# Georgia Flag Debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2001, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359 "2001-01-30T03:42:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/81 "2001-02-07T07:52:08Z")
Cap- I think that forrest would love it- but that is just MHO. Spoke- a few more facts about your “greatest tactician” & great general- who campaigned so much in Tenn that it is Ok that he has more monuments to him than any other person is any other state. His 'campaigns in Tenn"- there were several important battles in/for Tenn (Per “Battle History of the Civil War”)- Chattanuaga, Chickamunga, Knoxville and the siege of Knoxville. NBF was not mentioned as having any part in any of these. He did “skirmish” at Chattanuaga. The important Generals who commanded in Tenn were: Hardee, Polk, AS Johnson, Longstreet & Hood. All fairly well known Generals- but NBF has more monuments than all of them all together, from what I can figure from Loewen. And there was a Confederate “Army of Tennessee”- which was commanded by two of those generals- but never NBF. Why then Forrest? Why not Longstreet? Or Hood? or Polk? Well, none of them ever: killed 200 negro soldiers who had surrendered, blew a negro prisoners brains out for insisting he was a “free man” or was the first National leader of the KKK. If not for those “qualifications”- in my mind NBF would be as well known as Gen. Leadbetter or Cleburn- who also commanded in Tenn. As far as NBF being a “good general” and “the greatest tactician” of the war- he commanded at just one major battle- Tupelo- where he got his “greatest tactician” butt whupped by a 3rd rate yankee General. True, the Yankees did outnumber him- but the yankees almost always outnumbered the rebs- no problem for that 'not as good tactician" Lee. His great raids? Well, his greatest was likely in Sept 1869- when he penetrated very deep into yankee territory. The Strategic consequences of that raid? Possibly Hood’s loss to Sherman, as Hood had been counting on Forrest- but he wasn’t there. Oh, and the author does praise NBF as a “brilliant cavalryman” (which I have said all along)- but also called him an “almost illiterate slavetrader”. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/82 "2001-02-07T14:00:25Z")
**Daniel** , _please_, correct your ignorance of Civil War battles and tactics before continuing to argue about it, okay? As a favor to the rest of us? Here is a neutral and (I think) trustworthy source of information for you. It is a site from the [American Battlefield Protection Program](http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/index.htm) of the National Park Service, and contains information on every major battle of the Civil War, listing principle commanders and forces, and giving good summary information. Please look at [the Battle of Tupelo](http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ms015.htm) and notice that the blame for the Confederate loss cannot legitimately be placed on Forrest, but instead resides squarely with Gen’l Stephen Lee (name sound familiar?). While you’re looking at battles, you might pay close attention to [Brice’s Crossroads](http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ms014.htm) and [Memphis](http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/tn031.htm) to get a better feel for the general character of Forrest’s defense of Mississippi. See also [Day’s Gap](http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/al001.htm), [Parker’s Cross Roads](http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/tn011.htm) and [Paducah](http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ky010.htm) for an illustration of the nature of Forrest’s major efforts during the war, which, when not defensive maneuvers, of neccessity and design were harrassment and disruption of Union forces and the Union supply lines, and capture of supplies for the Confederate forces. While this _strategic_ mission was one which could not by its very nature lead to many decisive victories, it was a vital mission nonetheless, and it is Forrest’s tactics and tenacity in his pursuit of this mission which reveal his true genius as a soldier. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/83 "2001-02-07T15:42:53Z")
Some astonishing examples of ignorance right here in this thread: > [@](#): > > there were several important battles in/for Tenn (Per “Battle History of the Civil War”)- Chattanuaga Who wrote this “Battle History of the Civil War?” Where exactly do they locate this “Chattanauga” on a map? (_snicker_) > [@](#): > > Chickamunga. Huh. My map doesn’t show that one either. (_snicker_) > [@](#): > > His great raids? Well, his greatest was likely in Sept 1869 Wow. I’ll bet that one DID grab some headlines. Considering that the war ended in 1865. Imagine the looks on people’s faces when Forrest and his troops came riding into town four years later. **Danielinthewolvesden** , you really should study up a bit before you re-enter this thread. **xenophon41** is right. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/84 "2001-02-07T16:08:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > \*\*[Morrison] has written some 2 dozen US History books, many published by Oxford press. And i am sure that your opinions are very nice and all- but do YOU have a PhD in American History? A Full Professorship at Harvard? 