Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Use of the term Negro

No idea how to format this contribution correctly - apologies - but please could we stop using the word 'negro' unless it's a quote from a contemporary source? It's a racial slur and has no placed in the body of a Wikipedia article. 15:18 12/4/2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.5.131 (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The question has been raised - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• I oppose such a change in a historical article as it was not considered a 'slur' and was in common use well through the 1950s in America. In fact, Martin Luther King, Jr. recordings from the late 50s and early 60s have him using the term. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

There was only one instance of the use of the word "negro" that wasn't in a quotation, and I've changed it to "black". Carlstak (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but should it have been changed? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Lots of words have changed their meanings over time. In articles describing Shakespeare, we use the English of today, not the English of the 16th Century. In articles about the Civil War, we use the English of today, not the English of the 19th Century.

Articles about similar subjects, like American Civil War, or Slavery in the United States almost never uses the word "negro", preferring "African American" or "black", except when directly quoting sources. When describing official titles like United States Colored Troops, or Negro State Regiments, using these term is necessary, since that's what they're called. But in descriptive text we can choose what words to use. Why use one that some people find offensive when there exists a perfectly acceptable alternative? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Amen. Using "black" solves the problem nicely, as it was used contemporaneously and is non-offensive today. No reason to make a problem by insisting on an unnecessary and contentious usage. Carlstak (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A quoted word "negro" should be a quoted, but "black" or "African American" should be used outside a quote in the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I will not oppose changing the words to "black" outside of direct quotes, I do however question the need for such changes as negro simply means black. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

One has to wonder why a Scotsman is so invested in this that he resorts to whitesplaining. I actually have a black roommate, and I can assure you that the gratuitous use of the word negro makes him uncomfortable. It's simply a matter of common courtesy, i.e., consideration of others' feelings. Carlstak (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

-And it would be strange if it did not make one feel uncomfortable, but history has a lot of uncomfortable realities that should not be watered down because they make one feel uncomfortable and you should not judge a contributor by just a screen name, it makes one look foolish. I find the term uncomfortable as well, but historical without being a slur, unlike many names I've been called because I take after my mother's side and look not as the name might imply. Personal attacks on another editor is not productive. -C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

One has to wonder why a wikipedia editor is so invested in this that he resorts to shouting whitesplaining. I can assure you that this makes me uncomfortable. Not a show of courtesy either; being Scottish does not bar him from discussing the topic, having an opinion or stating facts, neither does being white or being from Mars (by the way, there are black Scotsmen, too, though this shouldn´t be relevant within the context of what I just said). I´m afraid as so often people are talking past each other. The English word negro is by now considered a racial slur and looking at history is easy to see why. So some want it to vanish and won´t use it anymore and apparently discourage its continued use. Of course it should be used in quotes if originally used in those, I think nobody proposed to change that. However this didn´t happen in the article as it was no quote. Also, regarding negro and black being not the same - etymologicaly they are exactly that, negro meaning black in Spanish and Portuguese and developing from Latin of course. The word simply developed further through time, and yes, it is a slur, but this doesn´t change the original meaning. The real difference is between those and African-American, though while not synonymous it of course almost is within the context of the ACW (different topic though). And context is always important, especially as the slur might me none outside of the context or era or area. You want to be considerate? Then simply don´t use the word, shouldn´t be a big deal and there are easy alternatives. You don´t care? Then use it, no censorship on wikipedia (allegedly) but beware the dawn of edit wars. So if User talk:131.111.5.131 and/or others want to discuss what words should be used on wikipedia or not there are better venues for that than some random article using one of those (the link in the title seems obvious either for discussion or for getting directions and people interest in such.) ...GELongstreet (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

What's the point of all this? I think most of us agree that "negro" should be used in quotes, but that it shouldn't be used when it can be replaced with something else. It is no longer used in this article, and everyone seems to accept that. There's nothing else to discuss. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• In a word, censorship, even self censorship on history so we can feel more 'comfortable' with what was the norms of our past should not be done lightly or without deep and thoughtful consideration. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Censorship ? The term "negro" is in Forrest's advertisement in the article and the 1877 New York Times quote. Most modern scholarship has dropped the word. How can censorship be claimed when the word is in the article ? This article needs a lot of work. It has a lot of viewers. It should be at least GA, then FA. I have been making efforts of improvement to get the neutrality tag removed. There are controversial issues, Fort Pillow, and Forrest's involvement in the Klu Klux Klan and the election of 1868. Grant lost Kansas, Georgia, and Louisiana because of the Klan activity when Forrest was the Grand Wizard leader. Forrest remained Grant's nemisis after the Civil War. In my opinion these are more pertinent issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

'No good deed goes unpunished' and helping out User:131.111.5.131 appears to be not exception. The issue was raised and the last use of the word 'negro' outside of quotations was changes so you and the rest may drop this. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There are no quotations in the Forrest advertisement. I counted the use of "negro" or "negroes" four times, without quotations. I am not an expert on that word, but from what I know the usage of the word in the academic world declined in the late 1960s. Catton may have used the word in his books on Grant. The New York Times article is quoted. I don't have any issues with that. This has to do more with editorial use of the word "negro" or "negroes" in the article. As far as I know, no modern historian uses that word anymore. I could be wrong. I think it is subject worthy of discussion. Hopefully editors can work together and get this article to GA and FA status. C.W. Gilmore your opinion is appreciated. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"The Negro Revolution Why 1963" - Martin Luther King jr. [1] How many times does he use the term in this speech? Historically it was not a slur and I only question removing it in historical articles outside of quotes as a form of censorship on Wikipedia. The historic condition for blacks in America in general should make people uncomfortable, so why should the historic term also not do the same in a historic article. Sometimes the cleaning up of our history (and historical language) begets a social amnesia to the darker and crueler parts of our past, much like the South of today where fine old manner homes are restored but the slave quarters have long ago been torn down and forgotten. We should not forget or feel too comfortable with these dark chapters, especially as the effects of our communal past still ripple through our modern world. This was the core of my argument, but I find the term 'black' to be the more neutral word; however, I do wonder what effects the renaming will have in it's own small way to hiding some of the dark cruelty of the past and what effects it will have on the future. It is true that by the 1970s in America, the terms had changed with 'negro' and 'colored' no longer being the norm in polite society. But as far as I'm aware, this article is regarding a person of the 1800s so thus, I question the applying of new terms for old facts and the impact it will have. However, the article is now changed and I will not object to it, only question it, like the tearing down of the slave quarters on the plantations. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This article discusses the progression of wording:The Financial Consequences of Saying 'Black,' vs. 'African American' The article discusses the usage of the word "negroe". Cmguy777 (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is another intersting article: The Words 'Oriental' and 'Negro' Can No Longer Be Used in US Federal Laws Cmguy777 (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"The term "Negro" was used widely in the US until the civil rights era of the 1950s and 1960s, when the movement's leaders said they found it problematic because it evoked the subjugation that black Americans were forced to endure, from slavery to segregation." Cmguy777 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I respect your arguement C.W.Gilmore, but the article has the term "negro" in Forrest's 1850s slave trader advertizement. I disagree that the word is being censored from the article. The term "black" is now unpopular. The best is African American. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The term African American can also be problematic for discribing people that are not recent African immigrants or their children. The post slave black population of the Americas is extremely ethnically diverse including everything from Mestizos to the decedents of Presidents. Sadly much of it was due to rapes or forced breeding programs that further muddled the issue of race in the black community of the Americas; add to this mix the racism based on skin color and it is little wonder that Mildred Loving spoke of herself as Native American. For want of a better term, black might be the better wording, especially in a historical article in my opinion. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The term African American is not perfect. An alternative term is "Americans of African descent", although that is a very long phrase. I think the best policy for now for this article would be to use the terms "black", "African American", and "Americans of African descent" when approrpriate in the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

Recent edits to the Nathan Bedford Forrest article have been made to increase article neutrality. Is the neutrality of this article still under dispute ? Can the neutrality tag be removed from the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I was just going to bring this up myself. I think the article has achieved neutrality, but I will now ping Deisenbe, who added the tag, for his input. Carlstak (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing myself. I’ll take it out. I think we want to keep a careful eye on it, though.

