Was Nathan Bedford Forest really da shizznit in the war?

[DrDeth]

@Spoke

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 to the Independent Order of Pole Bearers Association (an organization of black citizens dedicated to promoting voting rights):

Interesting quote. Too bad it seems to be fake. I decided to find the source or cite for this speech, as it is a speech that is unlike NBF in tone, speech and manner. There is no historical source. No one can cite the original source, and in fact the speech only appears fairly recently, I can’t find anything before the early 1990’s.

I did find this site:

Some Questions About the Forrest Speech

which also cast grave doubts upon the authenticity of this speech.

The one early cite I can find is the NYT:

The Learning Network

“His last notable public appearance was on the Fourth of July in Memphis, when he appeared before the colored people at their celebration, was publicly presented with a bouquet by them as a mark of peace and reconciliation, and made a friendly speech in reply. In this he once more took occasion to defend himself and his war record, and to declare that he was a hearty friend of the colored race.”

Note that in the quoted “speech’, there is nothing where NBF “defends himself and his war record”. It appears that someone found a mention of the actual speech, and made up the text and certain details, such as the kiss.

[Spoke]

The speech was given on July 4, 1875, and appeared in the July 5, 1875 edition of the Memphis Appeal. (See footnote 49.)

[Quote=DrDeth]
Note that in the quoted “speech’, there is nothing where NBF “defends himself and his war record”
[/quote]

Read more carefully:

“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.”

[Spoke]

The Memphis Daily Avalanche is also cited for the speech, in its July 6, 1875 edition.

[DrDeth]

Neither has a link to the original source. Newspapers are often archived on line, but I can find nothing of the sort for this cite.

[Spoke]

@DrDeth

Neither has a link to the original source. Newspapers are often archived on line, but I can find nothing of the sort for this cite.

Very few newspapers give you online access to articles that old. I have provided you with two cites. You yourself have found a New York Times article that references the speech. Upon what are you basing your strange denial that the speech occurred? Wishful thinking?

[astro]

@colonial

Tactical skill may be displayed without personal role in the fighting, and most
highest ranking USCW generals illustrated that fact on several occasions.

Not that Forrest avoided combat: I have mentioned earlier his wound at Shiloh,
and I believe he had 20-30 horses shot out from under him. He was also reputed
to have killed 30 or so enemy in personal combat, perhaps including one who he
held as a shield, using one arm (Forrest was 6’6" tall and very strong).

Finally, from the link in my last post:

Wiki says he was not quite that large.

At six feet, two inches (1.88 m) tall and 210 pounds (95 kg; 15 stone), Forrest was physically imposing and intimidating, especially compared to the average height of men at the time. He used his skills as a hard rider and fierce swordsman to great effect. (He was known to sharpen both the top and bottom edges of his heavy saber.)

[Captain_Amazing]

@DrDeth

Note that in the quoted “speech’, there is nothing where NBF “defends himself and his war record”. It appears that someone found a mention of the actual speech, and made up the text and certain details, such as the kiss.

Hurst’s book (and yet again, I reference it. I swear the man isn’t paying me) gives more of the speech than that link did. It ends with:

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. I have been in the heat of battle when colored men asked me to protect them. I have placed myself between them and the bullets of my men and told them they should be kept unharmed. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you’re oppressed, I’ll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand.

And his cite for the speech is the Appeal. So I’ve no reason to believe the speech is false.

[DrDeth]

@Spoke

Very few newspapers give you online access to articles that old. I have provided you with two cites. You yourself have found a New York Times article that references the speech. Upon what are you basing your strange denial that the speech occurred? Wishful thinking?

I didn’t say there was no speech. Clearly there was. What I said, and my cite backs it up- is that the quoted speech is possibly not legit. It’s like the Chief Seattle speech. Certainly the Chief did give a speech. But exactly what he said was not recorded and many have put words in his mouth.

