1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Just who was N.B. Forrest and what did he stand for?

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by gafinfan, Jun 27, 2009.

Tags:
  1. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    Myths of Nathan Bedford Forrest

    http://www.nathanbedfordforrest.net/index.htm

    A speech given to a civil rights group "Jubilee of Pole Bearers" on July 5, 1875

    http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/122906/opl_7020282.shtml

    It seems the General has been falsely smeared just to keep the pot stirred.:wink2::up:
     
    Ducken, Boik14, adamprez2003 and 2 others like this.
  2. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    I remember a story about him calling some Confederate General (Bragg I believe) he was under a bastard and a scoundrel and that he would kill him if he ever had a chance; I always thought that was funny.

    Honestly other than that I don't know much about him other than he is considered by some as the first Grand Wizard of the KKK (which because it is so disputed I won't judge, but if he was then any respect I have for him goes down the drain).

    So I'm not arguing here GA, so no need to embarass me. Oh and thanks for giving some life back to this forum again and you know the CW topics can bring that along. :wink2:

    You just didn't pick the right topic to get me to bite on. :up:
     
    Boik14 likes this.
  3. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    I know just what you mean and the main reason I posted this in the first place. There are the wisperers who would bring anyone down, it matters not who that person might be, just the thought of their goodness is enough to bring down the hammer of judgment.:wink2:

    I'll put my faith in congress on this one because they wanted blood yet were unable to find any on both counts of his "so called" misdeeds.

    SO:

    And as for the KKK thing:

    P.S. Sorry I'll try and do better next time.:lol::yes: How about Jeff Davis, that awful "non" person?:shifty::hi5:
     
    Boik14, sking29 and azfinfanmang like this.
  4. azfinfanmang

    azfinfanmang Premium Member Luxury Box

    29,745
    11,512
    0
    Nov 23, 2007
    Thanks for the education brother.
    I LOVE it when I exit a thread being smarter than I was going into it :up:
     
    Boik14 and gafinfan like this.
  5. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    GA is good for doing that. :up:
     
    Boik14, adamprez2003 and gafinfan like this.
  6. Boik14

    Boik14 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    75,100
    37,589
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    Hmm, a humane slave owner. Oxymoron, anyone?

    In all seriousness, I applaud the foresight to have some interest of the families he reunited and treated better then everyone else. But being the best slave owner isn't a real compliment.
     
    gafinfan likes this.
  7. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    WADR if you are judging from todays standards then you might have a leg to stand on but judging from where he stood I would put him far ahead of the curve.

    Let me ask you this seriously, in your opinion, who is the better person the one who sees a problem and says its wrong but does nothing else or the person who sees that same problem and does his best to correct it by taking action?
     
    Boik14 likes this.
  8. Boik14

    Boik14 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    75,100
    37,589
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    I dont put him far ahead of anything. A slave owner still owns slaves whether he's humane towards them or not. Whether he was nice or not they were still property, not equals. There were free African Americans in this country even prior to the civil war; not many, but some.

    How did he correct the problem by still owning slaves? He didn't suddenly free them until he felt he was going to die. Lets not make him in to something he isnt. He's not a hero nor should he be viewed as one. He may have been nicer and more hospitable then the rest of the slave owners but he was by no means ahead of the curve. Its more like everyone else was really that far behind the curve. :up:
     
    gafinfan likes this.
  9. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    There were about 10 % (over 500,000) of the African Americans in this country who were free split almost 50-50 North and South in 1860 (with a few 1000 more in the South). Most of the slaves were in the South by then, of course, but you have several blots, if you will, on those newly non slave owners in the North. Did they free their slaves? Sadly enough no they did not, they sold them to Southerners who would buy them. One other non talked about issue of slavery is that of those African Americans who were free in the South 28% owned slaves themselves. In point of fact 2 of the largest slave owners in the South were Black and each owned over 150 slaves: A woman outside of New Orleans and a man outside of Charlston.

    IMHO the issue is not so cut and dry as it appears today. If that fact were true then we would have never had slavery to begin with, don't you think? I'm not trying to paint our ancestors as angels or demons, they were a product of their times, no more no less, just as we are today. I will be willing to bet 150 years from now we will be looked at with the same judgemental eye as we judge those of 150 years ago. I wonder just what names they will call us?:wink2::shifty:
     
    Boik14 likes this.
  10. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    :jt0323:
     
    gafinfan likes this.
  11. unluckyluciano

    unluckyluciano For My Hero JetsSuck

    53,333
    23,006
    0
    Dec 7, 2007
    It doesn't matter IMO, you can not be considered progressive and still own slaves because you didn't beat them. Especially given the fact that more then likely the slaves would have no place to go anyways.
     
    Boik14 likes this.
  12. Boik14

    Boik14 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    75,100
    37,589
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    There's no way the figure of free blacks could have been that high. How can you be free when you aren't allowed to be literate and in most states couldnt own land or anything else for that matter? Even the free ones were dependent on doing the work that slaves do to get paid because that was the only skill they were allowed to have.

