Plenty of the latter in your museums.
Because it was SOP in the ancient world. You killed, enslaved, or subjugated. The most widely-known examples are probably the Israelites in Egypt and Babylon and the fall of Troy, but there are also the Roman Triumphs.
So now you’re extending this to saying that rather than get rid of odious monuments, we’re somehow obligated to sanitize museums to remove all traces of ancient people we disagree with? Rather than just getting rid of public monuments, which is what the thread was actually about.
:rolleyes: This is a totally reasonable argument.
So, in other words, no, there isn’t evidence.
In fact, from your “argument”, it’s comfortable to conclude the obvious: there is absolutely no evidence that any similar racial ideology existed in the (racially diverse) societies you first mentioned.
Gotcha. Incidentally, it’s amusing how you’re now trying to change tack and address totally different societies than the Mongols under Khan and the ancient Egyptians. I’m guessing that’s because you did enough Wikipedia-reading to realize how absurd those “examples” are of your ridiculously false ideas about ancient racism, given that they were both ethnically diverse societies.
No. I fact-checked his section on Forrest once. It is riddled with falsehoods, misleading half-truths, and flat-out fabricated footnotes. So if this is your source of information on Forrest, you are being misled.
Actually, he didn’t. (See footnotes, fabricated.)
Wrong on all three counts. We know the text of the speech because it evidently appeared in The Memphis Daily Avalanche on July 6, 1875:
The speech was also evidently reported by The Memphis Appeal in its issue of July 5, 1875.
Even the New York Times, in what was otherwise a hatchet-piece of an obituary, had this to say about the speech:
Also, the speech was not a result of any “arm-twisting.” Forrest appeared in response to an invitation.
Bogus and biased site that is a NBF and KKK apologist site. They even call the Ft Pillow Massacre nothing but propaganda. Nor does that cite link to a original period full quote.
Again, that cite doesn;t link to a original period full quote.
Yes, indeed. Like I said there *was *a speech. But as I said “No period source has the text of the speech.”
The "full text " of the speech was apparently made up by NBF apologists in the later half of the 20th century. No period source has the actual text. The closest we come is notes that there was a speech and in general the tone.
I have provided you with cites to two contemporary sources for the text of the speech. (The Memphis Avalanche July 6, 1875 and The Memphis Appeal, July 5, 1875.) You do understand that the internet wasn’t invented in 1875?
When you say that the speech is fabricated, you have zero evidence of that. You simply want it to be true.
You have indulged this fantasy before. You were wrong then and you are still wrong.
Where might we view a copy of The Memphis Avalanche dated July 6th, 1875 and/or The Memphis Appeal dated July 5th, 1875?
Presumably at a research library in the Memphis area. Photocopies are not online, as far as I can tell.
However, as Captain Amazing pointed out in the other thread, the text of the speech is also presented in Nathan Bedford Forest: A Biography, which is a scholarly work by Jack Hurst. Presumably, the author has viewed those original sources.
Again, no source earlier than about the middle of the 20th century quotes or even purports to quote the entire text of speech. Having done extensive searches on this, the so-called “text” springs up around then. Before that, all that I can find is news articles that say a speech was given, and the general tone of the speech, much like the NY Times article does. Not only that but the so-called text is a very bad forgery, the author didn’t even bother to try to put it in period language- compare the text to real speeches and books from the period, such as Mark Twain, Lincoln’s Gettysburgs address and so forth. It’s laughable. Whichever member of the KKK that wrote that might as well said that NBF tweeted it.
Nothing, no cite leads back to the original speech in full text.
Jack Hurst wrote his book in 1994. It is lauded. However, since the entire copy of his book is not avaliable to me, I can’t see where he got the text of the speech. It’s very easy to be fooled by the faux version, it’s all over the internet. But if we’re citing his book, one reviewer makes this clear: "Forrest marketed slaves and lived lavishly on their servitude; he was commander of the troops responsible for the murder of Federal troops at Ft. Pillow (there is evidence that the murders were intended to intimidate other Negro troops, but that the attempt hideously backfired). He was a founding member and leader of the Kluklux Klan as it destroyed all hope of real reform in the South. It is true that he disbanded the Klan, but only after it succeeded in its mission of ending social progress. It is true that he made gestures to Black Southerners, but only after he realized that his terrorist activities damaged his own economic future."