If you’re interested in my current battle, see Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen. deisenbe (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Deisenbe. Agreed that we should keep a close eye on the article. Carlstak (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the tag Deisenbe. Yes. I agree close watch is needed on the article. Neutrality and clarification of information could help concerning Forrest and the Fort Pillow controvery. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Category

I added Category:Nathan Bedford Forrest to Category:Wikipedia categories named after American criminals on the grounds that Forrest was a major early leader of the KKK, which used blatantly criminal acts of violence and intimidation against blacks. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)d be made

The case could be made from some points of view that all generals who direct soldiers in acts of killing people and destroying property are criminals, but I don't think it's proper to single out this one general, flawed as he may have been, and categorize him as a criminal, although the Ku Klux Klan's crimes occurred after the war. At least Forrest later repudiated the Klan's violence and racism, even if he lied about his involvement in the movement. Carlstak (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

You might as well add the 1868 Democratic party leaders and many former conferderate officers to the mix too. Forrest's attack on Fort Pillow maybe his most controversial moment. In that he was completely in charge. Is there a source that says Forrest was a criminal ? There is also the question of Forrest's citizenship. Was he pardoned ? When ? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I have corrected the text and added sources. Forrest was granted a pardon by Andrew Johnson on July 17, 1868. Carlstak (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Carlstak. That would mean Forrest could not legally be prosecuted for Fort Pillow massacre. I am not sure that absolves him from his role in the 1868 election, as leader of the Klan, and the violence against both black and white Republicans. Forrest I think was at the 1868 Democratic convention and influened the pick of its Vice Presidential candidate. Was Forrest citizenship regranted him ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I've added the information that Forrest's citizenship rights were restored concurrently with his pardon, with a reliable source. Carlstak (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Judging by the criteria from Category:American criminals (which governs inclusion in Category:Wikipedia categories named after American criminals) Forrest doesn't fit the definition of a criminal.

For inclusion in this category, a person must either

have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted by one or more United States state courts and/or one or more federal courts established pursuant to U.S. Constitution Article III (note that this definition excludes convictions in impeachment proceedings or courts martial unless accompanied by a parallel conviction in a judicial tribunal) of

and

not received a subsequent full pardon, seal/expungement of conviction, or appellate vacation or reversal of conviction for

or

have committed with unambiguous verifiability (as demonstrated by, e.g., having made a confession whose validity is undisputed) but, for reasons other than insufficiency of proof (e.g., having died while committing the crime according to evidence not reasonably disputable or while both being a fugitive from justice during trial or appeal and not actively disputing guilt), not have been convicted of

at least one noteworthy offense that would, if committed today, fit the common-law definition of a felony, namely its being punishable by death and/or by imprisonment for more than one year, under the law of the U.S. state or federal jurisdiction imposing the conviction.

Whether or not we think his behavior was reprehensible, he wasn't convicted of any crime. Nor did he ever confess to a crime, or die while a fugitive from justice. It seems that he lived out his post-war life without any indication that any state or federal authority considered him a criminal—if he was considered a criminal by the government, then they could easily have found him, arrested him, and tried him. Forrest wasn't a criminal of the kind included in this category. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it is important to establish whether Forrest citizenship was reestablished. He was pardoned by President Andrew Johnson. That in effect would pardon him from any crimes, i.e. Fort Pillow Massacre, during the American Civil War. His participation in the Ku Klux Klan could possibly warrant a felony charge. He was never charged. No one white southerner testified against him even when he denied membership in the Klan. Andrew Ward said Forrest participated in whippings and killings in 1867 of black and white Republican voters. That could warrant a felony charge. On the other hand, there may need to be an author to actually say Forrest was a criminal. It is his 1867 participation in the Klan that could fit the above rule: "at least one noteworthy offense that would, if committed today, fit the common-law definition of a felony" Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This link supports Ward's contention against Forrest: The Artillery of Nathan Bedford Forrest's Cavalry: "The Wizard of the Saddle" John Watson Morton (1909) page 341 Cmguy777 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no question that Forrest was pardoned, or that his rights of citizenship were restored, but it's patently absurd to apply the stipulation "at least one noteworthy offense that would, if committed today, fit the common-law definition of a felony" to historical events of past centuries. This dictum is ridiculously broad and would make criminals of most of the great military actors of history (Forrest, reprehensible or not, was still a "great" general). There is no neutral point of view from which to make such a judgement; I realize that the matter discussed here concerns postwar events and actions, but my point still applies. Carlstak (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks as if Forrest name has been deleted from the list. We want to avoid original research. I was going by what the rule said "if committed today". No one is saying Forrest was not a "great" general. And it is signifigant that these actions took place after the Civil War. I can't find any source that says Forrest was a criminal. There is circumstantial evidence such as wearing costumes to disguise identity and mock trials to give a "semblance" of "law" for inflicting violence and intimiation on the Klan's victims, that suggest such behavior by the Klan was criminal. Maybe for now it is best to leave the subject alone, unless some source specifically says Forrest was a criminal. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn't implying that you or anyone else thinks Forrest wasn't a "great" general; I was forestalling any complaints that might be made by those editors who would dispute the assertion that he was. I wouldn't dispute that the Klan committed criminal acts, or that Forrest himself may have participated in some of those, and yes, it's certainly significant that they took place after the Civil War, as you say. I'm simply saying that I think it would be ridiculous to apply the "at least one noteworthy offense that would, if committed today, fit the common-law definition of a felony" standard to events that occurred 150 years ago so that he can be categorized as a criminal. Of course, it's a moot point now, anyway, but I wanted to make my position clear here in case someone tried to re-add him to that category. Carlstak (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Questions - How is the commission and admission of acts, the USA legal system, saw as sedition and high treason, by raising arms against the U.S., not a criminal act that is sufficient by it's self to have Forrest placed in this 'criminal' category? How is the fact that a pardon was asked and granted, not more evidence of underlying criminal acts, that Forrest fits the category? Put aside anything by modern standards, the evidence of the time suggests, Forrest well knew that the USA of the time saw his actions during the Civil War as criminal apart from any specific act during the war or after it. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • As to why requesting a pardon: Forrest had been a general officer in the Confederate States Army and those were automatically excluded from the amnesty. Means requesting a pardon was the standard legal procedure. There even is an article about that. ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Why do you need to request a pardon, unless there is an underlying criminal act (at least as perceived by the U.S. government at the time}; this appears to make the inclusion of this article into the category most reasonable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

