Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest

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)

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

Check the Battle of the Crater (Petersburg) where Grant and Meade were so worried about risking such an accusation that they pulled a well-rehearsed black brigade out of the line and ordered it to be replaced by a white unit, which was unrehearsed, causing a disastrous slaughter, as well as throwing away a chance to end the war instantly. 86.145.155.99 (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

I will humbly submit the following. Nathan Bedford Forrest brought a number of his personal slaves with him to the war, with the promise that if they volunteered to fight and stayed by him through the war, he would free them as well as pay them. They did stay with him through the war, excepting casualties. N.B.F. was also elected the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, but this was several years after the klan became a fraternal organization for confederate veterans after the war. The Klan has existed in 3 different guises, the first klan was established according to it's charter with only one purpose: entertainment, the only method available by the first laws was hazing new members. This Klan became unpopular as the reins of political control in Tennessee were handed over entirely to Unionist Tennesseeans when the war ended. Nathan Bedford Forrest in his capacity of Grand Wizard of the National KKK disbanded this first Klan, the next time history saw the KKK in the early 1900's, it was running the state of Indiana. I feel that the automatic demonizing of the antebellum south and it's major figures is no longer needed in our progressive age, but the many years of slanted history may never give a truly accurate account of what was, in it's basic form, people living in the old south who lost a war with the United States.

I will submit that my touch-ups will be subtle, unslanted, and well referenced. Feel free to keep me extra honest... L0stUs3r (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

I find this statement in today's text absolutely without merit - "State Democrats who made up the KKK hoped to be able to persuade black voters to support their candidates without coercion and return to the social and economic racially-tiered status quo that existed before the war." Just what is meant by "racially-tiered status quo" except a return to repression and abject slavery? This sentence apologizes for those who wanted things just as they were, and were willing to kill and intimidate to make it so. without any citations (boy, I'd love to read the reputable author who wrote THAT masterpiece!) I will delete it, or at least invert it so that it reads - "State Democrats who made up the KKK hoped to be able to persuade black voters to go back to the state of repression and slavery that existed before the war." Rjsquirrel101 (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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." Although it is still techniqually a victory by Nathan Bedford Forrest, while he lost more men than General Sooey Smith did pull back and head up North to Tennesse. Smith stated that he knew he wouldn't be able to take the town from Forrest's grasp, considering he had to do alot of careful maneuvering in the open feilds he had to get through to Tupelo.

Some would say that Forrest "rarely" lost 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)

I would consider the last 9 months of a war the "final days" Especially a war that lasted several years. The phrase "final days" doesn't actually refer to "days" it refers to the beginning of the end of something. The word days is not literal. The fact that he fought for several years without a defeat is meaningful as far as his service as soldier goes. how about saying something like he was "undefeated in battle until **** which occured such and such date. That would probably be more specific and honest what with the dates and all.75.145.103.13 (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the last statement, to refer to 9 months before the end of the war as the "final days" is extremely imprecise in an encyclopedic context, especially concerning a subject with has had a myriad of volumes written about it. In July 1864, the victory of the North was not certain by any means. The term final days would not be legitimately used in an encyclopedic sense until at least January 1865, which was 4 months before Lee surrendered to Grant in 1865. mplate:UnsignedIP -->

Forrest also lost the Battle of the Cedars on the old Stones River Battlefield in late 1864 when Gen. Hood had him participate in his Tennessee Invasion. L0stUs3r (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I know many Civil War historians who would disagree with the notion that the Union victory was "not certain by any means" in July of 1864. Inevitability is a prime factor. 148.137.226.167 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Further citing

I just cited some dates involving Forrest's military career and updated the refs for them. I also added a "dubious" tag to the statement concerning his death and provided a cite with an alternative reason until we know what exactly he died of. Lastly I removed the text of what I think is a cite of the Wills' book and turned it into the <ref/ref> type. As other editors have noted, this article needs much better refs and in-line citing or the material should go. Kresock (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Alleged??

