Forrest "We Don't Have Enough Contempt for NBF"

I guess the contempt came from the a** whooping you got from him?

What do you expect from a guy who can't spell clan. its spelled with a k and sorry we got it wrong.

Be respectfull and you'll be respected. you cant behave a certain way and demand respect. kid it's earned. you may not like the guy but you have to respect him. because he out ranks you. sucks. too bad...thats the way it is. and do your best under him and he'll get the glory. yeah it's unfair.

What are you talking about??
 
Oh, that would be you! :wub:

False.

My Post #53: "Who even knows who this "Uncle Jack Farley" was? Where are the monuments to him? What did he have to do with the Civil War--or even Forrest? [Hmmm. A three-for-one--a non sequitur as well]

"If one considers Forrest reprehensible, how does this make Forrest less reprehensible?"

You dodged it.

My Post #64: "And how would that affect whether or not Forrest was deserving of more or less contempt?"

You dodged it.

My Post #70: "Exactly, since you continue to try to sidestep and avoid the question--all while introducing more red herrings."

You dodged it.

And I'm still waiting for you to say how your various sidetracks made Forrest lest deserving of contempt for those who hold him in contempt. Or will you dodge this one also?

C'mon, tell me what you think is really at the bottom of the article.

I don't know what is really at the bottom of the article, nor do I care. I've already given my opinion of Forrest on this forum in other threads. In a nutshell, "He was a complex man with some admirable qualities and some bad qualities, just like most of us. As a larger-than-life person, many of his qualities were also larger-than-life." I don't think you would disagree with that. The author of the article would appear to disagree with me. Oh well. Somehow I'll survive.
 
And how would that affect whether or not Forrest was deserving of more or less contempt?

When we lose our sense of humor and get on our high horse it really does turn off most readers. Only the Shadow really know what is in the hearts of men. We are all allowed our own viewpoint, whether valid in everyone else's eyes or not.

My opinion is that Forrest represented both the best and worst of his time, was fallible like all of us, and was a pretty good example of his time and place. We're just a tad more civilized and well-read. Most of us, anyway.
 
False.

My Post #53: "Who even knows who this "Uncle Jack Farley" was? Where are the monuments to him? What did he have to do with the Civil War--or even Forrest? [Hmmm. A three-for-one--a non sequitur as well]

"If one considers Forrest reprehensible, how does this make Forrest less reprehensible?"

You dodged it.

My Post #64: "And how would that affect whether or not Forrest was deserving of more or less contempt?"

You dodged it.

My Post #70: "Exactly, since you continue to try to sidestep and avoid the question--all while introducing more red herrings."

You dodged it.

And I'm still waiting for you to say how your various sidetracks made Forrest lest deserving of contempt for those who hold him in contempt. Or will you dodge this one also?



I don't know what is really at the bottom of the article, nor do I care. I've already given my opinion of Forrest on this forum in other threads. In a nutshell, "He was a complex man with some admirable qualities and some bad qualities, just like most of us. As a larger-than-life person, many of his qualities were also larger-than-life." I don't think you would disagree with that. The author of the article would appear to disagree with me. Oh well. Somehow I'll survive.

Soooo...all those 'dodging' citations are addressed in the last post I made. You're a good dance partner, though! But you're right - larger than life, which is the point. I always end up dragging poor Sherman in here (he doesn't like it, either) because he shares Forrest's problem.
 
Soooo...all those 'dodging' citations are addressed in the last post I made.

Then be so kind as to point out exactly where it was addressed, because I see nothing there that addresses them.

You're a good dance partner, though! But you're right - larger than life, which is the point. I always end up dragging poor Sherman in here (he doesn't like it, either) because he shares Forrest's problem.

You're the only one trying to dance away from answering a straightforward question.
 
Then be so kind as to point out exactly where it was addressed, because I see nothing there that addresses them.



You're the only one trying to dance away from answering a straightforward question.

I bunched it together - saves bandwidth. Probably should have made more paragraphs, though. Really - the answers you want are all in the questions I asked. In fact, I believe we're mostly in agreement since you didn't add or subtract from the post. :smile:
 
I bunched it together - saves bandwidth. Probably should have made more paragraphs, though. Really - the answers you want are all in the questions I asked. In fact, I believe we're mostly in agreement since you didn't add or subtract from the post. :smile:

No, in fact they are not. A new tactic in dodging--claiming you've answered when you haven't.

How about if I answer for you?

"Actually, they don't explain why someone who feels contempt for Forrest should have more or less contempt for Forrest. They are just irrelevancies put in as part of a fallacy, and should not have even been brought into the discussion."

You're welcome.
 
Are we disapproving of NBF enough? Have we been derelict in expressing, in only to ourselves, the appropriate amount of contempt?

He was a slave dealer. And slave dealing was pretty vicious, about the most vicious part of slavery. So that's bad. Anyone think slave dealing was a humane, philanthropic enterprise? No? So that's settled.
 