Your KnoxNews apologist site denies the KKK founding & calls the Ft Pillow massacre “propaganda”.:rolleyes: So, *your own cites *show clearly that much NBF info out there is pure Southern Apologist nonsense.
So, prove me wrong. It simple- many newspapers have their old copies available on-line. Find me* a page of a 1875 newspaper* which quotes the entire text of the speech. I have seen nothing even close.
I already have. You are just doing the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling LALALALALAICAN’THEARYOUUUUU!
:rolleyes: The “KnoxNews apologist site” is the Knoxville News. Specifically the letters column.
One letter to the editor trots out a bunch of revisionist nonsense. A different writer gives the specific cite for the text of the Pole-Bearers speech.
Loewen has taught you well.
It’s the same site, isn’t it? I didn’t say same author.
You didn’t even look closely enough to notice that it was the website for The Knoxville News. Instead you rushed to call it a “**ogus and biased site that is a NBF and KKK apologist site.” Not exactly enhancing your credibility as a researcher here.
You do realize you have essentially constructed a conspiracy theory here? And that your theory is getting ever more baroque?
So now, biographer Jack Hurst: would he be a co-conspirator or a dupe?
Wikipedia has articles on Mother Teresa and Hitler. Does that mean that Mother Teresa is a Nazi?
Hogwash. Forrest’s men were the first into battle at Chickamauga. (Excluding picket exchanges on the previous day.) There was no “hanging around” involved, unless you call combat “hanging around.”
More hogwash. Let’s listen to what some of his contemporaries had to say:
“After all, I think Forrest was the most remarkable man our civil war produced on either side. To my mind, he was the most remarkable in many ways. In the first place, he was uneducated, while Jackson and Sheridan and other brilliant leaders were soldiers by profession. He had never read a military book in his life, knew nothing about tactics, could not even drill a company, but he had a genius for strategy which was original, and to me incomprehensible. There was no theory or art of war by which I could calculate with any degree of certainty what Forrest was up to. He seemed always to know what I was doing or intended to do, while I am free to confess I could never tell or form any satisfactory idea of what he was trying to accomplish.” –William Tecumseh Sherman
During the war, Sherman called him a “devil” who should “be hunted down and killed if it costs 10,000 lives and bankrupts the treasury.” Cite.
“He [Forrest] was the only Confederate cavalryman of whom Grant stood in much dread,” --a friend of Ulysses S. Grant, as quoted by Shelby Foote. Cite.
General Joseph Johnston’s nephew asked him, in his later years, who he considered the greatest soldier of the war. Johnston, without hesitation, replied, “Forrest, who, had he had the advantages of a thorough military education and training, would have been the great central figure of the Civil War.” Cite.
Beauregard said of him “Forrest’s capacity for war seemed only to be limited by the opportunities for its display” Cite.
And what do historians say?
Cite.
Cite.
For the record, I have no particular love for Forrest, and I am not a “Fergit, Hell” Southerner. (In fact, several of my ancestors were Unionists.) I just get tired of Loewen’s nonsense about Forrest being trotted out as fact in these threads.
But I am an equal opportunity fact-checker. I hate all the revisionist nonsense from the SCV, too.
The quote from Grant is modern and doesn;t appear in any historical source.
But yes, you’re right about Foote. In fact Foote is one of the authors who started the cult of NBF. Before that, NBF was never considered by anyone a great* general. * A very dangerous cavalry raider, certainly. Foote is considered by many to be a Southern Apologist.
But if you’re going to quote Historians how about:
It’s all about the made up LEGEND of NBF as fostered by Lost Cause apologists.
But you know your cites do have some solid truth to them: “… In the first place, he was uneducated, while Jackson and Sheridan and other brilliant leaders were soldiers by profession. He had never read a military book in his life, knew nothing about tactics, could not even drill a company…Forrest, who, had he had the advantages of a thorough military education and training…” and etc. But somehow, this near illiterate man, who was a true Son of the South- manages a speech that sounds exactly like it comes from the mouth of a educated 20th century man. No regionalisms, no poor grammar, no dialect. I suppose perhaps his grammar might not have been bad. But if you read Mark Twain, everyone who knew not only spoke in a dialect but many different dialects* “IN this book a number of dialects are used, to wit: the Missouri negro dialect; the extremest form of the backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary “Pike County” dialect; and four modified varieties of this last. The shadings have not been done in a hap- hazard fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly, and with the trustworthy guidance and support of personal familiarity with these several forms of speech.
