Lets play... Correct Asmodean's Research paper!

You know you want to!:smiley:

    Forrest was born near Chapel Hill, Tennessee as the son of a blacksmith. His father died when he was 16 making him as the eldest son in charge of the house. He then began as a laborer, later becoming a horse and slave trader and amassing an estimated 1.5 million dollars from that and his plantation. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a military genius, a natural warrior, and had a very questionable racist past.
    Forrest upon joining the army was a private. He then used his own funds to secure a regiment and was promoted to Lieutenant Commander. His exploits through the war secured him higher and higher accommodations until he attained the rank of Major General and the cavalry for four states. In his first fight, Forrest improvised a double envelopment, combined it with a frontal assault which he had probably never heard of.
    In one battle a brigade known as the Lightning mule was heading for Rome, Georgia. The citizens pulled out antiquated cannons and arms that would probably have done more harm to themselves than the enemy and were in general terrorized. Forrest however had been harassing the brigade at every turn and when they tried to cross a bridge to the town they were completely exhausted. In a bluff, Forrest then captured the 1,700 troops with only 500 of his own men. The terror turned to celebration when word arrived that Forrest had saved the town. A massive banquet was prepared for the general, but he and his army left a few days earlier to keep on fighting, only taking a horse as a gift.
    One of his noteworthy military accomplishments was at Fort Donelson where Forrest disagreed with the surrender of the fort to Northern hands. When he heard that they would surrender he took his own troops out and without a shot being fired at him from the supposedly surrounded fort. That forts loss was the first major blow to the south where they lost 13,000 men to the north, all that was in the fort except for Forrest's men.
    In Murfreesboro, Tennessee he freed local garrison that was imprisoned, for attacks on patrols near their farms. When he was advised to leave after the successful escape the colonel replied, "I did not come here to make half a job of it, I want them all" and then demanded the unconditional surrender of the garrison. The Union commanders had more men, guns and an entrenched position but surrendered anyway, not knowing that Forrest was bluffing.
    One Senator Daniel has said, "what genius was in that wonderful man! He felt the field as Blind Tom touches the keys of the piano. 'War means killing," he said, and the way to kill is to get there first with the most men. He taught at the famous general institution WestPoint but never took lessons from WestPoint. By European authority he is pronounced the most magnificent cavalry officer that America has produced.
    In battle he once charged a line of gunmen to secure his men retreating. At one time he was shot by a disgruntled subordinate, who he then mortally wounded with a penknife. He had 31 horses shot out from under him during combat. He also killed 30 people with a combination of pistols and swords and was seriously wounded four times. No one could boast as many killed as him and only a few even come close. One of the times where he was wounded was when he was surrounded by soldiers trying to kill him and was shot in the back looking like he was about dead. The transcript said

“He dashed that appearance, though, when he grabbed one of the soldiers by the jacket and pulled him up behind him, onto the horse. Slashing with his saber and his pistol firing, Bedford amazingly cut through the blue mass and rode away, the US soldier acting as a human “shield” to gunshots. When he’d arrived into safety, Bedford dropped the poor guy, still dazed and dumbfounded from the incident. Forrest was treated for his wound, which barely missed his spine.”
After executing several successful raids behind Union lines he was given command over all the cavalry in Tennessee. Later on in spite of the controversy at Ft. Pillow he became commander of Alabama, Missippi, and Louisiana cavalry. This might be in part because of his engagement of Federal troops at Brice’s Crossroads on June 10, 1864. It is considered by many people to be the perfect battle.
One of his very questionable activities was at Ft. Pillow. Where his men massacred the defending black troops. He claims that they picked up their guns even after the surrender of the fort, which is not surprising considering the fact that the south issued the statement that no black prisoners would be taken. He and his men claim that they fought back and it stands in his favor that he had in his own men 50 slaves of his slaves whom he freed 6 months before the war was finished. It does not seem likely that they would take part in a massacre unless Forrest inspired a great amount of loyalty in them. If he did do it, it stands to reason that he treated them in a good enough way that he respected them. Which would lead one to believe that he would probably have respect enemy soldiers.
In the beginning of the war neither side regarded cavalry very highly for fighting purposes, they were mostly used as scouts. Probably Forrest more than any other man made the cavalry respected and used during the Civil War. They more resembled dragoons than cavalry though, they were mostly mounted foot soldiers. If one could call Jackson’s troops web footed infantry by the same token Forrest’s troops could be called four legged infantry.
After the war he was wiped out financially and went back to planting crops. He became the president of the Selma, Marion & Memphis Railroad which he helped promote. He also joined the KKK and was apparently one of its early leaders. He however did not sanction the cowardly violent and even claimed that he would duel the white men responsible for taking a black man out of jail and killing him. When the KKK became more violent Forrest tried to disband the KKK. They reformed under new leadership and continued their depredations. The next year congress passed a law outlawing the KKK and they continued in their actions even in spite of that.
Forrest was also a freemason which was spun off into the KKK after the war. The KKK was an economic elitist society, with merchants, retailers, and inventors. The KKK used racial tensions to leverage racial divisions and prevent unity amongst working people. The KKK’s targets also included union and political organizers, who tried to bring people together. Some even think that the KKK was simply a more racist version of freemasonry in the beginning.
Forrest died, thought to be of diabetes, at Memphis Tennessee on October 29, 1877 and is buried there. Nathan Bedford Forrest III, the grandson and last direct descendant died in WWI over Germany. He was also a Brigadier General, probably in part due to his fathers fame, only he was part of the air corps instead of cavalry.
Forrest is even causing controversy today in his home state. Nashville is still a segregated city with the north side being considered “black” and the west side being considered “white”. In the eighty’s a black student at Vanderbilt University would be considered “suspicious” Where a statue of him is being erected is causing much disagreement. Some decry him a brute for his massacre of black soldiers, others decry him as a great man. The actual statue of him pays best tribute ignoring partisan ranting though. It shows him as a crazed general with his eyes popping out, not the standard standing in a way as to garner respect. This shows that while the issue of the statue is very partisan the statue in itself is not homage. It is an accurate portrayal of a warrior.
In conclusion of this research paper. This thesis is about Nathan Bedford Forrest who was a military genius, a natural warrior, and had a questionable racist past.