24 books published? And, is your opinion here fact checked & sourced by some another 2 dozen Professors? But you do know enough to dismiss his writings. :rolleyes: > > You know- Loewen is rather controversial, I will admit- but there is no big controversy over the Oxford series, or Prof Morrisons work. \*\* First off, you don’t know my history credentials, so you might want to be cautious about disparaging them. Since you brought it up, I graduated with honors from Duke with a degree in American history. Ph.D.? Nah, but frankly, I don’t think a few extra letters make you any more qualified to offer opinions. Degrees don’t change the facts. And since you continue to hang your hat on Prof. Morison (he spells it with one ‘r’ I believe), I took the time to stroll down to my corner library and review his work. I wanted to see whether his account of the war was as “neutral” and “unbiased” as you claimed. I figured a good place to look would be his description of Sherman’s march. A neutral observer would have to report the depredations that occured on that march, right? Well, according to Morison, Sherman captured Atlanta, and later marched out of it. That’s it. Oddly, no mention of the fact that in the interim he _burned it to the ground_. Gee, was Morison unaware of that fact? Morison goes on to describe the rest of Sherman’s march in heroic terms. Did the union troops do any looting? Morison blames the looting mostly on stray _Confederate_ troops. (!!!) Even more astonishingly, Morison reports that Sherman’s troops committed no “outrages” on women. (!!!) Thank you Professor Pollyanna! Regarding Forrest, he does say (as you report) that Forrest and the other Confederate cavalrymen contributed little to the Confederate cause. He then goes on (apparently by way of contrast) to report glowingly the feats of mounted Federal Dragoons. Well, please pardon me **Daniel** , but this underqualified history major thinks your boy Morison could use a couple dozen more fact-checkers. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/85 "2001-02-07T17:04:58Z")
Well, while I was at the library, I decided to pull a few cites for our buddy **Danielinthewolvesden** : Let’s see, the Historical Times Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Civil War, (_Patricia Faust, Ed._)(Harper & Row, 1986), calls Forrest “the most feared of all Confederate Cavalry leaders,” and mentions his “extraordinary capability as a tactician.” The book goes on to describe Forrest’s victory at [Brice’s Crossroads](http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ms014.htm) as “one of the most humiliating defeats in the history of the United States Army.” (Thanks, xenophon41, for the link.) According to [this site](http://www.ngeorgia.com/people/forrest.html), “[Forrest’s] engagement of Federal troops at Brice’s Crossroads on June 10, 1864 is considered by many the perfect battle.” Were his raids (denigrated by Daniel) important? Well, according to Who Was Who in the Civil War (_Stewart Sifakis_, Facts on File Publications, 1988), Forrest’s raid in West Tennessee in December of 1862 and January of 1863 helped force Grant to abandon his campaign in central Mississippi. (Confirming my earlier point that the war would have been over much sooner without Forrest.) The book also points out that Forrest had 29 horses shot out from under him in combat, and personally killed 31 men in hand-to-hand fighting. Shelby Foote (citing an unnamed pundit) says of Forrest that he was “born to be a soldier the way John Keats was born to be a poet.” Regarding Loewen’s story about Forrest allegedly executing a black captive, **Danielinthewolvesden** says: > [@](#): > > Note to spoke- Loewen may be attacked here by some, but he always gives excellent cites & sources. That story comes from Brian Wills, a biographer of NBF, I beleive in his book- “A Battle from the Start”. Apparently, your boy Loewen’s citations aren’t as “excellent” as you believe. Wills makes no mention of this story, at least not on the page numbers cited by Loewen. I couldn’t find it anywhere in Wills’s book. Another Forrest biographer, Jack Hurst, does mention the story, but seems to regard it as apocryphal. He reports it as a Union general’s third-hand hearsay account. (Hurst, Jack, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Alfred A. Knopf, 1993, p. 103.) Incidentally, these sources also confirm that Forrest offered 45 of his slaves their freedom if they would join him, that they did join him, and that Forrest did in fact grant their freedom before the war ended. Did Forrest make any valuable contributions to the Battle of _Chickamauga_? ( **Daniel** , please note the spelling. Also please note that Chickamauga is in Georgia.) Well, according to [this site](http://www.ngeorgia.com/people/forrest.html), > [@](#): > > During Bragg’s retreat through Tennessee he used Forrest repeatedly as his rear guard. Later, protecting the Confederate right during the battle of Chickamauga he won the accolades of Bragg’s staff when his men dismounted and attacked as infantry, pressuring the Federals to retreat from their position near the creek to one more in line with other Union troops at the LaFayette Road. > > Immediately after the battle it was Forrest who reported the Federals were in full retreat to Chattanooga and the Army of Tennessee should attack, sound advice that Bragg ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/86 "2001-02-07T17:35:41Z")
