talked-about figures of the Civil War. His tactics helped bring the conflict to a close, and his partnership with Grant was one of the most effective in US military history. His “total war” strategy—especially during the March to the Sea—has been used to demonstrate effective scorched earth tactics in today’s military institutions.   After retiring from the Army, he remained outspoken and continued to write about his experiences, eventually publishing his memoirs. He famously turned down several offers to run for political office, once saying, “I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected.” Sherman died in 1891, but his influence lives on. Whether viewed as a ruthless warrior or a brilliant strategist, he left a mark on American history that won’t be forgotten.

United Archives GmbH/Alamy Stock PhotoKeith Moon’s drinking and drug abuse made his public appearances frequently erratic and unreliable. As the pounding heartbeat of The Who, Keith Moon didn’t just keep time; he assaulted it. Moon lived his life with the same chaotic velocity that came to define his drumming. But sadly, this fast-paced way of living would also lead to Keith Moon’s death in 1978. By then, he had many nicknames, including “Moon the Loon” — an apt moniker for a man who portrayed himself as the indestructible court jester of rock music. But behind Moon’s manic grin and over-the-top antics lay a fragile man who fought demons that no amount of applause could silence. Then, on Sept. 7, 1978, that chaos reached its tragic end in a London apartment — ironically, the same one where “Mama” Cass Elliot had died four years prior — when Keith Moon died. The drummer was just 32 years old, but years of sustained alcohol and drug abuse had caught up to him. Still, many wondered how the boy from Wembley had fallen into such a sorry spiral. Keith Moon was undeniably a genius on the drums, but a genius who walked the razor’s edge between immortality and oblivion. Eventually, the party had to come to an end. How A Boy From Wembley Became The Drummer For The Who Long before he cemented himself as one of the greatest rock drummers in history, Keith John Moon was a restless boy from Wembley, a suburb of London. Born to Alfred and Kathleen Winifred Moon on Aug. 23, 1946, the future rocker showed hints of his wild side even at a very young age. As a child, he was hyperactive and imaginative in ways that made school difficult. As biographer Tony Fletcher wrote in Dear Boy: The Life of Keith Moon, Moon’s art teacher had described him in a report as “Retarded artistically. Idiotic in other respects.” His music teacher, however, noted the young boy had “great ability, but must guard against a tendency to show off.” Wikimedia CommonsKeith Moon in Germany, 1967. After failing his 11-plus exams, Moon eventually decided he wasn’t meant for a life of academics. He dropped out of school at the age of 14. He played drums in a variety of local bands, but his golden opportunity came in 1964, when the now-17-year-old heard a band called The Who and approached them at a gig, bragging that he could play better than their current drummer. What followed, according to the band’s official biography, was Moon’s impromptu audition at the Oldfield pub in Greenford. Moon played with such energy that he destroyed the drum kit — but fatefully got himself a job as The Who’s new drummer. Before long, Keith Moon proved himself to be one of the most interesting drummers in rock. His rolling tom fills, refusal to play standard hi-hat rhythms, and chaotic interplay with guitarist Pete Townshend made it so the drums did more than simply keep time. Instead, Moon turned the drums into a lead instrument. As the band’s bassist, John Entwistle, once remarked, Moon made the drums “sing.” Wikimedia CommonsThe Who with their manager Kit Lambert, holding gold records for their 1969 album Tommy. But it