What’s this last line for? Did you need to reach a certain number of words?

Err no, its some sort of conclusion sentence. I don’t really know what to do with it:)

Is English your native language? Do you want comments on grammar and syntax, or just on content?

It is illegal for horses to be slave traders. :slight_smile:

I didn’t think they built skyscraper hotels back then.

I don’t understand the point of this paragraph. Are you using it to illustrate the ingenuity that you refer to in the paragraph before it?

Ok, without going through it line by line, let me say that it seems disjointed-try to make your story flow better.

In your first paragraph, set the scene-what are you going to show in the whole paper, and how(the battles come later)? I would take your last sentence in that paragraph and make it the first one.

Then you can go into his background, the death of his father etc.

Be very careful about jumping around from topic to topic-say what you have to say about it, then move on to your next point.

Finally, finish by restating your topic. The conclusion should be an obvious conclusion without stating that it is. Something along the lines of: "Despite controversy about his racial views, N.B.F. showed himself to be a military genius and natural warrior throughout his career. From (earliest battle mentioned) to (last battle mentioned) his strategies were innovative and unique.

Last, read your paper either out loud. It may sound silly, and you may feel silly doing it, but it will help you notice sentences that don’t sound right and need to be reworded.

psst… that’s not a sentence, it’s a sentence fragment

Others DECRY him as a great man?
Forrest died, thought to be of diabetes,----very very awkward sentance. And who dies over Germany? In Germany?
Earlier, you wrote about 50 slaves of his slaves? This paper is for English, History, Highschool what? If the thesis is three part—military genius, warrior and racist, follow that order when presenting NBF and always refer to him as Forrest or General Forrest.

I’d rework the first paragraph. The last sentence (“Nathan Bedford Forrest was … racist past”) serves as a better introduction to the subject. You might also include his date of birth (13 July 1821) in the sentence where you wrote where he was born. And as a personal preference, I prefer to write out numbers in most cases. I think the second sentence would be clearer with one less pronoun. You shift tenses somewhat awkwardly in the third sentence.

I think the first and second sentences of your next paragraph should be more direct. As was already mentioned, the word you probably intended in the third sentence was commendations not accomodations. I’d add a few words in the third sentence and a semi-colon in the fourth to make their points clearer.

This next paragraph was good but you had it towards the end of your thesis. It talks about the beginning of the war and should be moved up.

I’d be more specific in setting the scene in your next paragraph. I don’t know what battle you’re describing, but you should identify it. The phrase “were in general terrorized” in your second sentence would need to be punctuated differently as written. I’d change “in general” to “generally” to avoid this and move it to the beginning of the sentence where it would lead to the action you described. Also I think you probably meant terrified not terrorized; the former implies the anticipation of enemy occupation, the latter implies the actual occurence of it. Because a bluff can also be a geographical feature, I’d rework the fourth sentence to avoid possible confusion. I’d also move a couple of words to increase the drama.

The next paragraph is good. I’d only suggest a few small changes.