    Youre right that issue is not as cut and dry as it appears now. The need for cheap labor to help with agriculture was a necessity then. However the way we went about it as a country certainly left a lot to be desired. :wink2:
     
    gafinfan likes this.
  13. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    Those figures are from the US 1860 census, I didn't pull them out of my hat.:wink2:

    Couldn't agree with you more.:up:

    From his speech to the civil rights group meeting he was invited to speak to in 1875, link above:

    Sounds pretty progressive to me, better than some things I've read here.:wink2:
     
  14. unluckyluciano

    unluckyluciano For My Hero JetsSuck

    53,333
    23,006
    0
    Dec 7, 2007
    He spoke like he was progressive, but he still owned slaves, therefore he was not progressive. not to mention he was part of the confederacy, which all reasons aside, if he had helped succeed, would have guaranteed the inequality of the blacks. It would be the equivalent to me speaking before glad, saying I think they deserve no different then straight families, then voting against a gay marriage act, or supporting a candidate who didnt support such an act.
     
    Boik14 likes this.
  15. Boik14

    Boik14 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    75,100
    37,589
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    By no means am i saying you made the figures up bro. I respect you too much to say that. I am saying though those figures aren't legit because less then 500,000 African Americans were actually literate and or owned land. You couldn't be free back then if you couldn't read and write or own land; how would you support yourself when agriculture and literature (or professions that involved being literate) were pretty much the two biggest industries after slavery. Not to mention the fact blacks couldn't own anything in most states. Isn't the ability to own land and possessions part of being free?

    While Forrest was better then his neighbors, being the best of the worst doesn't really make you any good. :wink2:
     
  16. cnc66

    cnc66 wiley veteran, bad spelur Luxury Box

    31,582
    17,137
    0
    Nov 23, 2007
    Get 'em skeered and keep the skeer on 'em
     
    gafinfan likes this.
  17. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    GA and I discussed the numbers in another thread and here was my break down via the post link:

    http://forums.thephins.com/showpost.php?p=728334&postcount=10

    Actually that whole thread "Why Was The Civil War Fought" discussed this quite a bit. It may be useful or it may not, just referencing it. :up:

    GA and I agreed in the end. :yes:
     
    gafinfan and Boik14 like this.
  18. Boik14

    Boik14 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    75,100
    37,589
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    Not everything there is entirely accurate. 100% of blacks in the north were not free. Certain northern states did allow slavery though it was frowned upon.

    Also how can you be free when you arent equals? Whites didnt have to put up with this kind of stuff: "In the South free blacks had curfews and restrictions against purchasing alcohol and firearms. They were not allowed to testify in a court case against a white person. In Florida and Georgia free men had to report to white guardians periodically. All of these laws and codes were designed to keep African Americans in a subordinate role in US society. Most free blacks, denied the education and opportunities open to whites, lived in poverty. "
     
    gafinfan likes this.
  19. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    Well yeah if you want to get picky about it states like Delaware, Maryland, and other border states that were later in the Union were slave states as of the 1860 census. Perhaps I should have phrased it "free states" or something similar or better yet I may have misunderstood you entirely. :wink2:
     
    Boik14 likes this.
  20. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    I remember from reading his biography in grade school, the quote attributed to him: "get there fustest with the mostest."
    I always thought the South had the better leaders overall, but the North had the manpower and manufacturing base to wear them down, which they eventually did.
    The page says he was the greatest American cavalry leader. I guess that is somewhat subjective and could be true. Was he better than John Mosby or JEB Stuart? Or was he better than George Custer, who whipped Stuart at Gettysburg? Or does the LBH debacle taint Custer's legacy enough that he could never be rated the greatest?

    Some folks may say the greatest American cavalry leader ever was Crazy Horse.
     
  21. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    To be totally honest about it; the South started out farther along than the North when it came to Cavalry as those Southern boys grew up shooting and riding. Plus it was their ground that most of the fighting was done.

    Later on, what with better mounts and equipment those Northern boys got better, superior numbers tend to do that!:yes:
     
  22. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    Do you think NBF was the best cavalry commander ever, like that web page says? Good arguments could be made for Mosby too.

    I think Stonewall was the South's best general in every way. Lee I read never won another major battle after the death of Jackson.
     
  23. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    I think so, and why? Because Forrest remained effective thruout the war with a less than equal number of men and mounts. Remember in the end its not about your equipment but how effective you are in using what you have ...... and taking care of it. BTW Which could be great lead in to Custer and LBH.

    Jackson's greatest strength was in surprise and command on the fly. In fact I rate him and George Patton as our two greatest field leaders. If you look at their rise and fall they are so much alike it is scary, to me! Mustangs (in their thinking) both, not very good as paper pushers or peacetime leaders. Hard on fellow officers, love the common solder with a passion, put bravery under fire as the true measure of young officers, and inspired loyalty that was unmatched.

    Two stories about Stonewall you may be unaware of: 1. He would not even let his commanders know his plan of action before a battle, the only General north or south to never have his plan fall into enemy hands! and 2. Once during a lull Lee called a staff meeting over lunch, Jackson went to sleep under the staff table. Lee would not allow Jackson to be disturbed, they ate in silence.
     

Share This Page