wasn’t just his skills behind the kit that kept Moon’s name in the headlines. Keith Moon’s Offstage Antics — And Sad Downward Spiral Keith Moon’s drumming helped bring The Who international fame. But Moon’s off-stage persona was equally legendary — and increasingly dangerous. By the 1970s, his nickname of “Moon the Loon” had become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Moon was the court jester of rock and roll, known for his elaborate pranks and destructive streaks. He infamously blew up toilets with cherry bombs, nailed all the furniture in a hotel room to the ceiling, and allegedly once drove a car into a swimming pool. However, the laughter often masked a darker reality. Moon’s lifestyle was fueled by a voracious appetite for drugs and alcohol. What began as “social drinking” during the filming of That’ll Be the Day in the early ’70s spiraled into severe alcoholism. Moon’s behavior became erratic and violent, leading to the breakdown of his marriage in 1973. Wikimedia CommonsKeith Moon with The Who at Maple Leaf Gardens, 1976. “You’d come offstage and still be buzzin’,” Moon once stated in 1978, per Far Out. “Then you’d go to a party and it’d get out of hand, get wild. Things get broken. If you’re sitting around after a show and there’s something you don’t like, you just switch it off by throwing a bottle through the screen.” By the mid-1970s, Moon’s alcohol and drug abuse began to affect him physically. He gained weight and lost the sharp, athletic edge that his drumming had become known for. Several times throughout The Who’s tours, he even passed out on stage. In an attempt to keep him him functional, the band had even hired a “handler” to travel with him, but Moon proved too unpredictable. And this destructive lifestyle sadly led to Keith Moon’s death in 1978. The Death Of Keith Moon From An Accidental Overdose Come September 1978, Keith Moon had moved back to London following a chaotic stint in Los Angeles — and there were signs he was trying to stabilize. He had started dating Annette Walter-Lax, a Swedish model, and was taking Heminevrin, a sedative meant to curb alcohol cravings. On the evening of Sept. 6, 1978, Moon attended a party hosted by Paul McCartney to celebrate the launch of the film The Buddy Holly Story. According to Louder Sound, Moon was in relatively good spirits, dining with the McCartneys and telling guests about his plans to marry Walter-Lax. Most remembered that Moon was even relatively sober, and that he didn’t overdo it on the free champagne. Wikimedia CommonsKeith Moon drumming in The Who, 1974. He and Walter-Lax returned to Moon’s apartment around 4:00 a.m., where Moon took a handful of Heminevrin and went to bed. He woke again at 7:30 a.m., argued with Walter-Lax, then took more Heminevrin and went back to sleep. When Walter-Lax checked on Moon that afternoon, he was unresponsive. She immediately called for help, but it was too late — Keith Moon died later that day at the age of 32. An autopsy revealed that Moon had 32 Heminevrin pills in his system. Only six had been digested — enough to cause death — while the remaining 26 were still in his stomach. The coroner ruled the death an accidental overdose and, indeed, his bandmates don’t believe that Moon meant to die by suicide. “It was a silly mistake,” Townshend stated in the 2007 documentary Amazing Journey. “He just always took pills in handfuls. It was just a habit that he had.” Sadly, this habit — and his life of excess — led to Keith Moon’s death. While Moon is remembered today as one of rock’s greatest drummers, he’s also seen as someone who died sadly far too soon. After reading about the death of Keith Moon, read about the death of other rock and roll legends like Elvis Presley or Janis Joplin. The post Keith Moon’s Death: Inside The Tragic Demise Of The Who’s Drummer At Just 32 appeared first on All That's Interesting.

