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

[unionblue]

Diane
Education or not your posts are amongst the best and most informational on this forum.
Dan

1SGDan,

True.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[cash]

There you go! (But it does relate to the topic, which is about contempt for a CW personality.)

Last I saw Columbus had been dead for over three centuries by the time the Civil War started, so it has no relation.

Even so, if someone has contempt for Forrest nothing about Columbus makes Forrest more or less contemptible.

 

[diane]

Last I saw Columbus had been dead for over three centuries by the time the Civil War started, so it has no relation.

Even so, if someone has contempt for Forrest nothing about Columbus makes Forrest more or less contemptible.

I left off Tamerlane, after all!

 

[cash]

I left off Tamerlane, after all!

And how would that affect whether or not Forrest was deserving of more or less contempt?

 

[RebelHeart]

To suggest that "we don't have enough contempt" for Nathan Bedford Forrest is a dubious assertion in so many ways it's difficult to know where to begin. To take the whole of his life into judgment could make a reasonable argument for contempt if his life is to be considered by contemporary values, which is immediately a baseless assessment as he was not raised with nor lived in a time or culture that carried the modern standards by which he is being judged. His behaviors and attitudes were, for lack of a better word, appropriate to the time, place, and his likely upbringing.

Taking Forrest's military history under consideration and attempting to condemn it is again pointless. It was WAR, and victory was ultimately achieved not by those that put honor ahead of all other things, but by those that were willing to do whatever was necessary to demoralize and defeat the enemy. Grant, Sherman, and Stonewall Jackson were not "nice guys" and their legacies in the war speak for themselves.

Whether Forrest is remembered with greater or less contempt really depends on what it is you're choosing to remember him for. If he hadn't been a largely-successful commander during the ACW we wouldn't even be talking about him. That said, it was his record and actions as a commander that made him famous in the first place, and his cunning leadership is what earned him a noteworthy place in history. The author's biggest mistake is her passing judgment on a man for his treatments of others when human rights violations were the standard with which he was born and raised. That doesn't make him right for doing the things he did, but it offers plausible explanation for how he saw life both antebellum and post-war. Forrest was, like so many other controversial figures in history, a product of the time and place he lived.

 

[Study the Past]

I do find it comical how often in these parts you see the local news and state politicians, who you can tell never took the time to learn a thing about Forrest, are on their soap box absurdly demanding busts, building/school names, monuments, etc. of Forrest be taken down and/or removed because of the usual false narrative "Forrest started the Klan" and BS of that nature.

If only these people, rather than pander for mindless votes, took the time to learn for themselves about what Forrest actually did and didn't do, they could have a better perspective on the man, who obviously is not here to defend himself.

To them I say, leave the man alone, do the research yourselves, and form an actual educated opinion once you are through, and never assume anything, simple as that.

 

[diane]

And how would that affect whether or not Forrest was deserving of more or less contempt?

 

[Yankeedave]

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

 

[Yankeedave]

Me got from him since i be yankeedave. taught me respect.

 

[cash]

Exactly, since you continue to try to sidestep and avoid the question--all while introducing more red herrings.

 

[Reb]

While on the subject of the Klan Was not Ohio, Indiana and Maryland, the one, two, three states with the highest klan membership?

You are mistaking the first ideation of the klan with later copycat versions. The original klan was disbanded. Anything that happened in later versions has zero to do with the first klan.

 

[Reb]

So you do know a little something about the Klan, good for you. The first bunch were for the most part, vigilante and the second bunch mostly a homegrown version of the Nazis.

There would have been no klan if there had been no Brownlow's gang of scalliwags or carpet baggers. You use the term vigilante. Please explain to all of us here, how receptive the post war "Authorities" were to the grievances of ex-Confederates, Southern sympathizers, or their families. You can only kick a dog so long before it bites back. What other recourse did they have? They certainly weren't going to get a fair shake from the people sent to punish and plunder them.

 

[Yankeedave]

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

 

[cash]

There would have been no klan if there had been no Brownlow's gang of scalliwags or carpet baggers. You use the term vigilante. Please explain to all of us here, how receptive the post war "Authorities" were to the grievances of ex-Confederates, Southern sympathizers, or their families. You can only kick a dog so long before it bites back. What other recourse did they have? They certainly weren't going to get a fair shake from the people sent to punish and plunder them.

That's just ridiculous nonsense.

What did Brownlow have to do with the KKK in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, or Mississippi?

 

[Reb]

The first Klan was based entirely in the former slave states and targeted blacks, Northerners, and Southern Unionists.

You paint with a broad brush and your use of terms shows a Northern bias The klan targeted scalawags and carpetbaggers. Not all Northerners were carpetbaggers. Northerners who stayed up North weren't targets. Blacks who were not associated with scalawags and carpetbaggers were not targeted. In fact, there were blacks who supported the klan. You can read about them. I have read many documented cases including some that were mentioned in Congressional testimony.

 

[diane]

Exactly, since you continue to try to sidestep and avoid the question--all while introducing more red herrings.

Well, let's toast a nice bun and get some tartar sauce - and while we're munching on these red herrings let's go all the way back to the OP.

Who is 'we'? Why does the article's author want to present facts/evidence in such a way as to add to whatever contempt 'we' ought to feel for N B Forrest? Why should anyone feel more? Or any? Is it really all about the klan, Ft Pillow, slave trading, being a Confederate...all these things a lot of other people were as well? Why not feel more contempt for John B Gordon, for instance? Klansman with a capital k. Didn't Billy Mahone's men massacre surrendering colored troops at the Crater? Didn't John Hunt Morgan make some money for his operations selling slaves? In short - why Forrest? He's no more guilty than any of the rest of them. Could it be the same reason Sherman gets hit for marching through Georgia but not for tearing up Mississippi - several times! - and Tennessee? That's what's at the bottom of any and almost all controversy about Forrest, or Sherman. These two men represent something else that they pretty much have next to nothing to do with.

 

[cash]

Well, let's toast a nice bun and get some tartar sauce - and while we're munching on these red herrings let's go all the way back to the OP.

Who is 'we'? Why does the article's author want to present facts/evidence in such a way as to add to whatever contempt 'we' ought to feel for N B Forrest? Why should anyone feel more? Or any? Is it really all about the klan, Ft Pillow, slave trading, being a Confederate...all these things a lot of other people were as well? Why not feel more contempt for John B Gordon, for instance? Klansman with a capital k. Didn't Billy Mahone's men massacre surrendering colored troops at the Crater? Didn't John Hunt Morgan make some money for his operations selling slaves? In short - why Forrest? He's no more guilty than any of the rest of them. Could it be the same reason Sherman gets hit for marching through Georgia but not for tearing up Mississippi - several times! - and Tennessee? That's what's at the bottom of any and almost all controversy about Forrest, or Sherman. These two men represent something else that they pretty much have next to nothing to do with.

I note yet another dodge.

 

[diane]

I note yet another dodge.

Oh, that would be you! C'mon, tell me what you think is really at the bottom of the article.

 

[Yankeedave]

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.

 

[Pat Young]

You paint with a broad brush and your use of terms shows a Northern bias The klan targeted scalawags and carpetbaggers. Not all Northerners were carpetbaggers. Northerners who stayed up North weren't targets. Blacks who were not associated with scalawags and carpetbaggers were not targeted. In fact, there were blacks who supported the klan. You can read about them. I have read many documented cases including some that were mentioned in Congressional testimony.

Yeah, sure.