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

Thank you. Do you have actual quotes from the text that demonstrate this? I have this book on my backburner so I’ll read for myself in the future but would appreciate the quotes.
You really just need to read the whole section to get the gist of what the author is conveying, but one section, on page 343, is indicative. Forrest made the statement that he had disbanded the Klan after stating he had neve been a member or knew anyone who was in it, and the Congressmen were understandably wondering how we was able to disband an organization in which he was not a member.
 
Regardless of what the morals of the " world " was in your opinion in 1860 and how out of step you feel the South was, it changes not a thing. It was still legal, it was still the cultural norm of a large percentage of the slave holding and border states of which people such as NBF were raised with and yes NBF prospered because of the legality of that institution. To blame him or hold him in " contempt " for a legal business venture albeit a venture frowned upon in some circles then and a vast majority now is an endeavor, yet again to hold him to a modern-day standard. No matter how it's dressed up it don't historically fly.
And he was stricken with poverty by that same institution that prospered him was abolished, and that's poetic justice and everything to do with the law. Who is holding him for contempt on a legal business? Are all businesses moral if they are legal? Is there justice in all legal businesses? He supposedly repented for being a slave owner so evidently he thought it was wrong even though it was legal. All through this thread members insisted that NBF became an abolitionist at the end of his life. Therefore, he held himself in contempt for being a slave trader, and that's the complete opposite of holding him to modern day standards. Here's part of a quote from one your Lost Cause compadres in post # 161: "He strongly denounced slavery after the war and offered he would fight any man who tried to bring it back. He declared it a failed system." Here's another quote from post #161: "He advocated the passage of the 13th Amendment. This can be found in his Congressional testimony." That's if you believe anything he said in his Congressional testimony? Going by his testimony NBF would have disagreed with you, he thought slavery was wrong no matter if it was legal. He thought that could historically fly. Using the legality of something to promote ethics as subjective is rather dubious thinking.
Regardless of the morals of the world it was still legal??? Talk about dressing something up. Talk about having a penchant for immorality. Whoa.
Being a man of considerable ability Forrest would have risen high even if slavery was not present.
Really? The historical record disagrees with you. NBF failed at a railroad venture after slavery ended? Evidently, he didn't have much ability outside of selling slaves. Therefore, His so-called considerable ability did not compel him to rise above slavery, at least from the historical records it didn't. Prove it. Never mind, it was the Yankees fault...
There's not much evidence that places Forrest as head of the klan or even as a member. I seem to recall a newspaper article (a Cincinnati paper?) and some account written nearly 50 years after the events described. But for some that's enough to put the klan label on ole Forrest even when we have his own sworn testimony to the contrary.
You seem to "recall" a newspaper article, but you are not too sure? lol. What does his own sworn testimony prove? You have a guy who owned slaves, fought earnestly against the USA to keep them enslaved who could have had no qualms about committing perjury. I'm quite sure his testimony never held much weight back then, nor now. Sorry, but the evidence points in the direction he perjured himself.
 
You seem to "recall" a newspaper article, but you are not too sure? lol. What does his own sworn testimony prove? You have a guy who owned slaves, fought earnestly against the USA to keep them enslaved who could have had no qualms about committing perjury. I'm quite sure his testimony never held much weight back then, nor now. Sorry, but the evidence points in the direction he perjured himself.
I doubt that Forrest had any direct involvement with the klan. Think of it- a former Confederate general, the "butcher of Fort Pillow" is going to give the federal government more reason to go after him? He knew those in the klan and no doubt had some influence with them but leader of the klan? Not likely.
 
I doubt that Forrest had any direct involvement with the klan. Think of it- a former Confederate general, the "butcher of Fort Pillow" is going to give the federal government more reason to go after him? He knew those in the klan and no doubt had some influence with them but leader of the klan? Not likely.

Prove it. I dig what you are saying but provide the evidence. So far, all you said you seem to recall a newspaper article that described the events. What does that prove? Now you are giving a theory to why he would not be the head or a member of the Klan without evidence. What likely is that he committed perjury.
 