Are we disapproving of NBF enough? Have we been derelict in expressing, in only to ourselves, the appropriate amount of contempt?

He was a slave dealer. And slave dealing was pretty vicious, about the most vicious part of slavery. So that's bad. Anyone think slave dealing was a humane, philanthropic enterprise? No? So that's settled.
NBF was a good general, and that's his claim to fame. Anyone think he wasn't a good general? Or he is most famous and remembered for that? No? So that's settled.
 
The KKK was and is pretty bad. And Forrest was involved, in some capacity, with the Klan. We can quibble about first, second or third Klans, but none of them were good. I've read some apologia here about the post CW Klan somehow being better. No. So that's bad.

NBF is described by some posters as "changing" or "evolving" towards the end of his life. So that's good.
 
To sum up. NBF was a capable CS general and a brave man. That's what he's remembered for.

Unfortunately he made his pile slave dealing. And he got mixed up with the Klan postwar. There is an appalling symmetry there.

So some good and bad. Or some really good generalship and some really bad other stuff.
 
Forrest will always be either loved or hated.

For some, their contempt or veneration will always exist . . . unabated.
For others seeking to learn about the man, this forum may be one of the best gateway sources on the internet.

No matter how one may feel about Forrest, I think everyone can agree that he remains one of the most talked about individuals of the American Civil War.

As of this date, there are more discussions in the Forrest Forum than any other figure within this site’s Biography Forums.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, Matthew. But...why did you reopen the thread?

There is more symbolism in criticism of Forrest and Sherman than there is in anything they did. That's why I pair them so often. They are like opposite sides of the same coin. We have a thread on Wade Hampton but I see no criticism of his owning hundreds of slaves on his family's several plantations. Or of his participation (maybe) in the Red Shirts. They, too, were a **** para-military group. If they had not intimidated the black voters in South Carolina, Hampton would not have been elected governor. Purchasing people as slaves doesn't seem any better than selling them as slaves, does it? He, like many others, repented of nothing as he, and they, believed they did nothing wrong.

The OP was about having enough contempt for Forrest, and my position is why. The answer is it's his position in Southern legend and culture - he's most respected for having defended Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee during the war, and for having been the most feared cavalryman next to Stuart. Outside the South, nobody knows who he is. He can be blamed for participating in the klan - which was indeed no better than any other racist bunch at any of its incarnations - and even though he disavowed them they stuck to his boots like dog doo. They claim him as their founder and so it goes. Curiously, Robert E Lee does not get this stigma although they claim him, too. So, we have a pure symbol in Lee and an impure symbol in Forrest.

As another poster said...it's complicated. Nothing about Forrest is simple, and nothing is ever settled.
 
Pretty darn silly.
CONTEMPT_O_METER.jpg
 
If the point of the article is that if you're going to have contempt for Forrest, focus on his prewar slave trading. Which was pretty awful.
Aall Slave traders were held in contempt by the slave-owning society ... A little holier- than-Thou?

{t has been said by respected historians, that he would refuse to sell a slave to to someone known to mistreat slaves.

Of bourse, that doesn't do much to soften the stigma of

'slave trader.

"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, Matthew. But...why did you reopen the thread?

There is more symbolism in criticism of Forrest and Sherman than there is in anything they did. That's why I pair them so often. They are like opposite sides of the same coin. We have a thread on Wade Hampton but I see no criticism of his owning hundreds of slaves on his family's several plantations. Or of his participation (maybe) in the Red Shirts. They, too, were a **** para-military group. If they had not intimidated the black voters in South Carolina, Hampton would not have been elected governor. Purchasing people as slaves doesn't seem any better than selling them as slaves, does it? He, like many others, repented of nothing as he, and they, believed they did nothing wrong.

The OP was about having enough contempt for Forrest, and my position is why. The answer is it's his position in Southern legend and culture - he's most respected for having defended Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee during the war, and for having been the most feared cavalryman next to Stuart. Outside the South, nobody knows who he is. He can be blamed for participating in the klan - which was indeed no better than any other racist bunch at any of its incarnations - and even though he disavowed them they stuck to his boots like dog doo. They claim him as their founder and so it goes. Curiously, Robert E Lee does not get this stigma although they claim him, too. So, we have a pure symbol in Lee and an impure symbol in Forrest.

As another poster said...it's complicated. Nothing about Forrest is simple, and nothing is ever settled.
Is the same contempt levelled against those who purchased or sold slaves through a middleman or agent?

Much ado about nothing.
 
Read this entire thread. What a gold mine of hilarity!

On the subject of NBF…there should be -zero- contempt for the man. Why?

He was a slave trader, had ties to the first iteration of the klan BUT…

he cut those ties, cast off most his bad viewpoints, and made strides to heal the country and the goodwill between black and white, northerner and southerner. That’s called redemption. I wonder if the people who feel contempt for this dead man know the value of the word. Probably not.
 
Back
Top