Perhaps the most fascinating Civil War general to Jeb Smith is Nathan Bedford Forest. Many think he is not just the best cavalry general of the American Civil War but among the greatest to ever live. He acquired more confirmed kills in war than any America has ever achieved. No general as high a rank as Forrest killed as many men since the medieval period. He had 29 horses shot from under him and said, “I ended the war a horse up.” He was one of the most feared individuals of the war and was said to be a “Superhuman warrior.” One friend who knew him before the war said he looked unrecognizable in battle. His face and eyes would change.A natural military genius, Forrest rose from the rank of private to lieutenant general. His willingness to mix personally in combat led to him receiving multiple wounds doctors feared would be fatal, all of which he survived. The famed Civil War author Shelby Foote opined that the Civil War produced two geniuses: Abraham Lincoln and Nathan Bedford Forrest. Nathan Bedford Forrest. Pre-warBorn into poverty in Tennessee, Forrest received little formal education and no military training. By 1860, he owned two plantations, traded extensively in slaves, and was one of the wealthiest men in Memphis. He was tall, muscular, and powerful even for his size. An adamant believer in states’ rights and secession, the war was not the first violence he engaged in. Before it even began, he had killed several people.In 1845, in Mississippi, his uncle was killed in a street fight; in retaliation, Forrest then killed two of his uncle’s murderers with a pistol and wounded two more with a knife someone in the crowd threw to him. There are unconfirmed reports that he killed others on two more occasions, including being severely wounded himself during one such engagement and recovering from what had seemed mortal wounds, as he would do more than once later in his career.                       The Civil WarForrest survived and was involved in some truly miraculous combat situations and multiple brushes with death, earning him an immense reputation as a warrior. When the war began, Forrest raised his own regiment, paid for their equipment, and advertised for recruits in Memphis, writing, “Come on, boys, if you want a heap of fun and to kill some Yankees.” Forrest had no trouble gaining men, as his reputation for toughness, aggression, and bravery had already spread widely. The general once told his men, “I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself.” And he quickly proved his fearlessness and tactical skill to them.Early on in the war, Forrest led a cavalry charge against a Union line and single-handedly engaged multiple troops despite receiving wounds. A similar situation occurred later in the war when Forrest was mounted on his horse and attacked by four federals at once, receiving horrific wounds to his head and arm. He was able to retaliate and kill one of his ambushers, stating later, “No damn man kills me and lives.” Yet the situation became even worse for him as three more federals came shooting and stabbing at him. He was now surrounded, and on top of that, his horse was then shot [would eventually prove mortal], but riding on his injured horse, Forrest then jumped a wagon that was blocking his retreat. Thirty paces down the road, he was attacked by yet another federal with a saber. Forrest ended his attacker's life soon after. In another instance, as the Confederates were chasing retraining federals, Forest found he outpaced his men and was surrounded by dozens of retreating federals; he was shot multiple times, and his horse was once more wounded mortally. But before his steed departed, and among a hail of bullets, he escaped, utilizing his revolver to cut a way clear. In a dangerous and fortunate battle, where Forrest was riddled with 15 bullet holes in his uniform, and his horse fell dead after sustaining seven bullet wounds. Later that day, he had another horse die from under him. Soon after, he received what doctors initially believed to be yet another mortal wound during a confrontation with a subordinate. However, he would heal and return to command.Forrest led by example. He would not order his men to do anything he would not do. He often would do a mission when no volunteers would offer. He himself would go on dangerous scouting missions and once crossed a frozen river when none of his men would. In Six Armies in Tennessee, historian Steven E. Woodworth wrote that Forest “would fight anyone, anytime.” Perhaps that was no truer than when Forrest and his command were surprised and surrounded by federal forces. The general commanded his men to “charge em both ways,” and his men did, and many escaped. Forrest also stated, “Never stand and take a charge… charge them too.”                       Battle ResultsA gifted military genius...he was the prophet of mobile warfare. His campaigns [allegedly] studied by German proponents of the blitzkrieg...His operations are more reminiscent of a 20th century panzer leader, such as Heinz Guderian or Erwin Rommel, than of any commander of his age.