Prove it. I dig what you are saying but provide the evidence. So far, all you said you seem to recall a newspaper article that described the events. What does that prove? Now you are giving a theory to why he would not be the head or a member of the Klan without evidence. What likely is that he committed perjury.
That's my point - newspapers said he was the head of the klan. Newspapers. Along with an article written 50 years after the events described.
 
That's my point - newspapers said he was the head of the klan. Newspapers. Along with an article written 50 years after the events described.

I never quite looked into his Klan membership, but how in the world did he get the title of Grand Wizard of the Klan or whatever they called it? Someone just made that story up? I sincerely don't know..
 
I'm sure Forrest knew what was going on he was not some babe in the wood.

However without evidence to prove he was a member then we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Truth? Facts? Evidence? You need to remember what year it is. Those things don’t matter anymore and your guilty until proven innocent.

But since this is the maligned Forrest we’re talking about, defending him will one day get you cancelled. Chinese style.
 
And he was stricken with poverty by that same institution that prospered him was abolished, and that's poetic justice and everything to do with the law. Who is holding him for contempt on a legal business? Are all businesses moral if they are legal? Is there justice in all legal businesses? He supposedly repented for being a slave owner so evidently he thought it was wrong even though it was legal. All through this thread members insisted that NBF became an abolitionist at the end of his life. Therefore, he held himself in contempt for being a slave trader, and that's the complete opposite of holding him to modern day standards. Here's part of a quote from one your Lost Cause compadres in post # 161: "He strongly denounced slavery after the war and offered he would fight any man who tried to bring it back. He declared it a failed system." Here's another quote from post #161: "He advocated the passage of the 13th Amendment. This can be found in his Congressional testimony." That's if you believe anything he said in his Congressional testimony? Going by his testimony NBF would have disagreed with you, he thought slavery was wrong no matter if it was legal. He thought that could historically fly. Using the legality of something to promote ethics as subjective is rather dubious thinking.
Regardless of the morals of the world it was still legal??? Talk about dressing something up. Talk about having a penchant for immorality. Whoa.

Really? The historical record disagrees with you. NBF failed at a railroad venture after slavery ended? Evidently, he didn't have much ability outside of selling slaves. Therefore, His so-called considerable ability did not compel him to rise above slavery, at least from the historical records it didn't. Prove it. Never mind, it was the Yankees fault...

You seem to "recall" a newspaper article, but you are not too sure? lol. What does his own sworn testimony prove? You have a guy who owned slaves, fought earnestly against the USA to keep them enslaved who could have had no qualms about committing perjury. I'm quite sure his testimony never held much weight back then, nor now. Sorry, but the evidence points in the direction he perjured himself.
He proved his ability as both a successful slave trader and as a field commander. A lot of successful people fail in business, Grant being one.
 
Truth? Facts? Evidence? You need to remember what year it is. Those things don’t matter anymore and your guilty until proven innocent.

But since this is the maligned Forrest we’re talking about, defending him will one day get you cancelled. Chinese style.
Forrest was not a nice guy to be blunt his upbringing made him as hard as nails with a don't suffer fools lightly attitude as with many self made men of low birth they become snobbish and arrogant.

I have no doubt at the time of the hearings Forrest would have known 100s of clan members some had probably served with him and many still held to the ideas of the Confederacy holding a deep grudge to what had happened to the South.

What we can say is Forrest was in command at Fort Pillow and allowed or did not stop the massacre of a number of Black US soldiers that's pretty much a given did he order the slaughter we do not know but it gives a good indication Forrest at the time was extremely violent to Blacks serving with US troops.

If Forrest was a clan member of not he certainly was not going to give up those that were and in return they would never reveal him to be a member or not.

Forrest was lucky he never stood trial for war crimes however I believe the public thirst for blood was satisfied with the hanging of Champ Ferguson and bringing a LT General to trial might have been a step to far for the North imho.
 
