Article on Forrest.

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
They oppose him so vehemently because of the reasons people defend him, and the things they seem to blithely overlook.

The argument invariably goes something like this:

Forrest admirer: He was a self-made man. He was poor and uneducated and made a fortune.
Forrest opponent: Uh yeah, but his success was based on being a slave trader.

That's not opposing him because of the reasons people defend him, though. In your example, in order to oppose him because of the reasons people defend him, the opponent would say they opposed him because he was a self-made man.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
All this was going on during reconstruction as well, so he kinda had to play nice. He died just as it was ending, so we will never know how his policies might have changed once he had free reign to do as he pleased (in daylight)

The reason he was in the KKK was he didn't want to play nice. Once they had "redeemed" Tennessee he had achieved his objectives. Reconstruction was over in Tennessee pretty early. He had control of his little area.
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Near Kankakee
Such division, drove Forrest's life. And now, the legacy lives in death.

You either love him or hate him. Reading a couple biographies of him, I take the Shelby Foote stance about NBF.
No. I neither love him nor hate him. He was a very interesting historical figure.

He was neither the knight in shining armor nor the devil in disguise. But he was very good at what he did militarily: nobody moved until they knew where Forrest was.
 

dlofting

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canada
It's also important to note that one person's hero is another person's villain.....we admire different things and different qualities in people. On the other hand some people can overlook a certain fault when others can't or won't.

One of the posts mentioned Napoleon who is a perfect example, IMO. If you're reading British history then he's pretty much painted as a villain, but if you read French history (or visit his tomb in Paris), he's revered.....same man, same history from a factual perspective, but viewed quite differently.
 

Diana9

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Location
Southern California
The question would better be 'What would Forrest have accomplished?" Sherman lived another 30 years longer than Forrest.

Sherman's accomplishments were during the war. Nothing in the quote I posted refers to anything he did after the war. He had a few military appointments, then retired on a pension, traveled with his wife, wrote his memoirs, and was invited to speak at various functions. Meanwhile Forrest was back at making money off the backs of other people's labor on President's Island.

He wasn't shot up and half-crippled by war injuries. (Although he had trouble with his mashed hand from Shiloh all his life.) The war made Sherman, it broke Forrest. Sherman had little in the old wallet when the war started; Forrest was worth a million and a half. After the war, Forrest was opening his wallet to let the flies out; Sherman was worth more than a million. Like Henry Heth told Cump, if it hadn't been for the war he'd be teaching school in a Louisiana swamp!

How did Sherman make a million dollars? After the war, he would give his last $500 to one of his soldiers who came to ask for his help, then try to explain to a creditor why he couldn't pay his bill.

By the way, that's a great quote. Sherman did do that, with a little help from his friends. :smile:

Credit where credit is due. :smile:
 

suzenatale

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 25, 2013
At least he didn't hit his wife.
Maybe not his wife but probably hit on the gal he fathered a child with. *sarcasm*
The comment about "hit his wife." Is that an allusion to Chamberlain?
It's not certain that ever happened.

Edit:
By the way I don't know that the first thing is true either, in case that part wasn't clear.

Now that I've calmed down, I know it's a joke and all at Chamberlain's expense, and that's fine.
I'm not sure if others were aware of that. Hopefully they where.
I should like to try to explain how that comment could be misconstrued. Not that you meant this, but we were talking about Forrest being a slave trader, probably beating woman of African decent, separating families. And you say, at least he didn't hit his wife. I probably don't need to explain it anymore beyond that point.
 
Last edited:

Nathanb1

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Location
Smack dab in the heart of Texas
And there you have my problem with this whole bunch of blarney. None of us knows exactly what's true. Unless you have been given some special dispensation to look into men's souls--none of whom you are personally acquainted with--I'd suggest we all look at what they did do. That "probably" word makes me gag--no matter who it's used for.

As Cash suggested, science, no mumbo jumbo, is called for. You calm down all you want. I even suggest you stick to your Chamberlain fan pages, since they give you so much pleasure, and you obviously haven't a clue about anything else that went on during the war.

Have a good day.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
And there you have my problem with this whole bunch of blarney. None of us knows exactly what's true. Unless you have been given some special dispensation to look into men's souls--none of whom you are personally acquainted with--I'd suggest we all look at what they did do. That "probably" word makes me gag--no matter who it's used for.

As Cash suggested, science, no mumbo jumbo, is called for. You calm down all you want. I even suggest you stick to your Chamberlain fan pages, since they give you so much pleasure, and you obviously haven't a clue about anything else that went on during the war.

Have a good day.

I think that's a bit unfair. She's mentioned visiting Franklin to learn more about some Western Theater stuff, and if I recall correctly she was a researcher for the History Channel back when they actually did history. She does have an in-depth knowledge of Chamberlain, but there's nothing wrong with that.

But in many threads across many topics, not just Forrest and Chamberlain, I think we all ought to be reminded of the words of a noted historian: "Never fall in love with dead people."
 
Last edited:

Nathanb1

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Location
Smack dab in the heart of Texas
Cash, to answer your post.....seemed like a pretty good monkey pile last night. It's over. If we can't discuss these figures dispassionately without 1) Throwing in terms like "makes my nose wrinkle" and insinuation of stars in one's eyes, plus reporting rumor and not fact....along with a bunch blarney....and 2) then come out with "I didn't know about....." but in two seconds I've made up my mind.

That's not research. That's childish.
 

Nathanb1

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Location
Smack dab in the heart of Texas
One more thing. Is anyone here so saintly they propose to know what's in men's souls? I, for one, am not. I leave that up to God. I guess when we pass over and meet Larry at the pearly gates, we'll know for sure. Till then, I'm keeping speculation to myself.

And if I don't get there and I meet THAT GUY, well, I'll know for sure, won't I?

Till then, let's stick to the facts and leave the speculation to those with feathers sprouting from their wings.
 

Nathanb1

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Location
Smack dab in the heart of Texas
To answer the request for a good book--and one of his most interesting battles, I highly recommend Ed Bearss' book on Brice's Crossroads. Well done (of course) and a thorough analysis. I love reading Bearss' work (his were some of the first articles I read in the military journals) so it's a real treat for me. Nice, consise, and factual.
 
Top