What's with all the "alleged" crap? Don't real historians know exactly what went on at Fort Pillow now? JeffBurdges (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC) --The slaves who enlisted with Forrest: What evidence is there that 44 of his slaves enlisted in his unit? What further evidence id there that 43 served the entire war with him? While I am aware of large numbers of Blacks who fought, voluntarily or otherwise for the Confederacy, both free and slave, it seems odd that for a unit which saw so much action that 43 came through the war alive. Is there documentation of any of this? It would be most informative. As an aside, a Black slaveholder from South Carolina is reported to have raised, equipped and trained a Black artillery regiment for that state.Such actions were not unknown. As another aside, property records of 1859 in St. John the Baptist Parish of Louisiana indicated that 19 of 54 plantations there were owned by free people of color who were slave holders.Those records are available at the Parish courthouse. All I ask is that we have more information that can be verified. Petitjean1 (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)petitjean1

Historians don't have a time machine. The totality of the evidence suggests the claims of an atrocity at Fort Pillow were simply Northern propaganda, but we can't know that for sure. Both sides offered differing accounts of what happened and we have no way of sorting it out after the fact. As to his slaves surviving the war, I have no insight in to Forrest's particular situation, but when slaves went off to war with their masters, they usually did so as auxiliaries, not front line combat troops.Bogan444 (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There were NOT large numbers of Blacks who fought for the Confederacy. Slaves were used as labor for the Confederate Army, and not as soldiers. It is revisionist, false history, to claim otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.247.207 (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias

You can't fault pro-Forrest websites for being biased and then fill the article with suggestions that he was an irredeemable racist and only cite sources which have a clear and obvious bias AGAINST Forrest. It is not for Wikipedia to pay historical figures back over perceived sins which do not have strong historical support. If you want this to remain "Wikipinion" or "Wikigossip" keep doing this kind of thing...I don't think it's credible in the shape that this site is in to suggest that this is any kind of credible encyclopedia...I wonder if this entire think is a help or hindrance based on how many rumors and outright lies are passed off to millions as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.158.55 (talk • contribs)

Poor introduction

As the introduction now stands, it contains at best misleading material that is clarified/contradicted a little further down. This is poor writing. Here's what I'm talking about: "He is remembered both as a self made and innovative cavalry leader during the war and a s a figure in the postwar establishment of the first Ku Klux Klan organization opposing the reconstruction era in the South." The article goes on to say that he was "cleared" of any involvement with the Klan. So, why have this allegation in the introduction? (The weasel word "remembered" is not an adequate justification.) Kdammers (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Of course, when they can they will ALWAYS lead with the allegations that a white man has been in the KKK or is called a racist. It seems wikipedia has some kind of bias for constantly mentioning the KKK in articles. Strange I looked up Louis Farrakahn and the word racist is only used once, as in "critics claim SOME of his views are racist" that's it. The man who openly hates apparently is not a racist. Farrakahn openly hates jewish people and has called for them to die, and the word anti-semite is not even on his page. It's sure all over Duke's page, though. GET RID OF THE BIAS !! 75.145.103.13 (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction regarding KKK

The article states both that General Forrest was an active participant in the establishment and early years of the KKK. However it also states that no evidence exists that Forrest indeed had anything to do with the KKK. You can't have it both ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadel (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Forrest's role as a KKK leader is sourced to a reliable, secondary source. The lede contained an unsourced quote as well as the allegations that he was somehow cleared by Congress -- in the body of the article this claim (but not the quote) is sourced to some 400+ pages of congressional testimony, but does not provide an exact quote or any reliable, secondary source that summarizes the significance of this testimony. Since Forrest's role in the KKK is widely reported in reliable secondary sources, I have removed the contradictory material from the lede. This article has been tagged for lack of citations for over a year and it is abou time that some of this stuff be deleted until it is properly sourced. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Forrest was leader of the "original KKK" which he dissolved. Others later created a "new KKK" which had no link to Forrest. Edison (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

But he was elected as leader without his knowledge. That does not really make him a Klan leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.40.26 (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Achilles V. Clark"

This has been in and out of the article, supposedly a reference to a writing by one of Forrest's soldiers about how murderous he was toward blacks in battle. Without more information, it should not be the basis of claims made in such a controversial subject, in a historical matter where false claims have a long history. What book is it in? Which historians have weighed in on its accuracy? A primary source is unsuitable in covering a heated controversy of 120 odd years ago. This, so far, does not even qualify as a primary source, due to total lack of information about it. Edison (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Found reference to the letter at [1]. The book author notes that Clark claimed no direct knowledge of Forrest giving an order to continue the killing. Edison (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because no one was explaining why it was being removed....the proper way to continue to challenge this would be to also place a {{cn}} on the section in question which should allow a good faith time period for someone to possibly procure a more proper reference. Thank you for bringing the discussion here to the talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

At this point I would accept that a soldier who was there wrote the letter, but the one reliable (secondary) source I found did not assume that Clark's statement about Forrest's orders was correct. Other sources said Forrest ordered the shooting to stop. It seems fair to include it with caveats. Edison (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for pity's sake.