.... part of a quote from one your Lost Cause compadres in post # 161: "He strongly denounced slavery after the war and offered he would fight any man who tried to bring it back. He declared it a failed system." Here's another quote from post #161: "He advocated the passage of the 13th Amendment. This can be found in his Congressional testimony." That's if you believe anything he said in his Congressional testimony?.....
Sherman could have used someone who could read Forrest' mind like you. LOL But seriously you should have done better than when you read my mind and decided I was someone's Lost Cause compadre. I know that you intended to dismiss any disagreement in this discussion but I am not lost.

Forrest was an abolitionist at the end of the war. He admitted that he had been wrong about slavery. He never admitted that his role in the war was wrong.

Forrest lied to the Congressional committee in response to some questions. He denied knowledge that he certainly had.

Forrest was not the founder of the Klan but he was a member and leader for several months between 1867 and 1869. During this time the political wing of the Klan was successful in regaining control of some state governments from Republicans. He did seek to disband the Klan and later turned on it completely.

Forrest experienced great success and terrible failure during Reconstruction in his business endeavors.

Forrest has long been a flashpoint in cultural wars and various people use him to promote their agendas. This started even before the end of the war and continues even now. The agendas have varied over the last 150 years.

People exploit Forrest by grossly over simplifying the man and when necessary spin facts and even make up lies. This is not restricted to one side or group for even though there are fans and detractors their ends have changed over time.

How many lies do you know that have been told on old Bedford over the years?
 
Sherman could have used someone who could read Forrest' mind like you. LOL But seriously you should have done better than when you read my mind and decided I was someone's Lost Cause compadre. I know that you intended to dismiss any disagreement in this discussion but I am not lost.

Forrest was an abolitionist at the end of the war. He admitted that he had been wrong about slavery. He never admitted that his role in the war was wrong.

Forrest lied to the Congressional committee in response to some questions. He denied knowledge that he certainly had.

Forrest was not the founder of the Klan but he was a member and leader for several months between 1867 and 1869. During this time the political wing of the Klan was successful in regaining control of some state governments from Republicans. He did seek to disband the Klan and later turned on it completely.

Forrest experienced great success and terrible failure during Reconstruction in his business endeavors.

Forrest has long been a flashpoint in cultural wars and various people use him to promote their agendas. This started even before the end of the war and continues even now. The agendas have varied over the last 150 years.

People exploit Forrest by grossly over simplifying the man and when necessary spin facts and even make up lies. This is not restricted to one side or group for even though there are fans and detractors their ends have changed over time.

How many lies do you know that have been told on old Bedford over the years?
I would give you two likes for this post if I could.

It’s not just that Forrest is my favorite CW general, it’s more that people keep spouting falsehoods about him…either out of ignorance or out of following some narrative. Usually the latter. This comes from posters here who show an aptitude for getting knowledge “right” when it’s about a dude from their side but when it comes to NBF they not only get it wrong, but continue to push lies. This is not ignorance, it’s straight up disingenuousness. And it’s plain as day.
 
Last edited:
Forrest put on a uniform and risked his life in open combat, and Sherman and Grant respected his ability. I think they respected him enough to give him a warning. He could either quit the klan or suffer the fate of Van Dorn. There would not be due process. Its always been my supposition that Forrest took the warning to heart and had a change of heart. His wife helped him.
 
Sherman could have used someone who could read Forrest' mind like you. LOL But seriously you should have done better than when you read my mind and decided I was someone's Lost Cause compadre. I know that you intended to dismiss any disagreement in this discussion but I am not lost.

Forrest was an abolitionist at the end of the war. He admitted that he had been wrong about slavery. He never admitted that his role in the war was wrong.

Forrest lied to the Congressional committee in response to some questions. He denied knowledge that he certainly had.

Forrest was not the founder of the Klan but he was a member and leader for several months between 1867 and 1869. During this time the political wing of the Klan was successful in regaining control of some state governments from Republicans. He did seek to disband the Klan and later turned on it completely.