Another generally good paragraph. I’d cut out one early pronoun and reword the first sentence slightly to make the description clearer. Conversely, I’d add a pronoun to the next sentence for the same reason. I’d also avoid using the word garrison to refer to the soldiers from both sides in the same paragraph.

I think your fifth paragraph works better at the end of your thesis as a summation.

The next section is good. A few small changes and a rewording of the last sentence.

The next paragraph refers to events that you described in the following paragraph. You should reverse their order. Your first two sentences are fragments and should be combined. You also shift into the present tense at times. I’d also move the first part of the third sentence to the beginning of the second. The last part of this paragraph needed some work. I’ve patched it up somewhat but it’s still not great.

The next paragraph is good in itself. But you lead up to the battle at Brice’s Crossroads and then don’t write about it.

Another good section. I just cleared up a couple of redundancies and pronoun problems.

You skipped two generation in this paragraph. For that matter, you also skipped any mention of Forrest’s wife, Mary Montgomery. Nathan III was Nathan I’s great grandson not his grandson. Nathan had one son who was named William Montgomery Forrest (and who fought alongside his father). William named his only son Nathan Bedford Forrest II. Nathan also had a single son whom he named Nathan Bedford Forrest III. It was this Nathan who was the last Forrest (Nathan II also had several daughters). And he died in 1942 during the second world war not the first. I won’t attempt to incorporate all this into your work.

Your intent in the middle of this next paragraph is unclear. What are you saying is the cause of the controversy; the existence of the statue, its appearance, or its location?

As I said above, this next paragraph works better as a conclusion.

You need a closing quotation mark to indicate where the Senator’s remarks ended and your own began. And because you have a quote from Forrest directly following one from another source, you should identify both speakers. I’d also reverse the third sentence to make it more effective. “European authority” is too vague a term. If you’re going to cite an authority, you should name him.

I’d eliminate the following paragraph. It’s self-referential and redundant.

This paper is for english. So I don’t actually care what the content is, as long as it works well together.

whats wrong with that?

I am working on its disjointedness too:)

Man… someone owes Little Nemo breakfast in bed at a Bed and Breakfast.

This… from Random House

de-cry (di krie’) v.t. <-cried, -cry-ing>
1. to disparage openly; denounce.
2. to depreciate by proclamation, as

Actually, this is close to what I do for a living. I write hundreds of reports every year, so I’ve learned to express facts and opinions in a clear manner. And I have to review hundreds of reports written by other people, so I’ve also learned to edit the work of others.

A suggestion, Asmodean. Back when I was in school (and dinosaurs ruled the Earth) I was advised to write the outlines of each paragraph of a thesis on a seperate 3x5 index card. Then when you have all your individual paragraphs you can sort them around in different orders to find the one that makes the best overall sense.

You’ve already acted on what is probably the most important advice I could give; seek out the opinions of others. Let other people read your work, listen to their ideas and suggestions, then feel free to use or ignore those ideas and suggestions and write it the way you think it should be written. Remember, you’re the author and this is your work.

Well thanks for all your help.:slight_smile:

A cursory glance did this:

Nathan Bedford Forrest was born near Chapel Hill, Tennessee, [year, day, month, parents?] the first son of a blacksmith. His father died when he was 16, leaving him in charge of the house. He started work as a laborer, later operated as a horse and slave trader, and amassed an estimated $1.5 dollars from that trade and his plantation. Forrest was a military genius, a natural warrior, and had a very questionable racist past. What does this have to do with the rest of the opening paragraph?

Forrest, upon joining the army, was a Private. He then used his own funds to secure a regiment and was promoted to Lieutenant Commander. His exploits through the war secured him further increases in rank and power until he attained the rank of Major General and the cavalry for four states. In his first fight, Forrest improvised a double envelopment and combined it with a frontal assault which he had probably never heard of. In one battle a brigade known as the “Lightning Mule” was heading for Rome, Georgia. The citizens pulled out antiquated cannons and arms that would probably have done more harm to themselves than the enemy and were terrorized. Forrest however had been harassing the brigade at every turn and when they tried to cross a bridge to the town they were completely exhausted. In a bluff, Forrest captured the 1,700 troops with only 500 of his own men. The terror turned to celebration when word arrived that Forrest had saved the town. A massive banquet was prepared for the general, but he and his army had left a few days earlier to keep on fighting, only taking a horse as a gift.

One of Forrest’s noteworthy military accomplishments was at Fort Donelson, where he disagreed with the surrender of the fort to Northern hands. When he heard that they would surrender he took his own troops out without a shot being fired at him from the supposedly surrounded fort. The loss of that fort was the first major blow to the south. They lost 13,000 men to the north, all of whom were in the fort except for Forrest’s men.