I make this explanation for the reason that without it many readers would suppose that all these characters were trying to talk alike and not succeeding.”
*
And yet a true son of the South, without any formal education at all, manages a entire speech without once using a single regionalism, and talks in a clean modern language without a hint of dialect? Simply impossible. Bullshit.
It is true that NBF did get into action early at Chickamauga. But take a look at the battle maps starting with “early afternoon of sept 19th”
Notice that as the battle gets longer, NBF’s forces get further and further from the action. “..Forrest requested reinforcements from Bragg and Walker near Alexander’s Bridge and Walker ordered Col. Claudius Wilson’s brigade forward about 9 a.m., hitting Croxton’s right flank. Forrest protected his own right flank by deploying the brigade of Col. George Dibrell, which ran into Van Derveer’s brigade and came to a halt under fire. Forrest sent in Brig. Gen. Matthew Ector’s brigade, part of Walker’s Reserve Corps, but without Walker’s knowledge. Ector’s men replaced Debrill’s in line, but they were also unable to drive Van Derveer from his position.[45]
Brannan’s division was holding its ground against Forrest and his infantry reinforcements, but their ammunition was running low. Thomas sent Baird’s division to assist, which advanced with two brigades forward and one in reserve. Brig. Gen. John King’s brigade of U.S. Army regulars relieved Croxton. The brigade of Col. Benjamin Scribner took up a position on King’s right and Col. John Starkweather’s brigade remained in reserve. With superior numbers and firepower, Scribner and King were able to start pushing back Wilson and Ector.” In other words, NBF tried a attack, with some other general’s troops, and when he was repulsed, he spent the rest of the battle hanging around on the flank and rear, doing nothing. Oh wait, no. His men did raid the Union Hospital.
or as one of your historians put it:
*“David A. Powell’s Failure in the Saddle: Nathan Bedford Forrest, Joseph Wheeler, and the Confederate Cavalry in the Chickamauga Campaign is the first in-depth attempt to determine what role the Confederate cavalry played in both the loss of Chattanooga and the staggering number of miscues that followed up to, through, and beyond Chickamauga. Powell draws upon an array of primary accounts and his intimate knowledge of the battlefield to reach several startling conclusions: Bragg’s experienced cavalry generals routinely fed him misleading information, failed to screen important passes and river crossings, allowed petty command politics to routinely influence their decision-making, and on more than one occasion disobeyed specific and repeated orders that may have changed the course of the campaign.”
*
But still, Ok he did do some fighting at that battle. How about these?
Battle of Spring Hill: one of the few battles where the CSA outnumbered the North, but ended as a huge lost opportunity for the South. Forrest’s contribution was (wiki) “Forrest’s men moved south and he directed the brigade of Brig. Gen. Tyree H. Bell of Chalmer’s division to drive off what he thought was a small force of cavalry from a knoll south of McCutcheon’s Creek. They were actually engaging with Bradley’s brigade, which drove them back immediately with heavy artillery support. The chastened Forrest remarked, "They was in there sure enough, wasn’t they, Chalmers?” whereupon NBF snided off to a flank, again waiting a chance to raid & loot. A loss.
Battle of Franklin : one of the worst disasters of the war for the Confederate States Army. NBF’s contribution (wiki) “across the river to the east Confederate cavalry commander Forrest attempted to turn the Union left. His two divisions on Stewart’s right (Brig. Gens. Abraham Buford and William H. Jackson) engaged some Federal cavalry pickets and pushed them back. They crossed the Harpeth at Hughes Ford, about 3 miles (4.8 km) upstream from Franklin . When Union cavalry commander Brig. Gen. James H. Wilson learned at 3 p.m. that Forrest was crossing the river, he ordered his division under Brig. Gen. Edward Hatch to move south from his position on the Brentwood Turnpike and attack Forrest from the front. He ordered Brig. Gen. John T. Croxton’s brigade to move against Forrest’s flank and held Col. Thomas J. Harrison’s brigade in reserve. The dismounted cavalrymen of Hatch’s division charged the Confederate cavalrymen, also dismounted, and drove them back across the river. Some of Croxton’s men were armed with seven-shot Spencer carbines, which had a devastating effect on the Confederate line. Wilson was proud of his men’s accomplishment because this was the first time that Forrest had been defeated by a smaller force in a standup fight during the war". A Loss
Third Battle of Murfreesboro: NBF runs off to do another raid: (wiki)”At one point some of Forrest’s troops broke and ran causing disorder in the Confederate ranks; even entreaties from Forrest and Bate did not stem the rout of these units. The rest of Forrest’s command conducted an orderly retreat from the field and encamped for the night outside Murfreesboro . Forrest had destroyed railroad track, blockhouses, and some homes and generally disrupted Union operations in the area, but he did not accomplish much else. The raid on Murfreesboro was a minor irritation, and Forrest was absent at Battle of Nashville ”. A tactical win leading to a huge strategic loss.