-Barry C Jacobsen The ten Best Generals of the Civil war                       Likie Jackson, Forrest always attempted to “Get their first with the most,” and his fast cavalry, adaptability, strategy, ambushing tactics, and fearless leadership led to some remarkable results, especially while raiding. He would conduct swift but decisive assaults on the enemy, often utilizing a cavalry charge. In The Civil War, Bruce Catton wrote,  “Forrest ... used his horsemen as a modern general would use motorized infantry. He liked horses because he liked fast movements.”Forest sought to outflank his enemy and create chaos; he was vicious and efficient in attacking any weakness in his adversary’s defenses while also being unpredictable. Attacking the weak spot of the enemy mercilessly, Forest stated, “Get ’em skeered, and keep the skeer on ’em.” He would throw his entire force on the enemy, rarely keeping reserves. He led his men as a warrior of old; he did not hang back but showed courage, leading in charges. He was excited about warfare, observers saying he changed physical features and would “come alive.” Forrest was one of the few Cavalry commanders who could consistently and successfully utilize the Cavalry charge in the Civil War. In part, because he kept somewhat of a bodyguard made up of about 100 of his best soldiers around him at all times, and would use this elite force to strike the enemy at the right place and time to turn the battle in his favor. Some of his remarkable lopsided battle results are as follows. Due to the massive trouble Forrest was causing to Union supply lines, and his raiding ability and devastation he was causing on isolated units, General Sherman had had enough, and so decided to make no mistakes about it, to hunt Forest down with a vastly superior force, and take him out of the war. Sherman sent Samuel Sturgis, with a command of 3,300 cavalry and 5,000 infantry, along with 22 guns, to "bag" Forrest's command of 3,200 men. Instead, Forrest drove the Federals 58 miles, captured 19 of the guns, all the Federals' baggage and supplies, 200 wagons, 30 ambulances, 161 mules, 20 horses, took 2,000 prisoners, caused 300 killed, 400 wounded, and the destruction/disorganization of the more significant Union force. Confederate casualties were under 500.One raid in Tennessee caused 3,500 federal casualties, eight artillery captured, 400 horses and mules, 100 wagons, 100 cattle, 3,000 arms stores, destroyed rail, six bridges, two locomotives, 50 freight cars, and captured/destroyed 50 blockhouses. During the raid, Forrest gained 1,000 men from recruitment and from men who had deserted Confederate general Joe Johnston army to join a commander who would fight, General Forrest. Forrest's losses were 300; he returned stronger than he left.Of another raid, also in Tennessee, a federal newspaper wrote, “Forrest with less than 4,000 men has moved right through the 96th army corps, has passed within 9 miles of Memphis, carried off 100 wagons, 100 beef cattle 3,000 conscripts, innumerable stores, tore up railroad track, cut telephone wire, burned and sacked towns ran over picket lines. Again, with 1,800 in command, Forrest captured 150 federals, killed 25, wounded another 50, captured 200 horses, a few wagons, and 2 artillery, tore up the railroad, and captured rail cars. He rearmed his entire force with better-captured weapons than when they went into the raid. Forrest Lost 3 killed 5 wounded.In one of his renowned assaults, with only 1,800 men, he captured 2,200 federals (not including killed and wounded), and he lost only 30 men, 150 wounded. In another battle, the Federal losses were 500 prisoners, 10 killed [ 230 soon after], 16 wagons, and three ambulances. Forrest lost only one killed and two wounded. Another time with just 300, Forrest led an attack on a depot. The results were 400 prisoners and the capture of 1,000 horses, 15 wagons, 600,000 rounds of ammo, 100,000 rations, clothes, etc., and $500,000 worth overall. In a month-long campaign that destroyed rail, 2,500 federals were killed or taken as prisoners, and once more, his command came back stronger and better equipped than he left. During the four minor skirmishes, he lost 200 men but killed 350, captured 2,000 prisoners, and captured artillery and wagon. Forrest had to release prisoners on many occasions as he had too many to control, often larger than his own force. Forrest once had prisoners help move artillery wagons through rough roads to be set free. In a particularly daring attack, Forrest charged his command up a hill against a force twice his size, supported by artillery. Remarkably victorious, he took 75 prisoners, recaptured 60 Confederate prisoners, and captured the artillery. These events were just a few of the kinds of lopsided victories and successes Forest achieved.                        