If you read the definition of the American criminals category (which I posted above), it explicitly states that people whose crimes have been pardoned do not belong in that category. There's some legal debate over whether receiving a pardon is an inherent acknowledgement of the commission of a crime (personally I think it is) but the category's criteria explicitly forbid the inclusion of someone whose crimes have been pardoned. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

And there you have it. No need for debate. Carlstak (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Except for Forrest's Klan activities, statements to Congress of "gentlemanly lies" and dubious business dealings which at the time were crimes. Any of these activities after the 1868 pardon are not included and put the person back into the category, very solidly, from what I read. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the category, based on the statements to Congress of "gentlemanly lies" in 1871; as well as other acts committed after his pardon. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Put on hold In theory Forrest could have been put on trial for treason as well as all the other Confederate generals. A pardon meant that he could not be prosecuted for his military career or war acts, including Fort Pillow massacre. Forrest was out of the Klan by the time Grant started prosecuting in 1871. Unless there is a source that says Forrest was a criminal, I would not yet include Forrest in the Wikipedia criminal category. Arguably Forrest was a criminal, perjury before Congress in 1871, establishing a reign of terror from 1867 to 1868 in the South. He was prosecuted for neither. Forrest's acts were in part politically motivated. Trying to defeat Grant, who was responsible for the defeat of the Confederacy. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

And what of his admission to lies made to Congress in 1871, after his pardon? Is that not grounds for inclusion into the category, alone? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Response: I had said arguably "Forrest was a criminal, perjury before Congress in 1871, establishing a reign of terror from 1867 to 1868 in the South." I can't put my opinion in the article. Editors, correctly or incorrectly, can't put their own opinions in the article. Otherwise this article would turn into a blog. That would be orginial research. Wikipedia needs reliable sources. Have you C.W. Gilmore found a reliable source that says Forrest was a criminal ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Forrest admitted to a crime so how does he not fit in the category of a criminal? These are not our opinions but the documented evidence and his own words. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Response2: C. W. Gilmore. Forrest admitted to "Gentlemanly lies". That is far from perjury. Now yes. One can have the opinion, correctly, that Forrest did in fact commit perjury before Congress, not surprising from a former Confederate rebel, in my opinion. That is evident. It has been put in the article that he admitted to "Gentlemanly lies". That is not the same as an outside reliable source that says Forrest is a criminal. There needs to be an outside source that says Forrest is a criminal. I can say it. Any editor can say. But there needs to be a reliable outside source to say it, or even one that says Forrest committed perjury. Please don't pressure me to change my opinion. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Compromise

This could be a compromise for now. It could be put in the article that the North viewed Forrest as a war criminal during the Civil War. I still do not think Forrest should be listed in the Wikipedia criminal category. I know this is not the same as an author specifically saying Forrest was a war Criminal. Are historians protective of Forrest ? I don't know. Here is the source link: Nathan Bedford Forrest: In Search of the Enigma Eddy W. Davison (2007) Cmguy777 (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Restored citizenship ?

When was Forrest restored citizenship rights ? We know he was parolled and pardoned. I believe President Andrew Johnson restored citizenship by a certificate of citizenship. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a legal expert but my understanding of the system this that the pardon restores all rights and privileges of citizenship in the U.S system. [2] The warrant for pardon was issued on 17th July 1868. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you miss the additions I made to the lede, Cmguy777, where I noted that Forrest's citizenship rights were restored contemporaneously with his pardon, granted by Johnson on July 17, 1868, and cited Wilmer L. Jones's Generals in Blue and Gray: Davis's Generals, a reliable source? Carlstak (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There indeed was a pardon. That is important. Nothing is said in the pardon of Forrest's citizenship. I was asking if there was a seperate certificate of citizenship. President Gerald R. Ford gave Lee back his citizenship. I had thought there was a process of restablishing citizenship. I believe Forrest was at the Democratic 1868 convention. That suggest his citizenship was restored by the pardon. I don't have a copy of Jones' book or his exact words. He was also a Vice President of the National Union Party, a party that ended up melding with Johnson and the Democrats. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Um, there's a link in the citation to the page in Jones's book that you should be able to see even if you don't have a Google account. To my knowledge, the US government didn't give a "certificate of citizenship" to someone who lost his citizenship and then regained it with a presidential pardon. The pardon restored all his rights as a US citizen; that would include the right to vote. His former rights as a citizen didn't have to be enumerated in the warrant. Carlstak (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The link did not mention President Andrew Johnson's pardon or explain why it gave Forrest his citizenship back. Robert E. Lee did not have a country until President Gerald R. Ford gave him citizenship. But since Forrest was involved in politics, not just the Klan, the pardon may have given him voting rights. I think more clarification is needed on the matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean it doesn't mention Johnson's pardon? The page plainly says, "In 1868, the request he had made to have his U.S. citizenship rights restored was approved, and he received a pardon from President Johnson." We also have Civil War Journal: The Leaders, which says, "Because of his role in the Confederacy, Forrest was stripped of his rights as a U.S. citizen. In the summer of 1868 those rights were restored, and he was pardoned by President Andrew Johnson." Carlstak (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I found the reference to Johnson. Thanks. Yes. Forrest would have had to request for his citizenship be restored. Was there a seperate certificate for that seperate from the pardon ? That is what my question is ? It might also help to put in the article that Forrest told "gentlemanly lies" to protect other persons in the Klan. Forrest "gentlemanly lies" before Congress would be considered perjury. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The word is "separate". Are you reading all of what I'm writing here? I wrote, "To my knowledge, the US government didn't give a "certificate of citizenship" to someone who lost his citizenship and then regained it with a presidential pardon." I still haven't found that information, although I'm sure an expert in Constitutional law could tell us what the policy was in 1868. Such a certificate would appear not to be necessary if the person were granted a full pardon such as Forrest received. I agree that Forrest admitted he told "gentlemanly lies", and that it should be included in the article. Forrest lied about a lot of things, and many of his lies weren't so "gentlemanly". Carlstak (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I have added to the article a cite of and quote from Cantor's Confederate Generals: Life Portraits concerning Forrest's "gentlemanly lies." Carlstak (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Insert: Thanks Carlstak. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