On the subject of the atrocities committed by Sherman’s troops, there is the story of [Roswell Mill](http://www.ngeorgia.com/county/fulton.html). From that site: > [@](#): > > Men under the command of General Kenner Garrard [a Sherman subordinate] destroyed Roswell Mill and sent the 400 women millworkers north to Indiana shortly after their arrival in July, 1864. The women and female children were sexually assaulted by the Union soldiers near the mill on the morning of July 10, 1864, before their transport to Marietta later in the day. General Hugh Kirkpatrick, Sherman’s “Merchant of Terror” set the entire town of Roswell on fire shortly before leaving in November, 1864. Does that count as an “outrage” against women, **Daniel**? You might want to forward that link to the good folks publishing the Oxford History of the American People to make them aware of this incident. I’m sure they’ll want to include a correction in their next edition. More on the “Roswell women” [here](http://members.aol.com/GrldOhara/RMSCV3.html). Funny how atrocities by _Union_ troops get so little play from historians. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/87 "2001-02-07T21:08:19Z")
It is real mature to attack someone for some spelling errors. Next altho Chickamauga is in GA, I said "important battles in/for Tenn). That battle is considered part of the Tenn campaign, and the Commander of the Army of Tenn defended it. Again- Forrest “skirmished”. He did not command the army- he did not command a wing- he was “just another general”. Why are not the generals who actually COMMANDED there as honored as NBF? Why not the general who commanded the ARMY of TENNESSEE? Yes, it looks like Brices crossroads was a victory for NBF- so what? It was a minor battle, with less than 10000 soldiers fighting. The rest of those “great victories”? Extremely small, unimportant battles, some with less than 1000 men engaged. Oh- and “Days gap” was a UNION victory, by an outnumbered Union Col. NBF commanded a major force in exactly ONE major battle- Tupelo- and he got his ass whupped by a 3rd rate Union general. Blame it on the “other” Lee? Well- but if NBF rarely obeyed orders, why this time? besides- NBF commanded a wing- and his wing did poorly, under his direct command. Maybe the STRATEGIC blunder rests with Lee- but the tactical loss is as much NBF’s fault. The reason, IMHO- this was a actual battle, with large numbers of troops involved. NBF was great- with small forces in raids, not “line up and fight” battles. He had one chance in a major battle with a major force- and he lost- and not to a Grant or a Sherman, either. And why not comment on NBF’s great raid of 1864 (more mature, insult someone for a typo), where, instead af backing up Hood, as he was supposed to, and was expected to- he wenr off raiding, instaed- thus, Hood lost to Sherman. You talk about Shermans supposed 'atrocities"- he could not have done those if Hood has stopped him- and Hood could not stop him, as his Cavalry was out on a raid- without the Commanding Generals approval or knowledge. That is why, altho NBF was, indeed a brilliant small unit cavalry commander- he sucked as a General- as he disobeyed orders, went his own way, and had what appears to be no knowledge of strategy at all. Spoke- you have every right to your opinion. And the fact that you have a lower degree does not make your opinion nessesarily worth less. But you were NOT simply giving YOUR opinon on things- you attacked Morisons work & opinion. At that point in time- it is perfectly legit to compare qualifications- and yours do not match Morisons, I am afraid. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2001, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/88 "2001-02-07T22:59:54Z")
**DITWD** , your last post is a prime example of why you receive so much grief on this MB. I don’t want to give up on you entirely, but I for one am not going to continue to waste my time trying to force-feed you facts about NBF. If you wish to conclude that the only reason there could be so many monuments to Forrest in his home state is because the Southerners who erected them were all racist bastards, have a freakin’ party. Don’t let historical fact and common sense dissuade you. If you’d like some further explanation about why it’s important to research history through a _variety_ of sources, and why historical events and personages should only be judged in the context of their respective time and place, feel free to consult with your SCA seneschal. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/89 "2001-02-08T01:57:24Z")
Regarding the “spelling errors”: Sorry, but “Chattanauga” and “Chickamunga” are pretty egregious errors, for someone trying to present himself as knowledgable about the Civil War. Besides, you’re the one who started talking about academic credentials. People who live in glass houses… > [@](#): > > Again- Forrest “skirmished”. He did not command the army- he did not command a wing- he was “just another general”. Wrong. Forrest’s men comprised the right wing of the Confederate line, a vital position. Sorry, son; Chickamauga was no “skirmish.” > [@](#): > > Oh- and “Days gap” was a UNION victory, by an outnumbered Union Col. Wrong again, Herodotus. The Union sent Col. Abel Straight on a raid into Alabama, the ultimate goal of which was to cut the Western & Atlantic rail line (Bragg’s supply line). Forrest was **outnumbered by more than three to one**. Because of his numerical disadvantage, his task was to conduct a series of “attack and fall back” harrassing actions against the Union raiders. Days Gap was but one in a series of such attacks. Forrest was ultimately successful. He and fewer than 500 of his men managed to bluff nearly 1700 Union troops into surrendering outside Gadsden, Alabama. ([More here.](http://www.ngeorgia.com/history/lightningmule.html)) **The raid failed.