Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Military work group.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Tennessee
Portal
Nathan Bedford Forrest is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member.
[Watch Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Template Usage]
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.
WikiProject Secret Societies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies,
a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to Secret Societies.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance within Secret Societies articles.

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Awesome Photo!

Now... I would have just undone it, but... I really wanted someone else to see how funny it looked. Sid 16:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny because I didn't realise the photo had been edited until I went to the Ku Klux Klan article. Ehehe. Sid 16:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Funny, but jokes don't belong in encyclopedias. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USCT POV

I'm Deleting the following line within the "Battle of Ft. Pillow" Section:

"The placing of USCT in positions where they would absorb the heaviest casualties was a practice followed by Union forces throughout the war."

It seems irrelevant to the subject Nathan Forrest, is not cited and throws off some very bad POV vibes.


Mm1379 04:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)mm1379

[edit] garbageman

Can someone please replace "garbageman" with the word that was supposed to be in the article? 139.48.81.98 15:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] allegiance

The Infobox Military Person template uses the term 'allegiance' to mean which of the opposing forces in a conflict the guy supported. Since Forrest had no military activities prior to or after the Civil War, discussing his military allegiance in those times is meaningless. (Robert E. Lee, on the other hand, is an example of someone who could legitimately have two entries, since he was a prominent US Army officer with wartime service prior to joining the CSA.) Mere citizenship in a country should have no bearing on these military summary boxes. If it did, it would require changes to all of the Confederate boxes -- USA, CSA, USA -- and to everyone who was a citizen of another country prior to coming to the US, which would add little value to the reader. Hal Jespersen 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Sorry, my mistake! --Autiger01 21:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Git thar fust with the most men..."

There's a good deal of debate about what Forrest actually said. Some say that he said, "I get there firstest with the mostest." Others use the "Git thar fust with the most men." Both seem rather incorrect--Forrest was a highly educated Southern Gentleman, who would likely have taken great pains with his speech. It seems to me that he would probably have said simply, "I get there first, with the most men."

You are right about the debate and there are even more variations extant. However, your assumption is incorrect. Although Forrest was a successful businessman before the war, he had virtually no formal education and was arguably no gentleman. Hal Jespersen 19:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Any cursory examination of the writings of Bedford Forrest will show that he was very poorly educated in writing skills and the use of grammar. These are an unlikely combination for someone who was allegedly highly educated. In Wills' A Battle from the Start, he is referred to as an "untutored genius" (page 1). Page 11 indicates he had only 3 months' schooling in Tennessee and little more than that in Mississippi.Fr seraphim (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How does someone SAY "get thar fust with the most men"? It seems to me that this is an attempt to reflect pronunciation in writing. I bet that it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to say that to anyone and have a reporter or historian quote me as saying "get thar fust with the most men", unless, of course, he or she is familiar with the Forrest quote. Do we normally try to reflect every nuance and oddity of pronunciation when quoting people, especially in reference works? I don't think so. For example, remember this famous speech snippet: "The only thing we have to feah... is feah itself." Is that in any history books? Yet that seems to me to be closer to how FDR said it than "fear itself."

I submit that this is an UNFAIR, BIASED way of quoting Forrest.It is the way a victor quotes one defeated. I'm surprised there is no statement about Forrest being a bar-bar-bar barian, as the Ancient Greeks categorized the speech of those they vanquished.Geneven (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have it written as '"Get there first with the most."' in one of my books, but all quotes in it are cleaned up for the reader. Hlj and Fr S are quite correct about Forrest's background, and it seems likely it would come from Forrest with all of the dialect and education the man could muster, if heard from his lips directly. As for being either a gentleman or a barbarian, this quote is a good summary of the figure: "Forrest was a fearless, brilliant, resolute, and sometimes brutal commander... his brutality, most notably at Fort Pillow, stained his record." Kresock (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy

The Posthumous Legacy sections seems a little POV. More specifically the sentence "Propaganda controversy still surrounds his actions at Fort Pillow perpetuated by those who ignore the facts of the incident, and his reputation has been marred by disproven allegations regarding his supposed leadership role in the first incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan," seems to be slanted in Forrest's favor. The following sentence, "His remarkably changed views on race in his later years were quickly forgotten as Forrest erroneously became an icon for the Klan and holdout racist Southerners who mistakenly believed Forrest to have been a scion of racism and segregation," seems to imply that the writer knows for a fact or at least has overwhelming evidence that Forrest wasn't a racist. I don't want to label him a racist, but trying to paint him as a pro-Union, pro-black saint is a little a ridiculous. The man sold slaves and later fought in the Civil War to defend his livlihood, and later still made public statements praising the KKK. Eno-Etile 03:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-War Years and KKK