My comments above were based on the observation of recent high profile pardons of Oliver North and Joe Arpaio, where it appears the pardons vacate the punishment for crime(s) including any loss of citizenship rights. There were the examples used; but as modern ones, there may have been changed to the legal codes that I'm not aware of between the modern era and 1868. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I had mentioned Robert E. Lee because his petition for citizenship was lost or kept as a souvenir by Secretary of State William Seward. Presient Gerald R. Ford restored Lee's citizenship. I had thought it was a two step process: 1. pardon 2. citizenship. Apparently Forrest could vote. That would mean he had restored citizenship. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Pardon of Joe Arpaio, it appears to be a one step process as a normal course? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The main article for the pardons is the Pardons for ex-Confederates: "In a final proclamation on December 25, 1868, Johnson declared "unconditionally, and without reservation, ... a full pardon and amnesty for the offence of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws ..." " But voting rights were another matter. Until Reconstruction in Virginia ended in 1870, "The Army enrolled the Freedmen (ex-slaves) as voters but would not allow some 20,000 prominent whites to vote or hold office.". Lee died due to pneumonia in 1870, months after the end of Reconstruction. Dimadick (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: Forrest admitted to "gentlemanly lies" after his testimony before Congress. I have found something interesting concerning his citizenship in Robert Selph Henry's book, "First with the Most" Forrest. The complete passage I'm referring to says, "He was once more a citizen of the United States, although under the Tennessee state law disfranchising Confederates for a period of fifteen years, he was not yet a voting citizen." Carlstak (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense. He was a citizen but could not vote. Although, that would mean his citizenship was partially restored, since he could not vote. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it meant he couldn't vote as long as he lived in Tennesses; he could vote if he lived in another state. Tennessee state law reflecting on his citizenship would be superseded by Federal law and wouldn't apply in another state. Carlstak (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it is important to know if he could vote. Could that explain in part why he resorted to violence, intimdation, and the Ku Klux Klan during the Election of 1868 ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been trying for days to find information on his citizenship rights, including the right to vote. There's not much out there, at least that I can find. I suspect that the answers lie in non-indexed content on the deep web (no relation to the non-existent "deep state").

We would need a reliable source that said Forrest could not vote because of the Tennessee 15 year stipulation. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Klan denial

There seems to be a certain amount of Forrest's Klan membership denial out there. I think it is well established he was the Grand Wizard and spread the Klan, possibly nationally. His denial of being part of the Klan only fosters such sentiment. Is there anything that can be done to keep this article stable concerning Forrest's membership in the Klan ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact that Forrest was the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan belongs in the lede; it's one of the defining features of his postwar character. Of course it is well established by recent scholarship, as well as being the consensus among historians, that Forrest was an early leader and first Grand Wizard of the Klan. The Encyclopedia Britannica says, "[...]he served as the first grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan in the early years of Reconstruction." Denialists don't care about such things, and aren't impressed by citations of reliable sources; they have their "alternative facts". You can't reason with them: they're impervious to information, and generally communicate their beliefs in non sequiturs. We will have to defend the article against anonymous trolls and historical revisionists. Carlstak (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Carlstak. I think it would help to have specific instances of Forrest involved in the Klan, such as his meetings in Georgia with conservative whites, and he served as a delegate at the 1868 Democratic convention. Did Forrest himself don the Klan costume ? Did he participate directly in Klan violence ? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Carlstak (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Missing info?

“Consequently, Memphis sold the park land to an entity not subject to the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act (Memphis Greenspace), which immediately removed the monument as explained below.”

What? Where?50.74.135.21 (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy disputed

I’m putting this tag back in. Seeing the atrocities turned into “alleged” atrocities (there are plenty of first-hand reports), seeing cuts made, makes me think this tag should stay permanently, because as soon as we aren’t paying attention, inaccurate information, as I see it, is introduced. I haven’t gone through all the changes as I have a non-renewable book due today I have to finish with. I’m not happy that this is necessary. deisenbe (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs to be watched. I don't think a neutrality tag is warranted at this time, but I respect your concern deisenbe. Fort Pillow and the Klu Klux Klan leadership are the most controverial parts of this article. And yes, there has been an attempt to turn this article into a blog rather than a reliably sourced Wikipedia article. The main problem is the Ku Klux Klan. Forrest was very secretive, and created an invisible empire. Forrest goes to Georgia in February and March 1868, and low and behold the Klan strikes out and kills a Republican leader in Georgia. That is more than a coincidence. Yes. Forrest was a nasty dangerous man, at times, and deceptive. There is no need to protect Forrest in this article. I agree there has been an effort of protectionism in the article. Efforts have been made to protect neutrality. Editors need to respect article neutrality. I agree. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

CBG: Edits I made: 1) Saying that Forrest was "villified" in the Union press directly implies that he was innocent of the accusations. I made the passage more value neutral. Similarly, the report of the massacre did not improve Northern "morale," it may have strengthened Northern "resolve." 2) The idea that if Forrest's talents were "fully utilized," whatever that means, it would have changed the outcome of the war, is groundless speculation and Lost Cause hero worship. I deleted it. 3) The reference to Forrest's activities slowing the implementation of Grant's Order 11 is an amateurish attempt to point an accusing finger back in the other direction. It would be more germane to say that Forrest's activities slowed the practical implementation of the Emancipation Proclamation in the region in which he operated. This was deleted. 4) The direct linkage between Forrest's financial support for his family and his slave trading suggests without proof that he needed to trade in slaves to avoid destitution (not known to be true) and that this alleged fact somehow mitigated his culpability in being involved with the trade. I deleted that. 5) The pre-existing text overstated the known extent of his public pronouncements concerning racial reconciliation. I amended it. 6) the text completely overlooked Forrest's direct involvement in the post-war contract labor system as a prison operator, which was a continuation of slavery without only the name. I fixed that omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clint Geller (talk • contribs) 03:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Clint Geller, please note this. C (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Drmies The text that you deleted with your edit: "though he could hardly have presumed to order the dissolution of an organization to which he had never belonged", was actually intended to convey the opposite of the meaning you justifiably assigned it. Admittedly, the text didn't succeed at making itself clear, and its intended meaning is easily missed, because it could be taken either way. It was meant to contravene assertions by Forrest that he had never been a member of the KKK, and was trying to say that he couldn't have ordered the demise of an organization that he had never belonged to, although he clearly did belong to it. It's not saying that he never belonged to the KKK, but (in acceptance of the fact that he did indeed order its dissolution), that he wouldn't have been in a position to issue the order if he didn't belong to the organization, which there is plenty of evidence to show that be did. I have a personal interest in this particular edit because I'm pretty certain that somewhere in the revision history of the many edits I made to bring the article in line with simple facts, I either added the text or rewrote a pre-existing text. I apologize for the lack of clarity, but I assure you that it was not meant to be whitewashing, rather just the opposite. Carlstak (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that, Carlstak, and I thought it seemed somewhat out of line with the other edits. Thanks. At the same time, we cannot add this kind of editorial commentary. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. In spite of my spirited defense here of my intention, I forgot to say that I certainly agree with the edit's removal for editorializing. I was a bit defensive about it being seen as a "whitewashing". Cheers. Carlstak (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I am very much hoping that I myself have never used the word "alleged" at all in this article, in relation to anything. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2018

Relatives:

Rev. Dorothy Forrest Trumbo (1915-2018) Granddaughter 198.17.32.129 (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your request. Does Dorothy have a Wikipedia article? The "relations" list in the infobox is intended to list relatives that already have an existing Wikipedia article because they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines on their own merits. It's not intended to be a family tree with all the person's relatives. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Title of article

I think the article should be titled 'Bedford Forrest', without the Nathan, because that is how he is usually referenced. Valetude (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

According to what sources? I've almost only seen him referred to Nathan Bedford Forrest. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

