# Was Nathan Bedford Forest really da shizznit in the war? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2011, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098 "2011-11-06T21:05:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/41 "2011-11-08T22:55:00Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > I define tactics as _how_ you fight, and strategy was _when and where_ you fight. I won’t say there’ no truth in that, but that’s not the dicitonary definition for certain. Dictionary Definition: “the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.” > [@](#): > > By my definition any form of deception is tactical; at best deception eliminates the need for combat. Well, that’s an intersting view. I wouldn’t think the great military thinkers, from Sun Tzu to Eisenhower, would agree. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/42 "2011-11-08T23:12:07Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > …correction is unnecessary. Corrections are always necessary here. We are fighting ignorance! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Namkcalb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c89c15/32.png) [@Namkcalb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Namkcalb)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/43 "2011-11-08T23:12:37Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I admire Benedict Arnold’s battlefield leadership, but I do not hold the man in high esteem. I know he was a foul traitor, but he did the patriotic thing in the end, so he isn’t as bad as the rest of the SoL terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/44 "2011-11-08T23:24:18Z")
**smiling bandit,** I’m not sure you are defining “strategy” and “tactics” in the way they are usually understood in the military. To my way of thinking, “strategy” comprises the grand plans for achieving military objectives. “Tactics” are the (often _ad hoc_) battlefield maneuvers used in pursuing the objectives set by strategy. As I understand the terms, Forrest’s deception (which involved movement of troops to make it appear as though he had more men than he really did) was very much a tactical move, dreamed up _ad hoc_ in response to battlefield conditions. It was precisely the sort of creative response to circumstances on the ground that earned Forrest a reputation as a tactical genius. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/45 "2011-11-08T23:41:23Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I won’t say there’ no truth in that, but that’s not the dicitonary definition for certain. > > Dictionary Definition: “the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.” This sounds suspiciously like “how” one fights to me! > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Well, that’s an intersting view. I wouldn’t think the great military thinkers, from Sun Tzu to Eisenhower, would agree. I would think otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/46 "2011-11-08T23:47:12Z")
> [@Namkcalb](#): > > I know he was a foul traitor, OK. > [@Namkcalb](#): > > but he did the patriotic thing in the end, Not OK, unless you were a Redcoat!!! Arnold not only fled to Redcoat lines after his treachery was discovered, he took a field command with them, and performed very well. > [@Namkcalb](#): > > so he isn’t as bad as the rest of the SoL terrorists. “SoL”? What is that? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/47 "2011-11-09T00:05:52Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > “SoL”? What is that? “Sons of Liberty,” I’m guessing. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/48 "2011-11-09T00:19:22Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > “Sons of Liberty,” I’m guessing. Ah so, thanks. I do not think that organization was guilty of terrorism in any reasonable sense of the term, any isolated few excesses not fitting the defintion. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/49 "2011-11-09T05:09:05Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > IMO it is appropriate when discussing one feature of a person’s life to mention any other outstandingly notable feature. > I myself am always grateful for inclusion of such not necessarily relevant details. Me too. Not being an American, I don’t know anything about this man, so some general comments about him are helpful (although of course, they shouldn’t derail the thread). ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/50 "2011-11-09T07:16:20Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Ah so, thanks. > > I do not think that organization was guilty of terrorism in any reasonable sense > of the term, any isolated few excesses not fitting the defintion. Really? That’s pretty much all they did. The tarring and feathering, the burning down of loyalist homes, the assaults on people who didn’t agree to non-importation. Terrorism was the raison d’etere of the Sons. ---
**Author:** ![willthekittensurvive](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@willthekittensurvive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/willthekittensurvive)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/51 "2011-11-09T07:50:33Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > . > > “SoL”? What is that? the sound of you being whooshed;) ---
**Author:** ![Namkcalb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c89c15/32.png) [@Namkcalb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Namkcalb)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/52 "2011-11-09T08:50:23Z")
> [@willthekittensurvive](#): > > the sound of you being whooshed;) Yeah, I was going to make a serious point about how both Forest and Arnold were skilled but immoral enemies of what later became the modern United States of America, but I thought the whooshing opportunity was too great to pass up. As for my real views on the subject, I come from the UK, so I have a less than romantic view of the war of 1775. I believe neither the secessionists nor the tories were absolutely right nor absolutely wrong. I believe the upper levels of the secessionists were fanning the anger generated by the genuine greavances of the colonial population for the elite’s ignoble ends but that doesn’t mean Benedict Arnold didn’t betray his duty to the men under him. He did the right thing not being a pawn of France and the elite, but he should have just left his