We really don’t have to guess whether Forrest could speak properly. We have, for example, his testimony before Congress, which I think pretty clearly establishes his speaking ability. Some snippets of his testimony:
There is nothing in his speech patterns here that is in any way inconsistent with the style of his speech to the Pole-Bearers. (And bear in mind that this is extemporaneous testimony, not a prepared text, as his remarks to the Pole-Bearers would have been.)
Tell me DrDeth, is it really so hard for you to believe that toward the end of his life Forrest sought to promote racial reconciliation? Ask yourself why this is difficult for you to accept. Is it because admitting this would make Forrest less of a cartoon villain than you would prefer him to be?
The question of “worth” has a value perception that will differ between many
JMHO, Yes I do think it will be worth it. However, I think we have far greater fish to fry then to sink $$$$ into this now. For me, it isnt a question of worth, but priority
You guys realize that Benjamin Tillman, Robert E. Lee, Nathan Bedford, Jefferson Davis, and all the other evil racists were Democrats, don’t you?
If anyone tore down evil monuments glorifying evil racists (Democrats all), Democrats would riot and loot and hold up signs saying that it’s a racist Republican plot against them.
Can you show us an example of this actually happening in the past? How about an example of Democrats getting upset when it was just suggested that monuments of this type be torn down?
You know, I never said anything like that. In fact i said i guessed he might sound a little like Mark Twain. And I gave you two cites that said he “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". Hell, if Mark Twain can be one of the greatest public speakers of the period,- and still use regionalism, colloquialisms and dialects, why can’t NBF? Are you trying to say that NBF was not only a greater public speaker than MT, but also managed to use a standard English dialect that would not be spoken for a hundred years?
I gave you two cites that say otherwise.
That’s a great cite and it perfectly proves my point. Note this: Published Friday, August 6, 2010 A.D There are no cites before the latter half of the 20th century (The earliest I found was the 1990’s) that actually quote the entire speech. Not one single biography of NBF quoted that speech before the late 20th century… when it was written.
Yes, those are great cites- for my side. Read the whole testimony. No one, (other than using a few period words like “reckon” “fetch” “staid” “betwixt” ) speaks in dialect. Not NBF, Not the various Senators, not the other dudes giving testimony, including a couple of men (and a woman) who were fairly recently slaves. In fact they all have about the same “voice”. And there’s a good reason for that. A Congressional secretary took down the testimony and transposed it. His job is to get rid of any dialects or regionalisms, so that everyone could read it. But still note, there are numerous period usages- *none of which appear in the forgery. *
Unless you’re going to tell me that several Yankee Senators, a CSA General and a number of ex-slaves would all use the same dialect?:dubious:
Yes, it is hard- because it’s not the truth. The truth is that NBF who was just about one of the worst racists even in the CSA, and was a brilliant cavalry raider but a incompetent general- is being used by the Southern Apologists as a sort of keyword, a “secret sign” if you would. They can praise the “bravery and skill of this great Southern general”, while all the time laughing up their sleeves at us ignorant Yankees, as they push their own political racist agenda.
DrDeth, please explain how the Pole-Bearers speech is “20th Century English” while the Senate testimony is not. Please point out the differences, or point out specific anachronisms you are seeing in the Pole-Bearers speech.
Actually, don’t bother. I know you can’t.
I’m quite sure at this point that if we produced the speech on a yellowed copy of the Memphis Appeal you would declare it a modern forgery and roll merrily along with your theories.
Speaking as a conservative Republican… that’s true, but it’s also irrelevant.
To me, the big question is always, WHAT are we honoring the racists for?
J. William Fulbright, a very liberal Democrat, was as vile a racist as any man who has ever served in the Senate. Should Fulbright scholarships therefore be renamed? Of course not. The scholarships were named for Fulbright because HE created them, not as a salute to his racism.
Ok, you make a point. So let us then take NBF. The 2nd or 3rd best cavalry raider in the CSA, at best a mediocre general otherwise. A slavetrader, just about the worst racist in the CSA. Commited a huge atrocity. Helped found and run the KKK, responsible for the death and terrorizing of thousands of blacks. And, even granting him the Polebearers speech- only means that at the end of his life he sorta apologized without making right all the evils he had done.
Why would we memorialize this evil man? Ok, I grant you, a plaque at the scene of the Battle of Spring Hill. There’s dozens of CSA generals that were better than him, and until the Cult of the Lost Cause Apologists and the KKK decided to “push” NBF, most of them were better known. And sure, let us put a small plaque were he gave the "polebearers’ speech, why not? But no schools (he was not a educated man), etc. Of course he would get pretty serious mention at the site of Ft Pillow.
Note, I have no objections to memorials to Lee, and even a few to Jackson, Johnson, Longstreet, etc. But the only reason to memorialize this evil man is to support Cult of the Lost Cause Apologists and the KKK.
You want to help DrDeth make his argument, Czarcasm? Then please do so, because he is failing miserably.
I have cited to two primary sources (The Memphis Avalanche and The Memphis Appeal) and to a scholarly secondary source (the Hurst biography) for the text of the speech. The Hurst biography cites to the specific page of the Memphis Appeal for the text of the speech (which the online secondary sources do not). In addition, the New York Times obituary, while not including the text of the speech, confirms its tenor.
Given all of that, please step forward with your evidence in support of this extraordinary theory that the speech is a latter-day invention. Because so far, we haven’t seen any such evidence. Just conspiracy-minded speculation.
Have you read DrDeth’s posts in this thread? The one where he dismissed a Knoxville newspaper as an “apologist” site because it published a letter to the editor?
Sure. You mentioned two newspapers, newspapers you haven’t looked at or seen the pages of. Worthless. The other cites are after 1990.
And I agreed that that there was a speech and the general tone of the speech. Clearly some Southern Apologist saw that, and wrote the speech that met those parameters.
I give you the Chief Seattle speech as a similar case.
I have spent some time trying to find the original sources of the speech(the two newspaper articles previously mentioned), and have come up with nothing yet. I have found dozens of sites that copy either the Wiki site or each other, most without attribution, but I haven’t gotten a peek at the newspapers themselves yet. Any thoughts as to where I search?
I fully agree- in many cases, the very POINT of putting up a monument to Confederate heroes is to offend black Americans.
IF, for the sake of argument, Nathan Beford Forrest had established a school or hospital after the Civil War, and that hospital had been named for him, I’d see no good reason to change the name.
To name a school or hospital after him NOW wuld be a deliberate attempt to offend black Americas, and I wouldn’t take anyone seriously who argued otherwise.
This may come as a shock to children of the Internet, who worship at the glowing altar, but believe it or not, there are these places called “libraries.” And in these “libraries” are things called “books.” Books with words in them. And citations. And anybody can go there are read them!You don’t even need a computer!
You know what else you can find in these libraries? Old newspapers! Some of which, believe it or not, have not yet made it, in pixilated form, onto the Internet!