Note thise quote from my first cite “*I spent a little time today reading through a section of Brian Steel Wills’s The Confederacy’s Greatest Cavalryman: Nathan Bedford Forrest (University of Kansas Press, 1992) and in my mind the best of the recent Forrest studies. What I find so interesting is that Wills does not cite this speech at all. Given the notoriety of the speech I find it difficult to consider that he was unaware of it. There is an extensive manuscripts list in the bibliography section, which lists Forrest papers at the Chicago Historical Society, University of Georgia, Memphis Public Library, Huntington Library, and the U.S. Army Military Institute at Carlisle. *”

In other words, the cite can not find the text of the speech in any actual NBF literature, including the most authorative biography. I also could not find your text of the speech in anything but recent cites.

Note that you found one small “defense” in that speech,but the NYT times article quoted “It was evident that he felt this, as his constantly-repeated defenses of himself show.”

In this case, I think the quoted speech is made up. Find me a period cite for the words used.

The NYT Obit of NBF is also telling: "He proved himself the most regularly successful of all the Southern cavalry leaders. This was due as much to good fortune as his own talents. He never had a good officer sent against him, and he seldom attacked except where he greatly outnumbered his enemy. As a scientific commander, he was much the inferior of Wheeler or Stuart; but he had all the qualities of a guerrilla chieftain, and the history of his exploits abundantly proves that he displayed them. " In other words, folks of that period only thought he was the best CSA cavalry leader. Not a great general overall.

It’s interesting that NBF has more monuments and memorials even that RE Lee. RE Lee is possibly one of the greatest American general of all time. Yet, instead the South has chosen to honor a third rate general instead of Lee.

[DrDeth]

@Spoke

Fantasy.

Nathan Bedford Forrest did not found the KKK.

Nor did I say he did. But he did give the KKK it’s big start. Before NBF they had no leader of note.

[DrDeth]

@DrDeth

In this case, I think the quoted speech is made up. .

Or taken out of context, only a few parts quoted.

[Spoke]

@DrDeth

I didn’t say there was no speech. Clearly there was. What I said, and my cite backs it up- is that the quoted speech is possibly not legit.

Your cite doesn’t back anything up. It is speculation and conspiracy theory, the same as you are spouting here.

The one legitimate cite you do provide, to Forrest’s New York Times obituary, confirms the substance of the speech without providing the text. From the Times:

His last notable public appearance was on the Fourth of July in Memphis, when he appeared before the colored people at their celebration, was publicly presented with a bouquet by them as a mark of peace and reconciliation, and made a friendly speech in reply. In this he once more took occasion to defend himself and his war record, and to declare that he was a hearty friend of the colored race.

Note that the highlighted details from the Times match the actual text of the speech as I have provided it.

@DrDeth

It’s like the Chief Seattle speech. Certainly the Chief did give a speech. But exactly what he said was not recorded and many have put words in his mouth.

No, it’s not like that at all. I have given you two cites to newspapers, belying your originally stated position that no cites were provided for the speech. At this point, your argument consists of gainsaying those cites.

You are alleging that the text of the speech is invented in spite of two contemporary cites for the text being provided, and in spite of the text matching the summary in the Times. You are making, in other words, an extraordinary claim. Prove your claim. Look up the cites.

In this case, I think the quoted speech is made up.

Yes, that and the moon landing.

Tell me, what would be the motive for making up the text? The Times already confirms that Forrest gave a speech that was conciliatory toward blacks. Isn’t that the very thing you seem to find so hard to believe?

Find me a period cite for the words used.

I gave you two.

[Spoke]

@DrDeth

Nor did I say he did. But he did give the KKK it’s big start. Before NBF they had no leader of note.

Malarkey. The organization was thriving before he joined it.

[Captain_Amazing]

DrDeth, if you look at the blog you linked to that questioned the speech, you’ll find two other newspapers cited in the comments that also mentioned the speech:

The Galveston Daily News, July 11, 1875:
“On the fifth, celebrated for the fourth, of July, at Memphis, Generals Forrest and Pillow delivered orations to a large concourse of citizens, mostly negroes. A colored society closed the proceedings by presenting General Forrest a magnificent boquet, as a token of reconciliation.”

The Dubuque Herald, July 10, 1875:
There does not appear to be much of the old rebel yell about this. At the Fourth of July celebration in Memphis the most active participants were the colored citizens. Addresses were delivered by Gen. Forrest and Gen. Pillow, two of the fiercest of the rebel generals. Gen. Forrest received from the hands of a colored woman a bouquet, which she presented as the “representative of the colored ladies,” and which was tendered as an offering of peace. The general accepted it in this spirit, and in response said: “I accept the flowers as a momento 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.”