Given that Forrest denied being a member of the KKK, and that some of these sources have debatable information, the KKK portion should be reduced and rewritten in this section. I would recommend it be taken out of the section title. There doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence for continuing rumors about his involvement, even if he claimed sympathy at one point. There shouldn't be so much attention given to the group and its activities here when Forrest denied belonging to it. A source that was used as a reference on the KKK page (since deleted) stated the first quote used in this article was not necessarily true. Repeating inflammatory statements based on thirdhand sources isn't good journalism, much less good encyclopedia policy. The KKK appealed to people for more reasons than Forrest's prominence. Rather than repeating Forrest's interview about the KKK when he denied participation, there should be a link to it, as wikipedia has the text.--Parkwells 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There is other information online that seems to assume or state that Forrest did belong to the KKK, so I'm not sure how to take this article's assertion that was never proved. Also, there's a relatively recent biography cited at Amazon.com that also says he was in the KKK.--Parkwells 19:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is little discussion here or in the KKK article about substantive power relations, and why insurgent actions like this have been typical when groups lose power after war. They may have lost the war, but they didn't change their thinking and weren't ready to give up power. Look at the aftermath of WWII in Europe, when people continued rivalries and murders, and in Iraq.--Parkwells 18:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)--Parkwells 18:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That he was the original Grand Wizard of the KKK has long been rumored, but never proven. It would have suited the purposes of both the KKK and the Occupation Army to have people believe Forrest was involved. Forrest himself denied the stories. And in terms of actual proof, we have scant evidence either way. To compromise, I added the word "rumored" in the final sentence of the introduction, where it stated he was the first Grand Wizard, but left the part about him being "remembered" as the first Grand Wizard intact. Also, I took out the "racist" adjective before the description of the KKK. Though later incarnations of the KKK were clearly racist, the original group was a political organization dedicated to returning the Democrats back to power. To label that as "racist" seems a bit POV, especially when looked at in context (racist compared to what?)Bogan444 21:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am afraid you are in error. I will be happy to provide authoritative citations to the sources proving Forest's leadership of the Klan. Can you supply sources showing these claims are rumor and not fact? We know he was not a founder and that is not at issue. That the Klan was brutal under Forrest is also not in dispute, according to sources I will add to the article. Feel free to add your sources and readers can make up their own minds as to credibility of sources. Thanks.Skywriter 21:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"But The Times also reported that it would not be for military victories that Forrest would pass into history..." I wonder if the I could talk the Times into reporting to me next week's winning lottery numbers. Is "reported" what was meant as opposed to "predicted" or "editorialized" or "slandered the deceased by saying..." I'm afraid I'm too biased to attempt an edit, and I am also plagued by self-doubt in my reading abilities, so I think there's a good chance I completely misunderstand this, and it's not a problem at all. -dprince —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.208.44 (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wills' A Battle from the Start [[ |isbn= 0-06-092445-4]] on page 336 indicates that there is some debate over whether Bedford Forrest was ever the Grand Wizard of the Klan, but on pages 354, 357, 359, and 369 he goes on to demonstrate the some of the activities of Forrest as Grand Wizard.Fr seraphim (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How does one go about reporting the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.208.44 (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scarcity of Citations

Last week, I went through this article pointing out areas in need of citations. Someone else came through and replaced the "excessive" request for citations with a notice at the top of the page. This note serves notice that I intend to remove unsourced material from this article. Requests for citations have been with this article for quite some time and no one has taken enough interest to fix it. This is fair warning that unsourced material is subject to removal at any time, which means soon. Cheers.Skywriter 23:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor quality citations

This article seems to rely heavily on this commercial site for which we do not know the historical provenance because it provides no citations. http://www.csasilverdollar.com/forrest.html What we do know is that the site is primarily motivated by the desire to amass profits by selling trinkets. https://secure-commerce.worldspice.net:446/order2.html

Two weeks ago, I put up requests for specific citations within the article, and then someone came along and put a big tag at the top of the page requesting citations. No one has yet responded with quality links, except for the few that I have added. This note is the reminder that unsourced material is subject to removal at any time. If there's anything in this article, you'd like to save and that you can show is true, then cite the source.

This article will no longer serve as an ATM machine for CSA Silver Dollar. Skywriter 20:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: This is not a source: General Nathan Bedford Forrest Historical Society,P.O. Box 11141 Memphis, Tennessee 38111. A source is a book, article or document of some kind, never an address. Furthermore, I highly doubt that the "Nathan Bedford Forrest Historical Society" is an unbiased source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.74.233 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association

Do we have a better citation for Forrest's speech at the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association? If not, I don't think it belongs in this article. --JesseBHolmes 00:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undefeated? What about Tupelo?

I took out this statement:

"Forrest was undefeated in battle until the final days of the war"

because it contradicted the statement later in the article that said that Forrest suffered his first major tactical defeat at Tupelo in July 1864. As this was about 9 months before the end of the war, it can hardly be considered "the final days."

I replaced it with Forrest "rarely" losing a cavalry battle during the war. I'm not completely happy with the statement, but I think the use of "rarely" can be justified when used for particular battles that featured his forces (as opposed to larger scale battles). But if someone has a better sentence, feel free to edit. But just deleting it didn't help the flow of the article, imo.

Also, right after my revision, the article said something about Bragg and Forrest not getting along, and then quoting Robert E. Lee and others saying that they did not use Forrest as well as they should have during the war. Is the placement of the two statments together implying or alleging a connection between the two? If so, it would be better to mention it specifically.John ISEM 07:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)