This book Life of General Nathan Bedford Forrest John Allan Wyeth 1899 has the full name. So should Wikipedia. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, only a very small proportion of reliable sources refer to him as "Bedford Forrest" rather than "Nathan Bedford Forrest". Carlstak (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Article

I'm surprised by the neutrality tag. I'm a fan of Forrest, but I think it is fairly written. It seems like there are plenty of references on both "sides". And BTW, I'm not a fan of killing people who are surrendering. But I've heard other historians say that he wasn't even there when this took place. Also, in the chaos of a military battle, who knows what happened or how/why people did what they did? Anyhow, I've heard the Fort Pillow incident was investigated by congress and that Forrest was absolved of any guilt. Is this right? Also, is there any reference to the bust of Forrest in the Tennessee state capitol?BillVol (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The Congressional report talked of "the malignity and barbarity of Forrest and his followers", so he was not absolved (https://archive.org/details/fortpillowmassac00unit p. 6). The article needs continual vigilance, as it is frequently modified, sometimes only a word, but a crucial one. Thus the tag. deisenbe (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's become a good article. Not too long ago, there wasn't much to it, as I recall. Speaking of the bust, here's a recent article. Somewhat ironic since the new Governor was shown yesterday in a Confederate uniform while a student at Auburn, at a fraternity event. https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/02/bill-lee-nathan-bedford-forrest-bust-capitol-tennessee-confederate/2283203002/BillVol (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I would hava sworn it wax there, but it wasn't on the :List of Confederate monuments and memorials. So I've fixed that. deisenbe (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying, Deisenbe, that because the article at any time might have an incorrect or disputed fact that was added recently, it should bear the "disputed" tag permanently, just in case. I disagree. Any article, especially a biographical one, might have such content added at any time (a situation I deplore, by the way—so much time wasted dealing with vandalism and incompetent editing). There are many other articles about contentious subjects, but no one advocates having all of them bear the tag. Why should this one be different? There are enough vigilant editors keeping an eye on the article to deal with any non-NPOV or revisionist edits. Carlstak (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Take it out if you want to, I don't feel strongly about it, but your assertion "there are enough vigilant editors" is in my experience not correct. Another idea: I don't know how it's done, but if you go to Dorothy Kilgallen and click on edit, a warning pops up. deisenbe (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I think an edit notice would be a good idea, but according to the Editnotice page, "All users can create editnotices for their user space, but in other namespaces only administrators, page-movers and template editors can create editnotices." Would you care to compose the text of a notice that we could present to an admin for creation? Carlstak (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes but I have to think anout it. deisenbe (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

So far I've not come up with a text. deisenbe (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the 1871 congressional investigation chaired by Sherman a hoax?

I've reverted the addition of "Forrest was cleared of any improper military actions in the battle of Fort Pillow as part of a 1871 congressional investigation chaired by William T. Sherman." Is there a WP:RS to support this assertion? It appears there is controversy about the claim. See: Nathan Bedford Forrest on Trial: Part 1. It appears Sherman was Commanding General of the United States Army in 1871 – it seems unlikely he would be chairing a congressional investigation. Thoughts? Mojoworker (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

IMHO it's a hoax. No reliable secondary sources? It stays out. If the commanding general of the US Army in 1871 were to take the unprecedented step of chairing a congressional investigation, there would be something significant written either in congressional histories or in Sherman's biographies. That this has never been mentioned by scholarly works in either (vast) field of research, demonstrates this never happened, at least in the way it has been described. BusterD (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not investigated this claim. The only reason I re-added it to the lead (after I removed obviously-false info added by the prev editor) was that the same claim was made in the article itself (in "Fort Pillow massacre" section). The only source given for the claim is Sherman's memoirs (so non-secondary), but the quote included in the footnote does not mention the investigation. I haven't combed through Sherman's memoir to see if the investigation is mentioned elsewhere, but I agree, without corroboration from secondaries, I am also inclined to believe it is a hoax until such sources are presented. I will remove the reference to the congressional inquiry in the article.--MattMauler (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Addendum/Slight correction: The quote did mention the inquiry, but did not affirm that Sherman himself led it.--MattMauler (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

As you've acknowledged, Sherman alludes to the congressional inquiry, but he certainly didn't chair it (it was chaired by Senator Henry Wilson of Massachusetts), it did not clear Forrest of "any improper military actions", and the Report of the Select Committee to Investigate Alleged Outrages in the Southern States published in 1871 mentions Forrest four times, only in connection with the activities of the KKK.Carlstak (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: Contrary to the US Senate website, the report itself says that the Select Committee appointed by the Vice-President was chaired by "Mr. Scott" in reference to Senator John Scott of Pennsylvania, mentioned in the Congressional Directory for the Third Session of the Forty-first Congress Carlstak (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a hoax, no reliable sources support this false assertion. As Mojoworker points out, Sherman was indeed Commanding General of the United States Army in 1871, and he did not chair the 1871 congressional investigation of the Klan. Southern Heritage Advocates who propagate this false claim tend to also believe that humans co-existed with dinosaurs, and that Noah's ark really did carry every species of animal on earth, and that it rests somewhere on Mt. Ararat in Turkey, and it will be found, someday, dammit. And they like Trump.

According to the website of the United States Senate:

"In December 1870, Senator Oliver H. P. T. Morton, an Indiana Republican, introduced a resolution requesting the president to communicate any information he had about certain incidents of threatened resistance to the execution of the laws of the United States. After the Senate adopted Morton's resolution, President Ulysses S. Grant submitted several War Department reports relating to events in several southern states. These reports were referred to the Select Committee of the Senate to Investigate the Alleged Outrages in the Southern States, chaired by Senator Henry Wilson of Massachusetts." Carlstak (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed

A citation has been requested for: ...the Confederate high command is seen to have underutilized his talents.

Jefferson Davis said that his biggest regret was failing to promote Bedford Forrest (apparently because he was not a gentleman). I don't have a reference, but maybe someone else has. Valetude (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is not precisely that, but there's "At Forrest’s funeral, Jefferson Davis remarked to Governor Porter of Tennessee about his misunderstanding of the great cavalryman: “The generals in the Southwest never appreciated Forrest until it was too late… I was misled by them…”" https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/nathan-bedford-forrest-and-southern-folkways/ (not the best of sources, though - perhaps that quote can be found elsewhere?) -- Begoon 09:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I had added a citation for this over a year ago and someone removed it. I don't think the source referenced above, an article that "was originally published in the 1987 Summer Issue of Southern Partisan magazine" would be reliable.Carlstak (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Forrest edit reverts

I made it more chronological and thematic, to line up with the rest of that section. Right now it's pretty much chronological except for the parts I moved. Did you notice that? natemup (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Natemup. As I read it, the text, "After only a year as Grand Wizard, in January 1869, faced with an ungovernable membership employing methods that seemed increasingly counterproductive, Forrest dissolved the Klan, ordered their costumes destroyed and withdrew from participation." is in necessary apposition to the immediately preceding paragraph to illustrate the contradiction between his previous denials and his later actions. You moved it to the "Democratic convention 1868" section, to which it may have been closer in time, but not to the "theme" of the section, which I think is more important than following a strict chronology throughout the whole article. Sections about a particular aspect of an article subject usually have their own chronologies, so in that sense, I think the text as it was before you moved it was more "thematic". I agree that the passage, "After the lynch mob murder of four blacks, arrested for defending themselves at a barbecue, Forrest wrote to Tennessee Governor John C. Brown in August 1874...", is more appropriate in your "Changing Opinion on Race (1870s)", so I'm moving it. Carlstak (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Marriage, family and personal characteristics

Can someone explain how this makes sense? "His descendants continued the military tradition. A grandson, Nathan Bedford Forrest II (1872–1931), became commander-in-chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan in Georgia and secretary of the national organization."