[DrDeth]

@Spoke

Your cite doesn’t back anything up. It is speculation and conspiracy theory, the same as you are spouting here.

The one legitimate cite you do provide, to Forrest’s New York Times obituary, confirms the substance of the speech without providing the text. From the Times:

Note that the highlighted details from the Times match the actual text of the speech as I have provided it.
.

Yes, I pointed that out. But no cite gives the actual text of the speech. All of a sudden in the 1990’s a huge slew of site sprang up, each citing the exact same quote and the extact same sitrep.

A exhaustive Biography of NBF written right before then does not.

But the details do not match the speech.

[DrDeth]

@Captain_Amazing

DrDeth, if you look at the blog you linked to that questioned the speech, you’ll find two other newspapers cited in the comments that also mentioned the speech:

Yes, and like I said, my research did show there was a speech. But no source before the 1990’s actually QUOTES the speech. Then all of a sudden, dozens and dozens of southern sympathizer sites all come up with the exact same words and situation.

Why did no one quote the speech before then?

Like I said, it’s like the Chief Seattle speech.

[Spoke]

@DrDeth

Yes, and like I said, my research did show there was a speech. But no source before the 1990’s actually QUOTES the speech.

I gave you two newspaper cites, from contemporary newspapers which apparently printed the text of the speech. You seem immune to cites.

A exhaustive Biography of NBF written right before then does not.

That biography does not exist. Unless you can produce an online version of it, scanned from the original, I refuse to believe it exists. LALALALALALALALA

(Annoying, ain’t it?)

[Captain_Amazing]

Well, supposedly, the Daily Memphis Avalanche quoted the speech. So, all we need to do is get a copy of that paper, which I’m not really sure how to do. But, it looks like, according to the LOC, the Arkansas Historical Commission has it, as do the Memphis Public Library, the Tennessee State Library, and the University of Memphis, so if anybody’s in Little Rock, Nashville or Memphis and wants to do some leg research. . .

[Spoke]

@DrDeth

It’s interesting that NBF has more monuments and memorials even that RE Lee. RE Lee is possibly one of the greatest American general of all time. Yet, instead the South has chosen to honor a third rate general instead of Lee.

This sounds suspiciously like a paraphrase of James Loewen. Please tell me you have a better source for these factoids.

[colonial]

@tomndebb

Your claim that Britain was the only entity that levied taxes without the consent of those upon whom they were levied is without any basis in fact. Given the dearth of representative governments of any sort during that period, your claim that “the British were the only ones committing that wrong” is ludicrously in error.

No I did not claim that. Because you did not read what you were replying to
with any care and thoughtfulness you have created a Straw Man.

Here is the complete context, from post #57, emphasis added:

@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.

@colonial

**On the contrary, taxation without representation IS absolutely wrong, and the British **were the only ones committing 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.

Since the “tories” were both a British political party and the colonist faction
supporting British rule it is obvious from context that I was comparing ONLY
the British and their American supporters with the American dissidents. No one
else in the world was involved in the comparison. That of course in no way
contradicts observation that representative government was also absent elsewhere.

@tomndebb

Even your claim for an “absolute” wrongness to levy such taxes is anachronistic. The general belief in the value of representative government had only begun to be developed by various philosophers in the century prior to the American rebellion.

You are misusing the word “anachronism” which means something out of chronological
order. Representative government, comatose for centuries, was reborn in the chronology
of history in 1776. An idea which had always been good became the motivating force of
a political movement whose strength continues to gather force today, as we speak.

You also commit an argumentum ad populum fallacy by denying the validity of a position
because it does not conform to “general belief”.

@tomndebb

It is an idea I heartily embrace, but it is hardly the only legitimate form of government.

What do you mean by “legitimate”? IMO representative government possesses transcendent moral legitimacy.
You gotta problem with that?

@tomndebb

Your references to the Greek democracies further demonstrates a lack of awareness of history. Athens and a couple of other cities had a rudimentary form of democratic government (with strong oligarchic leanings), but it was hardly anything that we would recognize as a representative government

You are completely mistaken.