**
Battle of Nashville** : NBF wasn;t there until afterwards (he had snided off to loot and raid, see above) , thus allowing Union cavalry to run amok. Leading to: (wiki) “one of the largest victories achieved by the Union Army during the war, Thomas attacked and routed Hood’s army, largely destroying it as an effective fighting force.” Loss.
And of course: the Fort Pillow Massacre. A minor battle where NBF badly outnumbered the North, leading to one of the worst war crimes of the war. But nothing of strategic use was gained by this ‘victory”.
So let us look at the record: NBF had a hugely successful cavalry raid in one battle. At three major battles, NBF was not a success at all. In fact his sniding off to raid at Murfreesboro led directly to “one of the largest victories achieved by the Union Army during the war”.
NBF likely helped the Union win the war. Hell, he was about as great as Jubilation T. Cornpone. Hmm, maybe we should have a monument to him after all.
Wow. Still clinging to your conspiracy theory? (And without a single cite in support of it. Just your vivid imagination.)
So you didn’t answer my question. Is Jack Hurst a co-conspirator or a dupe?
In his book, he cites to page 1 of the Memphis Appeal, July 6, 1875, and provides the full text of the speech. Are you saying Jack Hurst is lying? Or has he been duped? (And if the latter, why does he cite to a specific page of the Memphis Appeal, while internet sources do not? If he were relying on internet sources rather than doing research, as you seem to have surmised, where is he getting the page number?)
(Hey! Maybe the Memphis Appeal reporter was an early conspirator! I don’t think we’d better accept anything less than video as evidence for this speech!)
What quote from Grant do you mean? (Please read more carefully.)
Do you mean this quote from Grant’s friend?..
Are you saying that Shelby Foote fabricated the quote? Is he a co-conspirator? Or another dupe of the apologists?
That seems like an extraordinary claim! Cite?
Yes, because praising the genius of Lincoln is a hallmark of Southern revisionists. :rolleyes:
Right, so Foote is a co-conspirator, I guess.
Is Bruce Catton also a co-conspirator when he calls Forrest “one of the authentic military geniuses of the whole war”?
Or has poor Bruce been duped?
Also, are you saying we should accept your Google-fueled analysis of Forrest’s military career over the carefully researched work of Foote and Catton?
Ooh! Next tell us about how Shakespeare couldn’t have possibly written all those plays!
But first, give us a cite for Forrest being “near illiterate”. Where do you get this stuff?
From his contemporaries:
“The General was an excellent reader, had a large fund of general information and a remarkable knowledge of men.” - Dr. J.B. Cowan Cite.
“He was an impressive speaker, and on several occasions I have heard him deliver an address in most effective manner.” - Col. D.C. Kelley Cite.
The question I always ask in situations like this is, WHAT is the racist in question being honored for?
Is the racist is being honored for, I dunno… heroism in battle? Curing a horrible disease? Philanthropy? Athletic prowess? Or is he being honored precisely FOR his racism?
To use one example, the vile racist Ty Cobb was one of the greatest baseball players of all time. He BELONGS in the Hall of Fame. He DESERVES most of the accolades he received as a player. If there were a statue of him outside Tiger Stadium (I refuse to call stadiums by corporate names!), and (understandably) angry black protestors demanded that it be torn down, I’d say “Leave it up! He earned it. That he was a racist is extremely unfortunate, but we’re not honoring him for his bigotry. We’re honoring him as one of the greatest hitters ever.”