** If that ain’t a Confederate victory, what is? > [@](#): > > he sucked as a General **xenophon41** was right. You _are_ aggressively ignorant. After the war Jefferson Davis conceded that Forrest’s exploits were not fully appreciated in Richmond. If they _had_ been appreciated, Forrest would undoubtedly been given a larger command. According to Hurst’s biography (cited above): > [@](#): > > Under the daily influence of Bragg, the Confederate President was doubtless swayed by his fellow West Pointer’s jaundiced views of Forrest’s lack of training, his volatile vanity and penchant for self-promotion, and his difficulty in working under supervision. Such views led Davis to deny Johnston, whom he disliked, the one Confederate in the western theater whose quick and lethal style of work might have obstructed Sherman. –Hurst, Nathan Bedford Forrest (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1993), p. 198. Why aren’t there more markers commemorating Bragg? Maybe because Bragg was a :wally He won a major victory at Chickamauga, but then failed to press the attack on the retreating Union Army. That failure ultimately opened the door for Sherman’s campaign. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/90 "2001-02-08T04:59:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\ ***Daniel** , _please_, correct your ignorance of Civil War battles and tactics before continuing to argue about it, okay? As a favor to the rest of us? > > Here is a neutral and (I think) trustworthy source of information for you. It is a site from the [American Battlefield Protection Program](http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/index.htm) of the National Park Service, and contains information on every major battle of the Civil War, listing principle commanders and forces, and giving good summary information. \*\* Yes, folks, these two fine residents of the deep South are giving me heck about my “ignorance” of the Civil War- and of course, by their lights, I AM 'ignorant"- after all, it is ignorant folks like me & Prof. Morison, who, despite the overwhelming number of Confederate victories, continue to insist the Union actually won the war- ahhh, silly me. Is it just, MAYBE possible, that two residents of Georgia might be a TEEENSY bit biased? Naaahhh. :rolleyes: And the Ad hominem attacks are also VERY mature, thanks guys. I cite reputable sources, and they, instead of assailing the facts- attack the sources, without justification. Spoke has made some very strong claims- but refused to back them up, or back down. My claims- backed up all by cites, or are specifically MHO. I did not say that Chickamauga was a 'skirmish", but Bragg commanded there, not NBF. NBFs role is not mentioned in either book. Again, I ask- why is NBF glorified over the men who actually commanded the Armies? Spoke- you said NBF won the battle of “Days Gap”, and assail my ignorance for thinking otherwise. Well, go to the above cite that Xeno used- and click on “Days Gap”- right there at the bottom, what does it say? “Union victory”- and from your guys OWN cite. And let’s USE that very cite to see how “great” NBF is. Tupelo- NBF only major battle, some 20K of troops- result? NBF loses. Next- Brices- some 10K a troops, not major, but hardly minor battle. Result- “brilliant NBF victory”. Memphis- maybe 1K total troops- so minor as to be insignificant- but again, NBF victory. Days Gap- sdome 2K troops, hardly a big one- considered a Union victory (altho NBF did OK tacticly here, but the Union met their strategic objectives- IMHO that is why it is called a Union victory) Oh, and it LOOKs like NBF outnumbered the Yanks. Parkers- moderate sized- “both sides claimed victory” but the site throw it to the Rebs- let us call that a “contested victory” for NBF. Finally, Paducah- where NBF OUTNUMBERs the yanks some 4 to 1, but only manages to raid supplies, instaed of rooting the badly outnumber Union garrison out. Call that a “tactical victory”- but any commander could have done as well if not better, if he outnumbered the foe 4-1. So, we have 1 major loss, 1 brilliant victory, one insignificant victory, a strategic loss, 1 “contested victory” and finaly another win, but only by brunt of numbers. Gee, what a great record. 1 big win, 1 big loss. :rolleyes: Ok, better than many of the gross incompetents who were on the Union side, but hardly a record to equal Lee’s. My point is, and i think I have shown it to be true- is that ONE of the major reasons for the glorification of the Confederate battle flag- is racism by Southern apologists. And, that that is illustrated by the glorification of a rather minor General, way over his contempories- who also “just happened to be” the first national Leader of the KKK. Does that mean that every one who thinks NBF had some great moments as a cavalry commander is a racist? No, of course not. But his glory FAR outwieghs his importance, and the reason for that can be found at Ft Pillow, and in the hundreds of Black folk killed while NBF was the Leader of the KKK. Can you explain them away? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/91 "2001-02-08T15:35:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Days Gap…the Union met their strategic objectives Well, no. The raid failed when Forrest ultimately captured the Union troops (with a numerically inferior force of Confederates). > [@](#): > > I cite reputable sources, and they, instead of assailing the facts- attack the sources, without justification. On the contrary, I have justified my attacks: **Loewen** is not a reputable historian. He twists some facts and conceals others to fit his hypothesis. For example, he mentions the statue to Forrest in Gadsden, and states that the reason for the statue (and other monuments) is racism, but then fails to reveal to his readers that Forrest saved Gadsden from Union raiders. Likewise, Loewen fails to mention Forrest’s conciliatory efforts toward black Southerners. (You still have offered no motive for Forrest to