What does his grandson's involvement with the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Ku Klux Klan have to do with a military tradition? Dkelber (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with tone of recent changes

The article has been much improved lately, but the tone has become unencyclopedic in many places, attributing subjective qualities to NBF in WP's voice, as in "Undaunted, Forrest mounted a second horse..." Even if a source claims NBF was dauntless (and reputable sources shouldn't do so), no encyclopedia should use these kinds of terms directly. We're not writing a novel here. If NBF's actions were motivated by the best human qualities, then let the actions speak for themselves. (Having the reader deduce these qualities themselves from the actions makes them more believable anyway.)

I started fixing one or two of these, but these are many and often subtle. Some whole sections are tainted throughout like this, and are hard to correct without mangling them. I'm asking other editors to review, identify these, and see what can be done. Thanks. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

A D Monroe III, I've just made a few copyedits that may have addressed some of the instances in the text of "attributing subjective qualities to NBF" that concern you. I changed "undaunted" to "undeterred", an easy fix, one which I'm surprised you didn't make yourself. Could you please point to the remaining "many and often subtle" instances of such? Carlstak (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

"Undeterred" is in no way better than "undaunted". It's still describing his state of mind, something we do not actually know. Now, I suspect he was indeed undeterred, and not just scrambling about and only by chance and confusion ended up in a direction going forward, but that's just what I suspect; sources don't tell us. We absolutely must stick to the documented events, and in no way attempt to describe motivations, or even hint at them. Let the events speak for themselves. And, again, this will actually heighten the reader's view of possible motivations, because it will be something they decide for themselves, rather than something we try to convince them of, with zero actual evidence, looking like we're pushing some biased POV.

As to the other instances, anyone concerned with this should be able to notice any that fit their own individual criteria. My list will be different from others. Many are indeed subtle, and the prose may not benefit from immediate hacking out bits of it. This is more a call to wary of this, and lean toward reducing this tone during the course of normal editing for other improvements over time.

But for any who aren't really concerned with this tone, I'll point out a couple examples as I see them, over the next couple of days as I get time. Perhaps other editors can propose similar examples as they see them. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 14:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, A D Monroe; I think your concerns about style and tone are well-founded. I've rewritten that portion of the text with "undeterred" so it's a moot issue now. Your reply isn't helping much, though; it sounds as if you want the article to have editorial oversight by remote, so to speak, but saying "anyone concerned with this should be able to notice any that fit their own individual criteria" leaves the door open to such a wide range of personal interpretations that I don't see the "point" of that, and it offers no guidance to prospective editors. Surely we can get the article to such a state that an effectively permanent preemptive tag isn't necessary. At that point, a hidden text note in the lede should suffice to caution editors about using an encyclopedic tone. Carlstak (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course, anyone that can't see the problem need not concern themselves with it, and are free to focus their work elsewhere where they are effective.

Hidden text is routinely ignored, and at best influences edits at location of the hidden text, only. The tone issue here is article-wide, and the tone tag is specifically designed for this. It also informs readers that WP is aware of an issue; this is important where critical readers are likely to notice the issue on their own, and need to know that WP still has standards and strives to be fully encyclopedic in all ways. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 14:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Tone examples

Some tone problems have been fixed; thanks all. Here are a few that I still see from my perspective (your millage may vary).

1. Section Nathan Bedford Forrest#Marriage, family and personal characteristics: That personal characteristics in the heading is somewhat subjective-sounding and un-encyclopedic, and may act like a foot-in-the-door for future tone problems. Mentioning his appearance and what people thought of him can be good for the article, but must be done with more care and objectively than this implies.

2. Same section: The prose around considerate and generally kindhearted notably overstates the source, both in favor-ability and breadth of this opinion.

3. Same section: About able to read and write in clear and grammatical English, this is true, and it's good we distance readers from the "fustist with tha mostist" nonsense quote, but this seems to go too far the other way. Per the same source used above, NBF expressed contempt for the well-educated, and (from what I remember reading) that did influence how he expressed himself. We should state a balanced view (as supported by sources, of course).

4. Section Nathan Bedford Forrest#Early cavalry command: The whole last paragraph, including killed thirty enemy soldiers in hand-to hand combat, seems to be pushing a swashbuckling image. While these events may be properly attested and may even be true, this is the sort of thing that easily gets exaggerated, and readers know this. Putting these bits together in one paragraph makes them even less credible. And did really all of this fit under this section, his early cavalry command? If we can't find more balanced secondary sources to cover this, perhaps it's best to remove this whole paragraph.

5. Section Nathan Bedford Forrest#Sacramento and Fort Donelson: I'm not sure what meanwhile the governor and legislature departed hastily is about. Is this attempting to compare his bravery with their cowardliness? If there's something more to this, it needs to be clarified; if not, we should just remove it.

6. Section Nathan Bedford Forrest#West Tennessee raids: This stresses Grant's notorious anti-semitic General Orders #11; why? NBF's goals on the raid had nothing to do with this order. Grant may well have been antisemitic, but we shouldn't even hint at comparing Grant and NBF on antisemitism.

That's what I've noticed/recalled from going over the first third of the article. As I have time, I'll look for more examples. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, A D Monroe.

Regarding your point 1, I've removed the "personal characteristics" in the heading and moved the amended description to the "Early life and career" section where it seems less out-of-place.

p.2, actually the Spaulding ref says, "Habitually he was mild in manner, quiet in speech, exemplary in language, in all respects appearing as the kind-hearted, considerate man that he actually was. He drank little, and used tobacco not at all. In anger or excitement he was transformed into a seeming maniac, terrifying to look upon, savage and profane..." so the article text didn't overstate the source, but I agree that it was too much in its previous form.

p.4, I've removed the last paragraph, including with the "killed thirty enemy soldiers in hand-to hand combat".

p.5, I've removed "the governor and legislature departed hastily" with refs.

p. 6, I've removed the reference to Grant's General Orders #11, I agree that we shouldn't even hint at comparing Grant and NBF on antisemitism.