I'd be happier at the rampant citation tagging if the taggers had bothered to make the slightest effort to verify the statements, given the hundreds and hundreds of books available on the Civil War, many from eminent and unimpeacheable historians. I've managed to cite three of them in under five minutes from a single volume alone, and am about to launch into more. Would anyone else like to put in a modest effort as well?  Ravenswing  10:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been on my "to do" list for sometime. I love his name. ;) --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 13:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Genius tag from Shelby Foote

In the Ken Burns Civil War series, Foote relates that he spoke with NBF's daughter once, who was quite elderly by that time. He told her he thought the Civil War produced only two authentic geniuses, her father and Abraham Lincoln. He says there was a pause on the phone line, then the old lady coldly remarked to the effect that "we don't hold Mr. Lincoln in very high regard down here." Foote (who is from Mississippi) thought that showed clearly how some Southerners have not quite gotten over the War just yet! Bigmac31 (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What was his highest rank?

Ths article has bounced back and forth between Lt. General and Major General. To what level did he get promoted? We need a consensus here supported by reliable sources, such as history books rather than personal websites or blogs, and those should be based on official CSA primary documents.Edison (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica says "Major General" by the time his forces captured Fort Pillow. I will revert the article to that statement, pending reliable sources which say otherwise.Was one a brevet rank and the other a "permanent rank" in a temporary army? Edison (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Generals in blue and gray" by Wilmer L. Jones, 2004, page 163 says "in 1864 "Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest led his troops from northern Mississippi into Tennessee." on page 172 it says "On December 4, 1863, he was promoted to Major General." Then it says on page 173 , referring to 1865: "In February, Forrest was promoted to lieutenant general." The Wikipedia article Ranks and insignia of the Confederate States indicates a Lt. General was a higher rank than Major General, equivalent to a 3 star general in the modern U.S. army. There were only 18 Lt. Generals in the CSA. So Lieutenant General it is. The confusion is from the fact that a "Major" far outranks a "Lieutenant." Grant was "Lieutenant General" in the Union Army.Edison (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

While a Major does indeed outrank a Lieutenant, the rank Lieutenant General outranks Major General. This may sound contradictory, but bear in mind that Lieutenant is a place holder (from the French translation of Lieutenant) if you will at the company level for Captain. Lieutenant General is a place holder for the rank of General... generally speaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Exoneration of Forrest for Fort Pillow?

I have reverted two statements that clam Forrest was somehow exonerated by the United States Congress for attrocities at Fort Pillow. Both reference page 386 in Andrew Ward's "River Run Red". In fact, this page is about the post-war years and has nothing to do with Fort Pillow. The section of Ward's book dealing with the Congressional investigation of the massacre is covered in pages 311-320 and there is no hint that Congress exonerated Forrest.

I also reverted a claim that said "Later, federal inquiries into Bedford's Klan activity absolved him of all involvement, except attempts to get the Klan to disband once it started using violence against African Americans." Whle it appeared that the claim was sourced, in fact neither source supports this claim -- the sources were apparently added to support the material immediately preceding the sentence I deleted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Sourcing

There has been a long standing problem with sourcing on this article. I removed a few long standing tagged sentences a while back. Today, I reverted good parts of recent edits that contained unsourced opinions on Forrest's military career. Certainly there is room for discussions of Forrest's innovative tactics, the discussions have to be sourced -- this sourcing was lacking in the material I removed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Private -> division commander

He was one of the few officers in either army to enlist as a private and be promoted to general officer and division commander by the end of the war.

Surely, he was the only one? Is there a need to hedge with the annoyingly vague "one of the few"? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Cavalry command

I have several suggested edits for this section, although I don't consider myself enough of a NBF scholar to make them myself.

First, I don't understand the relevance of the quote of the Union Commander report in the 4th paragraph. The portion of the report currently quoted makes no reference to NBF or his unit or even to Tennessee for that matter. If you follow the link and read the actual report, it becomes more apparent the key role NBF played in that battle and in the Union commander's decision to surrender. So I would suggest a more relevant quote from a different portion of the same report.

Second, I would be interested to know who promoted NBF to brigadier general and gave him command of a Confederate Cavalry brigade. Did this order come from Confederate General Braxton Bragg?

Third, speaking of Confederate General Braxton Bragg, the paragraph following the Union commander quote references "Bragg" without him being mentioned anywhere in the NBF article before that. This could be the result of subsequent edits, but I suggest it be made clear who Bragg is and if it does refer to Confederate General Braxton Bragg, you should provide the wikilink to Bragg's separate article on Wikipedia.

Fourth, I suggest you set forth the reason why Bragg removed NBF's men to another commander over his protest. It sounds like there is an interesting story behind that.