speak to a black gathering, if not a genuine desire for reconciliation.) **Morison** , while “reputable,” is plainly biased. I have shown a specific example of a factual error from his book (his whitewashing of Union atrocities), and have shown how the structure of his narrative suggests bias. > [@](#): > > Again, I ask- why is NBF glorified over the men who actually commanded the Armies? One might as easily ask why commanding generals should be glorified over the generals who actually _fought_, as Forrest did. > [@](#): > > Tupelo- NBF only major battle, some 20K of troops- result? NBF loses. First off, Forrest was not commanding at Tupelo. In fact, Forrest’s suggestion of an immediate attack, before the arriving Union army settled into its positions, was countermanded by his superior. Tough to blame that one on Forrest. Secondly, you could as easily call the battle a draw, since both sides wound up withdrawing. However, I will concede it as a Union victory (since the Confederates failed in their objective of cutting supply lines) if you will concede that Days Gap was a Confederate victory (since the Union failed in its objective of cutting Confederate supply lines). > [@](#): > > So, we have 1 major loss, 1 brilliant victory, one insignificant victory, a strategic loss, 1 “contested victory” and finaly another win, but only by brunt of numbers You seem to be, uh, “forgetting” Forrest’s 50-odd other engagements during the war. If they put up a marker at the site of each of those engagements, well, that adds up to a lot of markers, doesn’t it? The “commanding generals” neither ranged as far, nor were in as many fights. Small wonder that they have fewer markers. You might want to bear in mind what Forrest’s contemporaries had to say about him before you call him over-glorified:[ul][li]Lee called him the greatest general in the war.[/li][li]Sherman called him “the most remarkable man our Civil War produced on either side.”[/li]Grant said “For the particular kind of war which Forrest had carried on neither army could produce a more effective officer.”[/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/92 "2001-02-08T17:18:48Z")
[ul]General Joe Johnston called Forrest “the greatest soldier the Civil War produced.”[/ul] ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/93 "2001-02-08T17:51:30Z")
**spoke** , I’d like to remind you that, although they might possibly have had some minor insights into the conduct of the war, _none_ of the gentlemen you’ve mentioned who praised Forrest had PhD’s in history or full professorships at Harvard, so of course you’ll have to discount their opinions somewhat in relation to Morison’s. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/94 "2001-02-08T21:44:01Z")
Yes, i knew you were going to trot out NBF “many other victories”. Let me give you another quote from Loewen: “Forrest was a brilliant cavalry commander, but his career looks better on the landscape than in reality because his defeats get no attention, or are marked some ambiguously that they look like victories. Jim Jones of the Tennessee Historical Comm. notes that the following marker, though perfectly accurate, and much more important that (others) will never go up on the Tennessee landscape: Forrest Whipped Here: On August 29, 1862, Gen NB Forrest, commanding… attacked a Federal force they outnumbered 9 to 1. After 3 charges led by Forrest himself, the Confederates were repulsed. The Federal force, 2 companies of the 18th Ohio, defended their stockade here at Short Mtn. Cross roads.” “Across the South, historical markers would have us beleive that the Confederates won every skirmish and most battles- mystifying the outcome. Liston Pope, who grew up in the South, said it best: ‘I never could understand how our Confederate troops could have won every battle in the War so decisively and then lost the War itself’” “Forrests Military career simply cannot explain the extraordinary homage Tennessee… pays him. His operations in Tenn were on a modest scale, far less important than those of Confederate gen. Bragg, sy, or Ulyses S. Grant. Yet Bragg & grant get far less recognition”. Tupelo? NBF commanded 6000 of the 8000 rebels there. But the loss was “not his fault”. True, the strategic decision of WHEN to fight was made by his superiour, but surely “the greatest tactician of the war” could have overcome that, and did well on the actual battlefield- he did not. Whenever he was called upon to do anything resembling an actual BATTLE, as opposed to a “raid”- he failed. Let’s see here. Loewen is wrong. Morison is biased. The U.S. Govt Historical site that Xeno linked us to- is wrong. Yep- as i said before, clearly, in our delusion that the South lost the war, we are 'wrong". I give up. I am not going to convince you two. You think that a rabid racist madman was a military hero. I disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/95 "2001-02-08T23:40:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Across the South, historical markers would have us beleive that the Confederates won every skirmish and most battles- mystifying the outcome. Absolute nonsense. Come to Atlanta, Daniel, and I will be happy to show you the numerous historical markers sprinkled around town noting **Union** victories. See, this is exactly what I mean about Loewen. He seems to have no reluctance to tell a half-truth, or in this case to lie outright, to “prove” his point. Another example: Among his “evidence” that Forrest is over-glorified, he mentions a city in Arkansas named for Forrest. Conveniently, he leaves out the fact that _Forrest himself founded the city_. He mentions Forrest’s association with the Klan, but then