The government of Athens was for several generations a wholehearted, pureblooded,
riproaring representative and participatory Democracy.

See link:

Ancient Athenian Democracy

(from link, emphasis added):

The democratic government of Athens rested on three main institutions, and a few others of lesser importance. The three pillars of democracy were: the Assembly of the Demos, the Council of 500, and the People’s Court. These were supplemented by the Council of the Areopagus, the Archons, and the Generals. Actual legislation involved both the Assembly and the Council, and ad hoc boards of “Lawmakers.”

In the Assembly each male citizen of Athens could speak, regardless of his station…

Under the Democracy of Aristotle’s time (after 330 BCE), young men were enrolled on this list when they were 18 years old , then spent two years as military cadets, or ephebes, after which they were members of the citizen body (i.e. Freemen became voting citizens at age 20)…

In the 5th century we can estimate the adult male population of Athens, and thus the number of men eligible to participate in an Assembly, to have been 40,000 - 60,000, and in the 4th century, 20,000 - 30,000…

Thucydides makes the statement that during the Peloponnesian War (431 - 404 BCE) there were usually only 5000 people at a meeting…

Citizens were paid for attending the Assembly, to ensure that even the poor could afford to take time from their work to participate in their own government…

Most voting in the Assembly was by a show of hands, although some votes were conducted by secret ballot. Even the most serious of matters were often decided by show of hands, such as the impeachment and condemnation of generals and the approval of formal laws…

The Council of 500 represented the full-time government of Athens. It consisted of 500 citizens, 50 from each of the ten tribes, who served for one year. The Council could issue decrees on its own, regarding certain matters, but its main function was to prepare the agenda for meetings of the Assembly…

Aristotle lists service on the Council among those offices chosen by lot . He elsewhere says that in a democratic city, the Council was the most important board of magistrates Through most of the 5th and 4th centures BCE, citizens were paid for their participation in the Council, and each citizen could serve on the Council twice in his lifetime…

A citizen had to be 30 years old to serve as a Councilor. For the sake of argument, we might assume that the average citizen would then have an active political life of 30 years, until he was 60. During that time, there would need to be approximately 10,000 chairmen, each controlling the state seal and the treasuries, and presiding over the presidents of the Council for a day and a night . Since no one could serve as chairman twice, this office would have to go to 10,000 different Athenians. It follows, then, that approximately one half of all Athenian citizens would, at some point during their lives, have the privilege and responsibility of holding this office, arguably the closest equivalent to a Chief Executive in the Athenian democracy…

Council of the Areopagus… was primarily the court with jurisdiction over cases of homicide and certain other serious crimes. After an Athenian had served as one of the nine archons, his conduct in office was investigated, and if he passed that investigation he became a member of the Areopagus; tenure was for life…

Of almost equal importance to the Assembly and Council, and probably of greater importance (if not greater prestige) than the Areopagus was the People’s Court, the Heliaea and other courts where juries of citizens would listen to cases, would vote on the guilt or innocence of their fellow citizens, and vote on punishments for those found guilty…

Athenians who served on juries received one-half drachma a day, or three obols, for their service…

There was no property requirement for service; any citizen who did not owe any debts to the treasury, was at least thirty years old, and had not lost his citizenship through any legal action could serve as a juror…

Juries varied in size from 501 jurors in lesser cases, up to 1500 for the most important matters…

And there is more in this excellent citation for anyone who cares to look.

@tomndebb

and it was not based on any Hobbesian notion of a social contract.

So what? Development of representative government did not require any philosophical underpinning.

@tomndebb

(It is notable that those “democratic” states exercised exactly the sort of distant control and taxation over their subject states and colonies for which you criticize Britain and those experiments in democracy died less from external conquest than from their own internal excesses. That is why Plato, at the end of the Peloponnesian War, and Aristotle in the next generation, each condemned democracy as a horrible and unjust form of government.)

So what?

[colonial]

@astro

Wiki says he was not quite that large.

I have a bio of Forrest which I unfortunately cannot find.

I am quite sure it gave his height as 6’6", although it has been
over 10 years since I looked at it and my memory may be faulty.