How about statues of Robert E. Lee? How about schools or hospitals named after him? Well, that depends. The Lees were a very prominent (indeed, honored and illustrious) family long before the Civil War. Robert E. Lee himself was something of a legend in the Army long before the Civil War. If the Lees founded a school or hospital in Virginia in the 1800s, why SHOULDN’T that school or hospital still be named after the Lees? Robert E. Lee was president of Washington College, which was later renamed Washington and Lee University in his honor. Well, he WAS president of the school. Why SHOULDN’T the school honor him?
But outside of Virginia, in places where the Lees were NOT prominent and did NOTHING of note, there’s no good reason to erect a statue of the man. I can’t think of any good reason there should be a statue of Robert E. Lee on the University of Texas campus here in Austin… but there IS one. I fully agree with those who want it removed.
Any MODERN school district has to know that naming a school after, say, Nathan Bedford Forrest will infuriate black citizens. So, if a school board did go ahead and honor Forrest, they’re probably doing so deliberately with the INTENT of thumbing their noses at black citizens.
Dude, I never said NBF was stupid or anything but a rousing public speaker. But one can be very clever & cunning without being “book smart”. One can give rousing speeches without being known for perfect elocution.
That speech is a forgery on the level of the Hitler diaries:
But NBF was generally regarded as being illiterate to some extent:
http://www.pinstripepress.net/NBF.htm
From his early beginnings as a functionally illiterate slave trader, …
Forrest (1821-77), who came from a poor rural family and remained quasi illiterate all his life,
However, no one thinks he was stupid or a poor speaker. Hell, Mark Twain used many regionalism, colloquialisms and dialects, but everyone agrees he was a damn fine speaker.
But still as per "The Myth of Nathan Bedford Forrest’ page 98 "He (NBF) used the provincial language of the Southland" and* “He (NBF)remained all his life a stranger to book learning and talked what might be called a “cracker” Southern dialect”.
*
So how is it that this speech uses a “General American” dialect of 1990’s?, 
a hundred years later?:dubious: I have no doubt that NBF was pretty damn smart, but so smart that he traveled into the future and used a modern dialect? Where is the "provincial language of the Southland"? Where is the “cracker” Southern dialect?:dubious:
Honestly if NBF used a General American dialect and manner of speaking from today, as this speech has him doing- his audience would be appalled, amazed, and likely not even be able to understand him. Even today, Senators from the Deep South often have a deep accent and use many regionalisms & colloquialisms.
Yes, the quote from Grant. No period source. And- what “friend” of Grant? Didn’t he have a name? Where was this mysterious & anonymous “friend” of Grant quoted? Foote just did as many authors do- he didn’t bother to fact check beyond a secondary source. And, how can one fact check a quote from a anonymous “friend” of Grant?
Which is perhaps what Hurst did- not fact check. However, I have not read the book, I have not seen that he quotes the entire speech, nor have I seen his footnotes.
And note- there is a huge difference between being a “military genius” and being a “great general”. NBF was likely one of the best cavalry raiders of the war. His record in that category is amazing. But his record as a *general *during major battles is very poor. Great raider, horrible general. Hell, that’s not uncommon amoung cavalry leaders of that period.
astorian; Yes, exactly.
Oh for pity’s sake. Repeating this over and over doesn’t make it true. You have made an extraordinary claim, and have presented zero evidence to support it, beyond your hunch, and your apparent astonishment that Forrest could string a sentence together in English.
(And by the way, you do realize that questioning the authenticity of a Forrest speech because he doesn’t come across sounding like Jethro Bodine is akin to questioning the authenticity of a Frederick Douglass speech because he doesn’t sound like Stepin Fetchit? What’s really bothering you about this speech is that it does not conform to the stereotype you have constructed in your head.)
If you want to see what fabrication of “facts” for latter-day political reasons looks like, you have found it here. There is zero contemporary evidence that Forrest was either illiterate or “semi-literate”. In fact, I have provided you with contemporary sources establishing that he was both well-read and an accomplished speaker.
:dubious: Here is the speech again. What about this speech, in your opinion, marks it as “General American” dialect of the 1990s?" Were you expecting the reporter to render a Southern accent phonetically? If not, please point out specifically the anachronisms here:
Your whole argument is absurd. I have cited you two primary sources and a scholarly secondary source for the contents of the speech, and yet you persist in your fantasy that the speech is a “forgery.” Here is the speech set forth on The American Catholic website. Co-conspirators or dupes?
Please point to a post where I have quoted Grant.