Finally, I agree with the above comments that this article needs more citations.

Mthorn10 (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

unclear - did CSA troops letters support or contradict allegations at Ft Pillow

This statement follows claims by a union general of CSA troops indiscriminately burning a barracks: "These claims were directly disputed in letters, written by Confederate soldiers to their own families, which described wanton brutality on the part of Southern troops."

So if the letters describe "wanton brutality", are they supporting the claim that Ft. Pillow was a massacre? Or do the letters contradict that claim? Either way, this section is unclear, yet critical to weighing one's historical perspective of Forrest. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much to DeXXus for excellent clarification of the section.

If I may ask for one more clarification on: "however the report of Union Lieutenant Daniel Van Horn said that act was due to orders carried out by Union Lieutenant John D. Hill."

First, did this happen at Fort Pillow? Second, why would officers set fire to their own wounded-occupied barracks? I've heard of such acts as a "no-way-out" motivation in desperate wars, but it sounds like "officers and men ... agreed to fight to the last quarter" (if this happened at Pillow), so such motivation would be unnecessary. Finally, is there context in terms of general Civil War atrocities? I can't imagine he was the only man who had to live down an infamous act. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

First, answer is YES (see the linked source) since the citation [52] is part of the "Report of Lieut. Daniel Van Horn, Sixth U.S. Colored Heavy Artillery, of the capture of Fort Pillow". Second, check the source for the citation to reference the fact that the barracks were "outside the fort" and then you're still free to ponder the whys, whatifs and implications.DeXXus (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I really appreciate all your help. I checked the linked source - the objection I had to this description is that it is within this context: "Forrest's men were alleged to have set fire to Union barracks with wounded Union soldiers inside, however ... that act was due to orders carried out by Union Lieutenant John D. Hill". In [52], the soldier does not say that the barracks had wounded soldiers inside with the Union Lieutenant burned it down, so presumably (since that's a rather important thing to leave out) the barracks were empty. This seems an important clarification of the conflicting stories: Forrest was alleged to set fire to barracks with wounded inside, while [52] says that the Union officer set the fire, presumably with no-one inside.

Unless, could they possibly be referring to two separate barracks? (EDIT) Okay, I'm seeing this more clearly now with a battle plan from [2] and some extra historical quotes. I had pictured in my head a single boot-camp-style barracks building lined with beds that housed all the enlisted together, but the map schematic indicates there were several. Still, it seems there's still some factual points of relevance toward understanding the massacre, especially as I try to put it in context (I can't find any decent listing of atrocities of the Civil War - can someone recommend a good source - not necessarily interpretive, but just diverse?) SamuelRiv (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=0MvlfHVwVNwC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=bedford+forrest+burned+barracks+soldiers+inside&source=bl&ots=bArj3jjQsk&sig=e-7s2t4tyHyhAJUYY_HfITbOGe4&hl=en&ei=h0pXTcfCEJK2tgex2MjXDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false(Indented bullet point 4.)DeXXus (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Was it the New York Times in 1917 or 1918 about the Bedford Forrest "quote"?

This link http://books.google.com/books?id=uxuoPabCiNQC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=firstest+with+the+mostest+new+york+times&source=bl&ots=CkUU1ZUFCv&sig=gaUyn6d7BImEPkXUnU6WTpD-YlA&hl=en&ei=FHnmTbr6Fajc0QG8oMiXCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=firstest%20with%20the%20mostest%20new%20york%20times&f=false

on page 98 says the NYT article occurs in 1918. The source is "The Myth of Nathan Bedford Forrest" by Ashton and Caudill. JMOprof (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from the original New York Times article, dated May 28, 1918:[3]

• No one, not even NAPOLEON, ever put the military art more completely than did General NATHAN BEDFORD FORREST when, in answer to a woman who asked him the secret of his success, he replied, "Ma'am, I got there first with the most men."

The articles goes on to say that its rival, the NY Tribune, and others have misquoted Forrest. As proof, it simply shows that Forrest was capable of writing with correct grammar and argues the the "baby talk" version is a put-down of a military genius.  Will Beback  talk  21:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Then this line from the article "Forrest is often erroneously quoted as saying his strategy was to "git thar fustest with the mostest," but this quote first appeared in print in a New York Times story in 1917, written to provide colorful comments in reaction to European interest in Civil War generals." is wrong twice. It was the Tribune, not the Times, and it was 1918 not 1917. JMOprof (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you are summarizing the matter correctly.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A 1940s review of "First with the most" Forrest says that that biography also debunks the "fustest" quotation. It's held in many libraries.[4]   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

See also: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)