So I've boldly made most of the changes you suggested, because I believe they're right on. What do the other invested editors here think? Carlstak (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I should say that much of what I've removed from the text was added originally by me, in an overzealous desire to include every fucking fact I came across. I added a lot of this stuff as I was reading the various sources to fact-check the article's information and probably was influenced in my approach by the tone of some of the primary sources consulted. I thank A D Monroe for his critique. Carlstak (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Per the above edits and others, I now find little or no tone problems in the article; I'm removing the tag. Thanks, all, and especially Carlstak who did the great majority of the work here. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, A D Monroe. It was your adding the tag and your comments that spurred me on; I think the article is greatly improved. Carlstak (talk)

Vandalism

You should revert the last edit. He wasn't a misspelled cricket player. 88.72.28.130 (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2020

After the Civil War, General Forrest made a speech to the Memphis City Council (then called the Board of Aldermen). In this speech he said that there was no reason that the black man could not be doctors, store clerks, bankers, or any other job equal to whites. They were part of our community and should be involved and employed as such just like anyone else. In another speech to Federal authorities, Forrest said that many of the ex-slaves were skilled artisans and needed to be employed and that those skills needed to be taught to the younger workers. If not, then the next generation of blacks would have no skills and could not succeed and would become dependent on the welfare of society.

Forrest’s words went unheeded. The Memphis & Selma Railroad was organized by Forrest after the war to help rebuild the South’s transportation and to build the ‘new South’. Forrest took it upon himself to hire blacks as architects, construction engineers and foremen, train engineers and conductors, and other high level jobs. In the North, blacks were prohibited from holding such jobs.

When the ‘War of Northern Aggresion’ began, Forrest offered freedom to 44 of his slaves if they would serve with him in the Confederate army. All 44 agreed. One later deserted; the other 43 served faithfully until the end of the war. Though they had many chances to leave, they chose to remain loyal to the South and to Forrest. Part of General Forrest’s command included his own Escort Company, his Green Berets, made up of the very best soldiers available. This unit, which varied

in size from 40-90 men, was the elite of the cavalry. Eight of these picked men were black soldiers and all served gallantly and bravely throughout the war. All were armed with at least 2 pistols and a rifle. Most also carried two additional pistols in saddle holsters. At war’s end, when Forrest’s cavalry surrendered in May 1865, there were 65 black troopers on the muster roll. Of the soldiers who served under him, Forrest said of the black troops: Finer Confederates never fought.

Forrest was a brilliant cavalryman and courageous soldier. As author Jack Hurst writes: a man possessed of physical valor perhaps unprecedented among his countrymen, as well as, ironically, a man whose social attitudes may well have changed farther in the direction of racial enlightenment over the span of his lifetime than those of most American historical figures.

When Forrest died in 1877 it is noteworthy that his funeral in Memphis was attended not only by a throng of thousands of whites but by hundreds of blacks as well. The funeral procession was over two miles long and was attended by over 10,000 area residents, including 3000 black citizens paying their respects. Syyenergy7 (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1. When you request edits, please be clear about exactly what you want to be changed ("please change X to Y").
2. Your comment is entirely text cut and pasted from an SCV website, not considered a reliable source. Please read WP:SOURCETYPES for more information.--MattMauler (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

White supremacist

There has been some back-and-forth concerning Forrest's description in the lede as a "white supremacist." Of all of the Confederate generals, Forrest would be the one who would be most likely to have such a description prominently mentioned at the beginning of the article. In fact, I would argue that "he has remained a controversial figure in Southern racial history, especially for his main role in the massacre of over 300 black soldiers at Fort Pillow and his 1867–1869 leadership of the Ku Klux Klan as its first Grand Wizard" is a considerable understatement. Only "controversial?" He organized what amounted to a terrorist organization. I don't see that as a very faithful summary of the sourced content in the body of the article. I suggest a description of Forrest as "was a Confederate Army general during the American Civil War and prominent early leader of the Ku Klux Klan." Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I would be in favor of this wording.--MattMauler (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

So would I. Carlstak (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Balances the lede IMO DeXXus (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

While I'm of the opinion that Forrest qualifies as a white supremacist, my opinion is meaningless here. No editor's opinion matters in the slightest when deciding if "white supremacist" goes in this article -- only sources matter. If the great majority of sources call him a white supremacist, it must go in the article. If sources don't call him that, it cannot go in the article without violating WP:SYNTH. If some do and some don't, we find some wording about it that satisfies WP:DUE. (Also, as "white supremacist" may be more of a subjective modern term that can be seen as anachronistic when applied to 19th century figures, we may need to pay close attention to the wording used in the sources, and stick to their specific terminology.)

Furthermore, even if we're properly inserting "white supremacist" per the great majority of sources, if we do so as the first thing we say about Forrest, then it must be the most significant thing that sources say about him. Do sources stress his long-term influence in racism as more significant than his cavalry tactics, which are studied even today? AFAIK, although both are readily mentioned, sources focus more on his military generalship than his racial viewpoints, so those viewpoints should come second, not first in the lede.

I don't see that subjective evaluations of what Forrest believed are even necessary. The facts of his involvement in Fort Pillow, short-term leadership of the KKK, and other apparent anti-black actions are already prominently noted and accurately sourced, so can speak for themselves. The reader should be free to deduce his racial views based on these facts without our help; our appearing to lead the reader to a certain subjective conclusion is unencyclopedic, and harmful to the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole.

In summary, let's avoid editors' opinions, and just evaluate sources presented here. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is about the lead sentence and how it is or isn't supported by the body of the article. As I've said, I'm not proposing "white supremacist" as a lead sentence description, since that would be at a remove from the sourced material in the article body. What I want to emphasize is that Forrest's status as a major Klan organizer at the start needs to be mentioned right after "Confederate general." Acroterion (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I support your suggested change to the lead. The two major aspects of his life and career that take up the most space in the article are his time as a Confederate General and his time as leader of the KKK, so it makes sense to add mention of the latter to the first sentence. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

So, something along the lines of NBF was a Confederate army general during the ACW noted for his cavalry exploits, and the first Grand Wizard of the KKK., followed by the current scholars/controversial/Fort Pillow sentences? I'm okay with this. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no citation for any of these claims you seem to be referencing the movie Forest Gump that was not a factual movie. He was never in the KKK and there is no source showing he was ever involved with the KKK 7Prefix7 (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There are, by my count, 29 references cited for Forrest's Klan activities. Acroterion (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many - whether it's 29 or 99. They reference the same flimsy evidence. Topcat777 (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Since you reject amply cited academic scholarship, you’re just wasting your time and ours. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2021

Change leader of the Ku Klux Klan to Nathan Bedford Forrest was not the leader or organizer and had zero ties to the Ku Klux Klan. 12.97.255.179 (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done That Forrest was involved in the Klan as its first leader is extremely well-supported in the body of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

Site of Burial needs to be updated, as Forrest has been recently been exhumed and relocated. 2601:249:380:69F0:70F6:26D5:6E41:1A3 (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Sourced information added to article, burial place changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Differences with Southern white majority (1870s)

"Forrest spoke in encouragement [...] of endeavoring to be a proponent for espousing peace and harmony"

So he's kind of trying to try to try? It's pretty weasely.

I visited the citation, which is an image of the front-page of a newspaper. I couldn't find the above text; but the viewer is a pain to use, so I gave up pretty quickly.

I propose "Forrest spoke in encouragement of black advancement, and espoused peace and harmony".

MrDemeanour (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2021

My request is that at the end of the first paragraph, the summary of his life, the author insert briefly, at the end, that he renounced his racist beliefs at the end of his life. I believe its something that will help our world and is also true.