DeceptionForrest excelled at scouting, ambushing, and deception. He kept the enemy uncertain of his movements and could cross bridges or “impassable” streams when he was “trapped.” He could also be creative; he once used captured Union infantry drums to make his Cavalry force appear more numerous, thereby preventing an attack by the Union. He once used some of the older men in his command to dress as civilians and give false information to the upcoming federals on the whereabouts of his men. Another time he had his men wear captured federal uniforms to gain information from them. Once, while trying to convince a Union commander to surrender, he made his force of 4,500 appear to be 10,000 to the Federal commander, convincing the general to surrender his command. He did things like have his artillery brought up over and over in circles to appear like he had more guns than he did whilst negotiating with his adversary.                       Feared by ManyFollow Forrest to the death if it costs 10,000 lives and breaks the treasury. There will never be peace in Tennessee till Forrest is dead.-William T Sherman                       Few, perhaps none would hesitate to call Forrest the most feared individual soiler of the war, the last man you would not to fight to the death against on the field of battle, but also The Civil War Trust's article on Forest reads, "the most feared commander of the war... no Union commander was able to effectively come to grips with Forrest's cavalry during the war." In 10 Best Generals in American History, Barry C Jacobsen referred to him as "Perhaps the most feared general in American history."Because of Forrest's fighting ability, fearlessness, aggressiveness, unpredictable and lightning-fast raids and assaults, and great success, he became widely seen as the most feared commander on either side of the war. In one instance, an enthusiastic and confident federal cavalry command was prepared to attack the much smaller Confederate cavalry command. Upon receiving notice that it was, in fact, under the direction of General Forrest, the Union officer called off the attack despite the significant manpower advantage.                       Where Does Forrest Rank in Civil War Generals?Having him [Forrest] in an army was something like operating in concert with a band of formidable but unpredictable barbarians allies...could be an excellent cavalryman for practicality any purpose if he could be convinced to pursue his commanders wishes.-Steven E Woodworth Six Armies in Tennessee the Chickamauga and Chattanooga Campaigns University of Nebraska press                       If you were to rank Civil War soldiers just as fighting men, I think Forest would come out on top; if you were to rank the best cavalry commander, he could well be your first choice. Perhaps even If you were to rank generals with a division or less, he might come out on top. However, he was not always reliable enough to work as part of a larger command and perhaps not as great as others with larger groups of men and thus his impact was not as outstanding as a Grant, Jackson, or Lee. So, where does he rank? That, of course, would depend on personal opinion. He is widely regarded as the best Cavalry commander of the war and is usually ranked around 5th overall commander. He excelled in a limited area, such as a division or less, or when allowed to conduct raids. At this, he had no peers. However, he did not have the impact of generals in the regular army on the major battlefields. Forrest was hard to control and did his own thing. He once threatened to kill Braxton Bragg, the army commander, and so was shipped to Mississippi. This, in part, made it so Forrest could not do what many thought should have been done: work on Sherman's supply during his invasion of Atlanta and turn him back like he did Grant in his first attempt on Vicksburg. Forrest stated in 1864 “There is no doubt we could soon wipe old Sherman off the face of the earth, John, if they'd give me enough men and you enough guns.”In the end, Forrest is for me tough to gauge. Compared to other great generals of the war. I think with a division to command he would have been as feared as Stonewall, perhaps even more so. But he was more a berserker type general, one you are glad he is on your side and can achieve remarkable outcomes if you let him loose on the enemy, but perhaps not as versatile as a Stonewall Jackson or Robert E. Lee. I think someone like Grant had a larger influence on an entire army than Forest could achieve. Jeb Smith is an author and speaker whose books include Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War written under the pen name Isaac C. Bishop,  Missing Monarchy: Correcting Misconceptions About The Middle Ages, Medieval Kingship, Democracy, And Liberty and he also authored Defending the Middle Ages: Little Known Truths About the Crusades, Inquisitions, Medieval Women, and More. Smith has written over 120 articles found in several publications.

Throughout history, December 25th has been a day of profound significance, marked by events that have both challenged and uplifted humanity. While Christmas is traditionally a time of peace and joy, it has also been a flashpoint for pivotal moments that redirected the course of history. From unexpected truces in the midst of war to ...