Forrest experienced great success and terrible failure during Reconstruction in his business endeavors.

Forrest has long been a flashpoint in cultural wars and various people use him to promote their agendas. This started even before the end of the war and continues even now. The agendas have varied over the last 150 years.

People exploit Forrest by grossly over simplifying the man and when necessary spin facts and even make up lies. This is not restricted to one side or group for even though there are fans and detractors their ends have changed over time.

How many lies do you know that have been told on old Bedford over the years?
Lies or Truths its a fine line when dealing with historical figures.

Fort Pillow is a prime example of some people denying or dismissing the eye witness accounts as Northern Propaganda even when a Confederate serving with Forrest confirms the massacre directly after it happened its simply dismissed by the Forrest mob as lies and untruths.

Quote:

Two days after the battle Achilles V. Clark, a Confederate soldier, wrote his sister a letter about what he witnessed in the fight. Clark stated: " 'The poor deluded negroes would run up to our men fall upon their knees and with uplifted hands scream for mercy but they were ordered to their feet and then shot down. The white men fared but little better. Their fort turned out to be a great slaughter pen—blood human blood stood about in pools and brains could have been gathered up in any quantity. I with several others tried to stop the butchery and at one point had partially succeeded—but Gen. Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs and the carnage continued.' "


Its also interesting that nobody ever mentions Forrest a Paducah where he threatens the garrison with no quarter if they didn't surrender this was 4 months before Pillow but is completely ignored or brushed off by his idolizers.

Facts but ignored how else should we judge history?.
 
I have read about Paducah and Union City. Both played a part into Fort Pillow. Confederates claimed after the battle that they were threatened with no quarter if they made the assault.

Quote:

Sir, I have this moment received yours of this instant, in which you demand the unconditional surrender of forces under my command. I can answer that I have been placed here by the government to defend this post, and in this as well as all other orders from my superiors, I feel it to be my duty as an honorable officer to obey. I must, therefore, respectfully decline surrendering as you may require."

End Quote

At what point was this threat made by the Union Garrison? And by who? It certainly was not Hick's.
 
Someone once said, “War means fighting, fighting means killing”, or some thing like that.

sems like he still had black prisoners.

Do you have the letter or a location when this soldier wrote to his wife?
Brownville

Written in Apr 1864 to one of his sisters the letter is genuine as Clark was a member of the 20th Tennessee.

If in doubt you could also dispute.

A surgeon of the Sixteenth Tennessee Cavalry, Samuel H. Caldwell, wrote in a letter to his wife that the battle had been a slaughter in which the Confederates were enraged by the refusal of the Union garrison to surrender.

Caldwell unlike Clark spares his wife the gory details.
 
Forrest didn’t want to go to Pillow at all. His men were mostly from that area and complained about the how the Union Soldiers were treating their women folk. His men talked him into going to fort pillow. Also the occupants of the Fort called out “ No quarter” if you attack.
I don’t doubt one bit about there being a bloody mess. The sharp shooters were doing the most of that before the attack.

Be careful with blogs. Stick to the books.
 
Forrest put on a uniform and risked his life in open combat, and Sherman and Grant respected his ability. I think they respected him enough to give him a warning. He could either quit the klan or suffer the fate of Van Dorn. There would not be due process.
Link?

Its always been my supposition that Forrest took the warning to heart and had a change of heart. His wife helped him.
Too many of those about him bandied about.
 
Quote:

Sir, I have this moment received yours of this instant, in which you demand the unconditional surrender of forces under my command. I can answer that I have been placed here by the government to defend this post, and in this as well as all other orders from my superiors, I feel it to be my duty as an honorable officer to obey. I must, therefore, respectfully decline surrendering as you may require."

End Quote

At what point was this threat made by the Union Garrison? And by who? It certainly was not Hick's.
I think he is referring to Fort Pillow where during a truce the garrison threatened the Confederates with "no quarter."

A Union officer of one of the black companies reported that his troops vowed "never to surrender or ask for quarter."
 
Back
Top