In Murfreesboro, Tennessee, Forrest freed a local garrison that was imprisoned for attacks on patrols near their farms. When he was advised to leave after the successful escape the colonel replied, “I did not come here to make half a job of it, I want them all”, and then demanded the unconditional surrender of the garrison. The Union commanders had more men, guns and an entrenched position, but surrendered anyway, not knowing that Forrest was bluffing.

Senator Daniel said about Forrest, “what genius was in that wonderful man! He felt the field as Blind Tom touches the keys of the piano. 'War means killing‘,” he said, and the way to kill is to get there first with the most men. He taught at the famous military institute West Point but never took lessons there. By European authority he is pronounced the most magnificent cavalry officer that America has produced.

In battle he once charged a line of gunmen to secure his men retreating. At one time he was shot by a disgruntled subordinate, who he then mortally wounded with a penknife. He had 31 horses shot out from under him during combat. He also killed 30 people with a combination of pistols and swords and was seriously wounded four times. No one could boast as many killed as him; few even come close. One time where he was wounded was when he was surrounded by soldiers trying to kill him and was shot in the back looking like he was nearly dead. The transcript said “He dashed that appearance, though, when he grabbed one of the soldiers by the jacket and pulled him up behind him, onto the horse. Slashing with his saber and his pistol firing, Bedford amazingly cut through the blue mass and rode away, the US soldier acting as a human “shield” to gunshots. When he’d arrived into safety, Bedford dropped the poor guy, still dazed and dumbfounded from the incident. Forrest was treated for his wound, which barely missed his spine.”

One of his very questionable activities was at Ft. Pillow. Where his men massacred the defending black troops. He claims that they picked up their guns even after the surrender of the fort, which is not surprising considering the fact that the south issued the statement that no black prisoners would be taken. He and his men claim that they fought back and it stands in his favor that he had in his own men 50 slaves of his slaves whom he freed 6 months before the war was finished. It does not seem likely that they would take part in a massacre unless Forrest inspired a great amount of loyalty in them. If he did do it, it stands to reason that he treated them in a good enough way that he respected them. This would lead one to believe that he would probably have respect (?) enemy soldiers.

After executing several successful raids behind Union lines he was given command over all the cavalry in Tennessee. Later on, in spite of the controversy at Ft. Pillow, he became commander of Alabama, Missippi, and Louisiana cavalry. This might be in part because of his engagement of Federal troops at Brice’s Crossroads on June 10, 1864. It is considered by many people to be the perfect battle.

In the beginning of the war neither side regarded cavalry very highly for fighting purposes; they were mostly used as scouts. Probably Forrest more than any other man made the cavalry respected and used during the Civil War. They more resembled dragoons than cavalry though, they were mostly mounted foot soldiers (?). If one could call Jackson’s troops web footed infantry, by the same token Forrest’s troops could be called four legged infantry.

After the war he was wiped out financially and went back to planting crops. He became the president of the Selma, Marion & Memphis Railroad, which he helped promote. He also joined the KKK and was apparently one of its early leaders. He did not sanction the cowardly violent and even claimed that he would fight the white men responsible for taking a black man out of jail and killing him. When the KKK became more violent Forrest tried to disband it. They reformed under new leadership and continued their depredations. The next year congress passed a law outlawing the KKK and they continued in their actions even in spite of that.

Forrest was also a freemason which was spun off into the KKK after the war. The KKK was an economic elitist society, with merchants, retailers, and inventors. The KKK used racial tensions to leverage racial divisions and prevent unity among working people. The KKK’s targets also included union and political organizers, who tried to bring people together. Some even think that the KKK was simply a more racist version of freemasonry in the beginning.

Forrest died, possibly of diabetes, at Memphis Tennessee on October 29, 1877 and is buried there. Nathan Bedford Forrest III, the grandson and last direct descendant, died in WWI over Germany. He was also a Brigadier General, probably in part due to his fathers fame, but was part of the air corps instead of cavalry.

Forrest is even causing controversy today in his home state. Nashville is still a segregated city with the north side being considered “black” and the west side being considered “white”. In the eighties a black student at Vanderbilt University would be considered “suspicious”. The placement of a statue of him being erected is causing much disagreement. Some decry him a brute for his massacre of black soldiers; others portray him as a great man. The actual statue of him pays best tribute ignoring partisan ranting though. It shows him as a crazed general with his eyes popping out, not the standard standing in a way as to garner respect. This shows that while the issue of the statue is very partisan the statue in itself is not homage. It is an accurate portrayal of a warrior.

In conclusion of this research paper. This thesis is about Nathan Bedford Forrest who was a military genius, a natural warrior, and had a questionable racist past. This last bit is largely unnecessary