fails to mention that Forrest ordered it disbanded, and indeed railed against Klan violence in his later years. He fails to mention the conciliatory speech to a black audience because it doesn’t fit his hypothesis. As noted in my earlier post, Loewen’s citations to sources do not hold up under close examination. For example, he cites Wills as his source for the story of the black man supposedly slain by Forrest, and for his assertion that “black opponents always inflamed Forrest,” but the pages referenced by Loewen say absolutely nothing of the sort. In fact, one of the pages cited by Loewen actually describes Forrest’s religious conversion in later years. There are other examples of this sort of deception in his book. In another chapter, Loewen describes, in incredulous tones, the statue of Stonewall Jackson on the grounds of the West Virginia State Capitol. (But West Virginia was a _Union_ state!) Loewen fails to tell his readers that Stonewall Jackson was born in Clarksburg, in what is now West Virginia. That fact would make it a whole lot less astonishing to find his statue on the West Virginia Capitol grounds, but Loewen withholds the information from his readers. > [@](#): > > Loewen is wrong. Morison is biased. Yep. See the quotes I just gave you from the four most prominent military commanders of the Civil War. > [@](#): > > The U.S. Govt Historical site that Xeno linked us to- is wrong. Not exactly. See, you pulled a little Loewen-esque maneuver yourself by stating that the site calls Days Gap a “Union Victory.” A half-truth. In fact, the site goes on to state that “the [Union] raid ultimately failed.” Just the point I made earlier. The Union did not achieve its strategic objective (contrary to your earlier post). Funny definition of “Union victory.” > [@](#): > > a rabid racist madman Repeating an inflammatory epithet over and over is a classic propaganda technique. Did you study under Goebbels or under Gingrich? Repeating the phrase doesn’t make it any more true. The Fort Pillow Massacre? Yes it happened. The real question is whether Forrest ordered, abetted, or approved it. Confederate Samuel H. Caldwell, writing home to his wife, said that the Fort Pillow battle “was decidedly the most horrible sight I have ever witnessed,” and went on to add that “[t]hey refused to surrender–which incensed our men **& if General Forrest had not run between our men and the Yanks with his pistol and sabre drawn not a man would have been spared**.” (Hurst, p. 176.)(My emphasis.) In fairness, the accounts are conflicting. [Here again](http://www.civilwarweb.com/magazine/ftpillow.htm) is an account of the battle for those seeking to draw their own conclusions. As for the KKK affiliation, I have explained (with citations to Brittanica) that the KKK started as a social club, then morphed into a vigilante group, then descended into terrorism. When the terrorism erupted, Forrest disbanded the Klan, and he continued to decry violence against blacks until his dying day. One example: In August of 1874, there was a racial disturbance in the west Tennesssee town of Trenton, following which 16 black men were jailed. Later, a white mob came, took the men from the jail, and murdered them. Forrest’s reaction? At a meeting convened to decry the violence, Forrest took the podium and proclaimed that if he “were entrusted with proper authority he would capture and exterminate the white marauders who disgrace their race by their cowardly murder of negroes.” (Hurst, p. 361.) Hardly sounds like a “rabid racist madman” to me. And I am still awaiting your explanation as to why Forrest would appear before a black group to make a conciliatory speech in 1875. Well? Can you offer any motive, other than to express his heartfelt sentiments? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2001, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/96 "2001-02-10T00:30:53Z")
Daniel, listen to yourself, and **think.** > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > \*\*zeno: 'agressive ignorance?"- ah, because I have only listed TWO cites, where most have listed NONE? Look, you gave two second hand sources, and it agreed that Forrest was known for his irregular calvary tactics- which I ageed to. > > …Can you find me one critical source that attacks the Oxford book as biased, uninformed or generally incorrect? \*\* How about “cursory”, “incomplete”, a “survey”, and _definitely not a primary source!_ I’m not familiar with the specific books you’re talking about, but I know what a condensed historical overview is–perhaps suitable for a main class textbook, but never the last word! And you call xenophon’s sources second-hand?? You’ve obviously read a lot more than I have on the War Between the States, but seem not to know the first basic thing about historical research–the differences between kinds of source. Textbooks are just a distillation, rather like postings in an SDMB thread. They’re not primary sources, they’re often not even secondary sources; they’re _tertiary_, they’re more condensed than **Reader’s Digest** would dream of being, they’re not _ever_ the definitive gospel truth, nor the last word, and they can be horribly tendentious, incomplete, & inaccurate–without even trying!! As for Loewen, I think you’ve been taken in by a crank with an axe to grind. Sounds like he’s given you lots of big-sounding numbers about how honored Forrest is, without pointing out how many more memorials there are to other Generals–or old mountain men, for that matter. It’s manipulation, that’s all. Historians need to have better banana-oil detectors, Daniel. **Anyway, back to the original subject of this thread:** The new flag sounds like a passable idea, but it lacks heraldic immediacy. I would favor the old, old yellow-and blue flag, with just the charge(s) of the seal, rather than the whole seal as a monochromatic charge. In any case, I don’t like those **two** Yankee flags–Stars and Stripes–being on it. They’re not “Georgia flags,” after all, and the 50-star one only has significance as the current U.S. flag at the time of this redesign. * * * That’s my 21 shillings. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2001, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/97 "2001-02-10T01:59:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wevets \* > **Witness the corruption of the Buddhist (I think?) swastika for members of modern western civilization.** Actually, it’s Hindu. The word comes from the Sanskrit _svastika_. It was used in Mesopotamia; ancient Scandinavia (it represented Thor’s hammer); early Christian and Byzantine art; and by the Mayans and Navajo, among other American tribes. It is still being used today by Jainas, Hindus and Buddhists. (You were partly correct.) For Buddhists, it represents Buddha’s footprints. All of these cultures considered it a good-luck symbol. (It looks to me like the Sun in abstract.) In 1910, poet and nationalist idealist Guido von List suggested the swastika be used by anti-Semitic organizations. The Nazi party did so when it was formed in 1919. The preceding was from the [Encyclopedia Britannica.](http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/7/0,5716,72437+1+70603,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2001, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/98 "2001-02-10T23:33:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by foolsguinea \* > In any case, I don’t like those **two** Yankee flags–Stars and Stripes–being on it. They’re not “Georgia flags,” after all, and the 50-star one only has significance as the current U.S. flag at the time of this redesign. How is a Confederate flag any more of a “Georgia flag” than an American flag? Did not the state of Georgia willingly enter (although obvously not willingly _re-enter_) both nations? Did not Georgians fight and die for the ideals represented in the Stars and Stripes as well? jab1: Thanks for the info on swastikas! ---
**Author:** ![Strainger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strainger/32/244_2.png) [@Strainger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strainger)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2001, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/99 "2001-02-11T07:24:46Z")
I think we can close the Georgia flag debate. We all seem to be in agreement on the following: The flag needed to be changed. But not to the one they went with. It’s ugly-ass. Going back to the very first one would’ve been a better idea. I’m going to continue with the Nathan Bedford Forrest (perhaps the moderators should add a “…/Nathan Bedford Forrest” to the thread title) debate. Although I’ve been mostly lurking here, I’ve become fascinated with the (hijacked) topic at hand, in light of **spoke-**'s contributions. First off, I’ll list my biases up front. I was born up North, in Indiana, and moved between there, Illinois, and Ohio until age 10 when I moved to Georgia. I stayed there until I graduated college shortly before my 23rd birthday, after which I moved to Arizona, a state populated mostly by Northerners, where I’ve lived for 7 1/2 years. Although it appears that I’m related to one prominent Confederate general, more than likely most of my direct ancestors fought for the Union. Overall, I’m damn glad the North won. While I don’t think of the Southern cause as “evil” or even “traitorous,” I think that, even in their spirit, passion, and sincerety, the Southerners were misguided. That being said, I took it upon myself to research Nathan Bedford Forrest in my own Civil War books and at Border’s. One thing that **every damn source** , regardless of the author’s bias, agreed on was that NBF was a brilliant tactician, and the fact that he became so without any formal military education is even more astounding. Regarding other military figures’ attitude toward Forrest’s tactical prowess, I found an interesting example in _Sherman: A Soldier’s Passion for Order_ by John F. Marszalek. It states: > [@](#): > > In 1873 it looked as though war might break out with Spain over the _Virginius_ affair, the case of a gun-running Cuban ship illegally flying the American flag. When the Spanish captured the ship and executed as pirates fifty-three of the men they found on board, including a number of Americans, war fever briefly swept the United States. Offers to serve in the predicted war against Spain poured into the War Department, including an application from Sherman’s old enemy, Nathan Bedford Forrest. **Sherman enthusiastically endorsed Forrest’s letter** (my emp.) The most objective and complete account of Forrest’s life I was able to find tonight is his biography by Jack Hurst. Browsing through it, I see that Forrest was truly a complex “Jeckyll and Hyde” figure (that’s what the review on the cover says) who went through an extraordinary transformation in his later years. Hurst does not make any apologies for Forrest’s character. To touch on items already discussed in this thread, in the introduction Hurst states > [@](#): > > His leadership at Fort Pillow and of the Klan notwithstanding, Forrest was no sadistic racial bigot, although the extravagant claims of some of his apologists are unconvincing. Much, for instance, has been made of of his reported reluctance to divide slave families, and of his habit of providing newly bought slaves with new clothes and