letter and defected, instead he risked the freedom and liberty of the misinformed men and boys who had trusted him. sorry for the threadjack ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/53 "2011-11-09T17:15:07Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Really? That’s pretty much all they did. > > The tarring and feathering …the assaults on people who didn’t agree to non-importation. Terrorism was the raison d’etere of the Sons. Yes, really. Neither side was guilty of widespread atrocity, i.e. terror, at any time during the revolutionary period. The recent Hollywood production depicting such by Cornwallis’ forces is bullshit, and so are like charges against SOL, including yours. Whatever else it might be, terrorism is a threat or an act of life-taking physical violence, and in two pages of googling I have not been able to locate a single episode in which _any_ SOL target was killed prewar. Once war began it was a different story with irregular operations resulting in death on both sides, inevitably, as in all war. SOL factions did instigate riots, but injury was rare and property damage was paltry compared for example to the NYC draft riots 100 years later. As for tar and feathering, it was too trivial an act to be considered. Per Wiki there is no known case of a person dying from being tarred and feathered in this period, and The Master Himself did a report on the subject: [Cecil Adams on Tar and Feathering](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/632/has-anyone-actually-ever-been-tarred-and-feathered) (from link): > [@](#): > > It was especially popular just prior to the Revolutionary War, when many customs officials and British sympathizers got daubed… > > Unlike its close cousin lynching, tarring and feathering usually wasn’t fatal. One historian says it was employed chiefly when a mob was feeling “playful.” But the victim usually had a lot less fun than his tormentors. So: Big fucking deal, huh? > [@Captain Amazing](#): > > the burning down of loyalist homes, As for buring down Tory homes, I found no reference to any such prewar, from which one may reasonably infer it was a are occurence. Once war began enemy property was subject to destruction as it is in all wars. Whoosh. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/54 "2011-11-09T17:17:51Z")
> [@willthekittensurvive](#): > > the sound of you being whooshed;) What’s new, pussycat? See post #53. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/55 "2011-11-09T17:55:33Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Actually, in a discussion of his capabilities as a military commander, his slavetrading and his participation in the Klan are irrelevant. That he instigated the massacre of troops at Fort Pillow is the subject of some controversy. That the actions of his troops appear to be consistent with his personal attitudes toward blacks is noted, but it is also noted that there is no record of him actually ordering the killing of prisoners. He also seems to have ordered the Klan disbanded when it became too violent. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/56 "2011-11-09T18:20:57Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > I would think otherwise. Deception is an integral part of strategy. The Art of War writes about this, and the entire D-Day invasion was based on a huge deception - a strategic concern. I consider deception to be an essentially strategic concern. In the case of Forrest, his trick was to pretend his forces were larger, avoiding the need for tactiucal manuevuring. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/57 "2011-11-09T18:49:44Z")
> [@Namkcalb](#): > > Yeah, I was going to make a serious point about how both Forest and Arnold were skilled but immoral enemies of what later became the modern United States of America, You have shown no sign of being capable of making a serious point. > [@Namkcalb](#): > > but I thought the whooshing opportunity was too great to pass up. Dream about it. > [@Namkcalb](#): > > As for my real views on the subject, I come from the UK, so I have a less than romantic view of the war of 1775. I believe neither the secessionists nor the tories were absolutely right nor absolutely wrong. On the contrary, taxation without representaion IS absolutely wrong, and the British were the only ones commiting that wrong, from which followed all the events of the American Revolution. Revolution would probably have been avoided if the British had given the colonies a seat each in Parliament. Unfortunately for them they were not smart enough to see the obvious > [@Namkcalb](#): > > I believe the upper levels of the secessionists were fanning the anger generated by the genuine greavances of the colonial population for the elite’s ignoble ends There is nothing ignoble about wishing to free one’s self from overlordship, even if one is otherwise “upper level”, “elite”, or whatnot. And there is nothing ignoble about being elite as long as one does not use ones status to oppress others. The American elite created a society where any freeman might rise to political and financial leadership. They were far ahead of the rest of the world in this regard, and so do not deserve to smeared by their inferiors, such as you. > [@Namkcalb](#): > > but that doesn’t mean Benedict Arnold didn’t betray his duty to the men under him. He did the right thing not being a pawn of France None of the American leadership was in any way anyone’s “pawn”. As a matter of fact the French were thoroughly manipulated by the Americans, who in the end left France in the lurch and without gain for all its sacrifice. > [@Namkcalb](#): > > and the elite, This is a silly distortion. Arnold for quite some time had the wholehearted support of the most elite figure of all, George Washington, and he had been seeking advancement in the revolutionary cause since long before actual hostilites began, so his ambitions were then in no way at odds with the elite. Subsequent events and Arnold’s motives are obscure and complex, having to do with such elements as marriage into a Tory family, slow advancement, other insufficient appreciation for his services, and personal debt for which the British provided hope of indmenity. > [@Namkcalb](#): > > but he should have just left his letter and defected, instead he risked the freedom and liberty of the misinformed men and boys who had trusted him. Well golly here you speak of American “freedom and liberty” after all. And the awful “elites” who were providing so much of leadership had nothing to do with it? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/58 "2011-11-09T19:27:46Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > So: Big fucking deal, huh? From more of that article: > [@](#): > > A Tory assaulted by a mob in 1775 was stripped naked and daubed with hot pitch, blistering his skin, then covered with hog dung. Right. That sounds plenty pleasant. I don’t think you’d call it trivial if it happened to you. It’s a deliberate act to terrorize for political purpose. As for arson, while not of a home, what about the British sloop Gaspee, which in 1772, after it had run aground chasing smugglers, was burned in Rhode Island. As far as actual arson of homes, what about the Boston mob who, in 1765, looted and burned the home of then Chief Justice Hutchinson (later Governor). Or, while, it’s not burning, the looting of the home of the Stamp Master, Andrew Oliver. Or the burning down of the coach of the acting governor of New York and the looting of home of the commander of the Fort George garrison? What about, in 1773, the destruction of the cargoes of the ships _Dartmouth_, _Eleanor_, and _Beaver_? How is all this not political violence? How is it not terrorism? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/59 "2011-11-09T20:01:27Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Me too. Not being an American, I don’t know anything about this man, so some general comments about him are helpful (although of course, they shouldn’t derail the thread). OK then, if we’re getting into another demonization of Forrest, as seems to happen every time his name is mentioned here, we should also remember his [1875 speech](http://www.tennessee-scv.org/ForrestHistSociety/forrest_speech.html) to the Independent Order of Pole Bearers Association (an organization of black citizens dedicated to promoting voting rights): > [@](#): > > A convention and BBQ was held by the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association at the fairgrounds of Memphis, five miles east of the city. An invitation to speak was conveyed to General Nathan Bedford Forrest, one of the city’s most prominent citizens, and one of the foremost cavalry commanders in the late War Between the States. This was the first invitation granted to a white man to speak at this gathering. The invitation’s purpose, one of the leaders said, was to extend peace, joy, and union, and following a brief welcoming address a Miss Lou Lewis, daughter of an officer of the Pole-Bearers, brought forward flowers and assurances that she conveyed them as a token of good will. After Miss Lewis handed him the flowers, General Forrest responded with a short speech that, in the contemporary pages of the Memphis Appeal, evinces Forrest’s racial open-mindedness that seemed to have been growing in him. > > > [@](#): > > > > Ladies and Gentlemen I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the southern states. I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God’s earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself. ( Immense applause and laughter.) I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to elevate every man to depress none. (Applause.) I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going. I have not said anything about politics today. I don’t propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I’ll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand. (Prolonged applause.) > > Whereupon N. B. Forrest again thanked Miss Lewis for the bouquet and then gave her a kiss on the cheek. Such a kiss was unheard of in the society of those days, in 1875, but it showed a token of respect and friendship between the general and the black community and did much to promote harmony among the citizens of Memphis. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098/60 "2011-11-09T20:17:38Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > From more of that article: > > Right. That sounds plenty pleasant. I don’t think you’d call it trivial if it happened to you. It’s a deliberate act to terrorize for political purpose. I saw that, and if that is the worst that SOL could do in its 18 or so years of operation then they are not guilty as charged, since an isolated few cases of excess do not fit the definition of what it is to be a terrorist organization. > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > As for arson, while not of a home, what about the British sloop Gaspee, which in 1772, after it had run aground chasing smugglers, was burned in Rhode Island. As far as actual arson of homes, what about the Boston mob who, in 1765, looted and burned the home of then Chief Justice Hutchinson (later Governor). Or, while, it’s not burning, the looting of the home of the Stamp Master, Andrew Oliver. Or the burning down of the coach of the acting governor of New York and the looting of home of the commander of the Fort George garrison? That is 1, 2 and 3 cases of arson against officials of the crown who I assume to be British. Even if they were Colonial victims is a paltry number. > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > What about, in 1773, the destruction of the cargoes of the ships _Dartmouth_, _Eleanor_, and _Beaver_? How is all this not political violence? How is it not terrorism? If you define all political violence as terrorism then the word has no distinctive value. I have already said that terrorism must involve threat to life or loss of life to help distinguish it from violence aimed only at damaging property. Even further discrimination is necessary because otherwise conventional military engagement or guerilla warfare might then be included in the definition of terror. Speaking of which, I would term the events above as a form of maritime guerilla warfare. Here is the underlying gist of the matter: you and sophists like you seek to smear American history as suffused with terror, thereby reducing it to the level of moral parity with true terrorists such as AQ. Terror has existed in the US, but the KKK ihas been the only organization of any size or longevity to adopt it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-nathan-bedford-forest-really-da-shizznit-in-the-war/602098.md?page=4)