I love your article. It’s exceptionally well-written. 50.226.90.202 (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We don't make changes on what editors believe "will help our world, and is also true." Meters (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Another whitewash

Someone else has come in and made tendentious edits defending Forrest. I don't have the time or inclination to go back over Forrest now, so I've added Neutrality disputed template. deisenbe (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Outsized details that whitewash

In the overall summary, equal weight is given to the barbecue anecdote as to historical events and actions; I question the inclusion of the barbecue in the summary section—certainly the outsized proportion of it in the summary, which makes too much of a tiny moment at the very end in a life that exhibited very opposing ideals. If it must be in the page, move it to the Racial Reconciliation section. I also wonder about the description of the viewers of the funeral procession—20,000 people, “a large number of them being black citizens.” Large in relation to 20,000? Large in relation to what would be expected? That description is vague, impossible to quantify, and hard to support with evidence. The footnote cites a book by Allie Stuart Povall, but the correlating description in that book cites no source. 50.86.213.172 (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the one mention of Forrest attending an African-American barbecue in Memphis is two sentences long, and in the "Racial Reconciliation" section, not in "the summary section" (otherwise known as the "lede" or the "lead"), so hardly undue weight. WP is not censored. I've edited the bit about the black citizens who attended the public viewing of Forrest's body and followed it in the funeral procession to the cemetery, and replaced the cite of Allie Stuart Povall with a cite of a better source, biographer Jack Hurst's book, Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography. There's no question, at least for sane people, that Forrest was a homicidal maniac, and that however much he may have "mellowed" as his health worsened, his racist actions over the course of his life cannot be dismissed and waved away, as so many Civil War revisionists would like to do. Carlstak (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Historical Accuracies vs Political Inaccuracies

The "good faith" reverting editor stated that the writer introduced grammatical and punctuation errors that made the text harder to read". The writer simply needed to do an editorial clean up. Most people know this is common. But reverting the whole edit wasn't necessary. I'll explain: The pre-edited text stated that Forrest was "one of the few" men that went from the rank of Private to General. I found, from a proper source, that Forrest "was the only soldier...South or North" that went from pvt to Lieutenant General. There are two ways to look at these two sentences, because they mean two different things; people that wish to discredit Forrest, because they dislike the man, might state, "other soldiers went from pvt to gen too...no one said it had to be a 3 star general (Lieutenant General). Therefore the original text stands!" Of course, then those readers will have to produce those other men to support their case. But thats a minor problem. The second way of looking at the second sentence is by what it actually says: Forrest was the only man in the civil war, involving either side, that went from Pvt to Lt. Gen. Then leave it at that, providing the proper sources are cited of course.

Until it's proven that Forrest was not the only soldier in the civil war that was promoted from Private to Lieutenant General, then this is an accurate statement. If this is an accurate statement, there should be no reason for deleting it. At the same time, why would someone wish to downgrade that statement into "one of the few soldiers" (which means Forrest wasn't the only soldier) that promoted from pvt to gen. Someone who dislikes Forrest might consider the latter. An encyclopedia, such as wikipedia was designed for facts, much like a court of law. Not for personal agendas, which of course do exist; but I believe, not necessarily in this case. Unfortunately, "agenda" lawyers/editors exist in both professions. Always have existed, always will! During the Spanish-American War of 1898 newspaperman Hearst told his war correspondents, "you furnish the photos, I'll handle the war!" His agenda was war with Spain, it only lasted six months, but he got it.

According to the original pre-edit paragraph, General Forrest's victories and other accomplishments were underestimated by the Confederate high command and seen by some commentators who under appreciated Forrest's talents. These are some semi-quotes from the pre-edited (before I edited them) text. those two terms, commentators and underappreciated really do make the text harder to read. For instance, who were the commentators? Underappreciated? That's not a historically common military term or word. Unsatisfactory or Satisfactory, or standard, or not to standard, superior, etc. were, in the 19th and 20th centuries, standard military terms. And "underappreciated" in what way? The original wiki paragraph didn't explain it; so I explained it in my edit, using actual quotes from my source (Hurst). Thru-out the book West Point officers consistently labeled General Forrest as an "unlearned" man, sometimes even as an illiterate man. Forrest wasn't a ring-knocker (he didn't have a west point ring to chummy up to other west point officers with); he wasn't part of the West Point Officer Corps. The result was many West Point graduate confederate Generals discriminated against him, they ignored his victories, downplayed his logistical genius. His only enemy counterpart was General Sherman; as it took one to know one, he knew how dangerous Forrest really was. So, while the original pre-edit text uses the terms commentators (Generals, Politicians, Historians, or Newsmen?) and underappreciated (This is generally a civilian term, a polite term if you will, although it can and has been used in the military) but both words are unclear as to what they mean in the context that they are being used. Using the quoted source (Hurst) during my edits, I explained who, what, why, where, and when using nearly the same amount of wording that the original text did, only my edit actually answered the questions whereas the original pre-edit text left the the reader wondering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:75E0:3640:90EB:431C:ED12:3FA7 (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

"designed for facts, much like a court of law" What do courts of law have to do with facts? They are there to serve political agendas, and to serve as a theatrical stage for show trials. Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

There are two sources for a letter written by Gen Forrest, CSA to Gen Washburn, USA. The first source is from Carl Sanburg's Abraham Lincoln, and the 2nd source is from Captain John Watson Morton's book written originally in 1909 titled "The Artillery of Nathan Bedford Forrest's Cavalry." The debated Forrest quote is "I regard captured Negros as I do other captured property, and not as captured soldiers." Have added the quote accordingly, Pages 189, 190. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.144.105 (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2023

Change the term “Enslaver” to “Slave Owner”, as that is the correct terminology, and more accurately describes his activity. 136.49.12.158 (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Not done - In many cases, "slave owner" would be a more appropriate name -- although even the most benign plantation owners enslaved the new-born children of enslaved parents -- but Forrest, in particular, was a slave trader, and made a lot of money doing so. (At the time he joined the Confederate Army, he was one of the richest men in the Confederacy.) "Enslaver" is entirely appropriate in his case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add his political affiliation

add a comment indicating that he was a prominent democrat 71.198.18.229 (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the whole article? And do you imagine that political parties haven't realigned in the past 150 years? Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It's really quite amazing. I'm reading Eric Foner's epic history of Reconstruction, and one could literally replace all instances in the text of "Democrat" with "Republican" and vice versa and the attributes of each party would be true to the modern era. The two major parties have almost entirely reversed their positions between then and now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

People who harp on this point ignore the fact that the racists in the Democratic party began moving to the Republican party with the deployment of the "Southern strategy" by Republican political leaders.

As our WP article on that subject says in the very first paragraph:

"In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right relative to the 1950s.

And in the third paragraph:

"In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and for ignoring the black vote." Carlstak (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yup, see Dixiecrats. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"Controversial"

In the final sentence of the second paragraph, it reads:

"he is a controversial figure in U.S. history for his role in the massacre of several hundred U.S. Army soldiers at Fort Pillow, a majority of them black, and his postwar leadership of the Klan."

Well, okay, true; those are additional controversies. But all Confederate leaders are highly controversial figures in US history by virtue of having been Confederate leaders. I think a slight rewording to reflect actual American historical assessments is in order. WP Ludicer (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)