hygenic care; but such practices can be attributed as easily to good business considerations as to humanitarian concern, since slaves treated kindly were less apt to run away. Apologists also note that he offered to free forty-five of his slaves if they would serve his troops as teamsters, and that the slaves acquiesced. Forrest’s offer could have been no more than a shrewd military proposition that the slaves agreed to out of fear. There is proof, however, that he kept his promise and freed them before the war’s close Regarding Forrest’s role at Fort Pillow, although accounts of his actions vary, Forrest’s actions during the massacre were less than favorable (and it was a massacre, shocking even a number of the _Confederates_ who participated). Forrest’s statement’s about the skirmish after the fact are quite disturbing. > [@](#): > > Soon after the cease-fire was ordered, Hancock recalled being inside the fort and hearing Forrest make a short speech that appeared brashly jubilant…describing how his heart had “swelled” as they scaled the walls… and > [@](#): > > …in another proud-sounding speach to the troops, referring to the large number of Federals killed after they jumped into the Mississippi: “The river was dyed with the blood of the slaughtered for 200 yards.” Hurst’s take on the whole incident is as follows: > [@](#): > > Can the same Forrest have “ordered them shot down like dogs” and have “run between our men and the Yanks with his pistol and sabre drawn,” perhaps even shooting one of his own men? Possibly. His temper may have undergone one of its characteristic waxings and wanings. Angered by the taunts of the black soldiers and especially by the Union refusal to surrender, necessitating the paying of more precious Confederate lives for this victory he had to have, he may have ragingly ordered a massacre and even intended to carry it out–until he rode inside the fort and viewed the horrifying result. Then, begged for his protection, he was probably both vain enough to be flattered and sensitive enough to respond. Forrest’s attitude toward blacks later in life is summarized in the epilogue to this book, where Hurst states > [@](#): > > Unlike so many of his white Southern peers, after 1868 he seems to have become assured of the South’s ability to survive and prosper in a nationally mandated New South in which whites and blacks mutually participated in the democratic process and society at large. and > [@](#): > > The reality is that over the length of his lifetime Nathan Bedford Forrest’s racial attitudes probably developed more, and more in the direction of liberal enlightenment, than those of most other Americans in the nation’s history. Regarding NBF’s possible motives for his change in attitude, Hurst says > [@](#): > > It can be argued that these actions were closely entwined with his own economic self-interest during his railroading days, but that argument is harder to raise against his 1874 threat to exterminate the killers of the Trenton blacks and his similarly public assertion in 1875 that blacks should be allowed entry into the profession of law and anywhere else they were capable of going. Granted, I’ve rehashed many things already mentioned in this thread (all that work and I kind of wonder if I really added anything here). Besides what I’ve already written in this thread, I must echo **spoke-** and say that damn near every skirmish and battle that occured in the South during the Civil War has a marker erected to it (Are we talking about monuments, i.e. statues and buildings, here, or markers? I’ll go with markers.), regardless of whether it was a Confederate or Union victory. Each one of those markers states the names of the commanders involved. I must also note that each marker I’ve seen presents an objective account of the event it commemorates. I lived in the South for 13 years and was able to familiarize myself with many of these markers. Given that, and looking at the map of the battles involving NBF, mostly in Tennessee, at the front of his biography, I’m not at all surprised that there are a number of markers in that state bearing his name. Even though I lived in Georgia and not Tennesse, I’m willing to bet that the markers up there are also pretty objective in their presentations. To me, a racist attitude is a despicable trait. That being said, I feel that calling someone a “racist” is a very serious charge. If you’re going to claim that someone or that someone’s motivations are “racist,” you’re going to have to back it up with some hard facts about the person’s character and actions. Knowing what I know about the South, the only conclusion I can draw regarding all those “monuments” (markers?) to NBF is that the people who put them up wanted to commemorate various battles and skirmishes that took place there, not to glorify racism or even NBF personally. I’m completely unconvinced that **DITWD** ’s assertion of the racist motivations behind these historic markers is correct. Wow. This post is probably twice as long as it needs to be. Sorry about that. No, I’m not going to edit it for length; I’m too tired right now. ---
**Author:** ![DebiJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f08c70/32.png) [@DebiJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DebiJ)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2001, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359/100 "2001-02-15T20:58:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Strainger \* > \*\*The Big Chicken! Who’s with me? \*\* No! Delaware is the Blue Hen State. Y’all can’t have the chickens! 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/georgia-flag-debate/52359.md?page=6)