![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I've been asked at my talk page to explain my removal of an image of Louis Napoleon Nelson and am responding here. Nelson's connection to Forrest is a popular claim made by his grandson, Nelson W. Winbush. I've updated the Winbush page to clarify that claim a bit. [1] Basically, there isn't any reason other than Winbush's claims to think that Nelson was a Confederate soldier. A number of scholars have researched the subject, and it is most recently discussed briefly in an article by Brooks D. Simpson (Simpson, Brooks D. "African Americans in Confederate Military Service: Myth and Reality" in Moody, Wesley, Alfred J. Andrea, and Andrew Holt, eds. Seven Myths of the Civil War. Hackett Publishing, 2017. p60). Although it is possible that more scholarship will be done, I think there is reason doubt that Winbush's claims are true and I don't think it is useful to include a touched up image of Nelson on a page about Forrest. Smmurphy( Talk) 20:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
In May of that year (1861), about 1,500 free black New Orleanians responded to Confederate governor Thomas Overton Moore's call for troops, forming the Louisiana Native Guard. Although its colonel was white, it was the first military unit in American history to have black officers... [2] Azarbarzin ( talk) 01:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
I have tagged this section in the article as original research. The only sources cited are several period era newspapers and a blog. All of this is offered to support the claim that, "In July 1875, Forrest demonstrated that his personal sentiments on the issue of race now differed from those of the Klan ... ." Unless there is a more scholarly source that actually makes this claim, the section needs to be eliminated.
Even if better sourcing can be found, the section violates WP:UNDUE. A single speech in 1875 constitutes a very small part of NBF's life. There is no way to justify covering this single incident with six paragraphs -- four of which are direct quotes from his speech. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 18:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
PS Wills' biography does not mention the incident at all. Hurst's does mention it (page 366) but only says, "It evinces Forrest's familiar offhand vanity but also the racial open-mindedness that seemed to have been growing in him since 1868." It is mentioned, however, in the context of Forrest's conscious efforts to improve his image for political purposes. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 19:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
You have a valid point that the section is too long and that a single speech that is not necessarily devoid of self-interest should be highlighted in this fashion. Nevertheless we must avoid tunnel-vision and you do not dispute that the speech took place. Pretending it didnt happen is therefore also a falsification of history in the other direction. You refer to Wills and Hurst - I think both concur that at the very least publicly Forrest's statements moved away from supporting slavery. Here is what the Library Journal 1992 (Reed Business Information) summarises as Wills position in the book about Forrest post war:
″Wills shows that his subject followed self-interest in promoting both the welfare of black workers and the Ku Klux Klan's goals.″
His speech to his men at the end of the war would also indicate that having surrendered he advocates respect of the laws of the Union. The section on his Klan involvement states that he wanted to influence black voters. Hurst alleges he had little to fear from black voters because of the poll tax in the Tenessee constitution. All of this makes Forrest's postwar POV particularly as an early Klansman relevant, based on available evidence at this time it seems impossible to state with certainty how much Forrest was being honest rather than political. Therefore the article should not conclude either way even by implication. A rewriting of the section should be in line with what was done for Robert E. Lee where a specific paragraph is devoted to 'Lee's views on race and slavery'. The general gist should be that he went from slave trader to someone who at least publicly apparently advocated racial peace. This should be framed with the remarks of the researchers that there is doubt on whether this was simply a political expediency. Anyway something like that. I contest your opinion that this element is original research - its not - but you are right it is far too prominent and unbalanced. TrustyJules ( talk) 16:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The cite being edit-warred over is a editorial opinion piece. Per WP:RS, it is not a reliable source for the fact, but merely that the author believes the fact. I would therefore believe that it does not belong in the lede. It's possible it would fit in the Legacy section. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The following, which I don't think I wrote, was deleted by @ 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam: because, according to him, it has a "political agenda" and "political bias".
The New York Times has won 122 Pulitzer prizes and is the largest daily newspaper in the U.S. It is the U.S. " newspaper of record". You cannot dismiss it in this way, with no documentation at all, and I'm going to call in an uninvolved editor if this continues. deisenbe ( talk) 18:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Anyone seeing this, please review the recent edit history of this article. There is a clear agenda in reverts. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nathan_Bedford_Forrest&diff=820658430&oldid=820656317
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nathan_Bedford_Forrest&diff=824142680&oldid=824130632
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nathan_Bedford_Forrest&diff=827384004&oldid=827382884
The recent disputes center on two points: 1) What responsibility did Forrest have for the Fort Pillow massacre, and 2) Forrest's involvement with the Ku Klux Klan.
deisenbe ( talk) 16:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Joefromrandb: It is totally against Wikipedia policy for the object of a complaint to remove the complaint. If I’m wrong another editor should remove it. I will report you if you take this out a second time. deisenbe ( talk) 20:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Fort Pillow became the most controversial battle of the war. That a massacre occurred is not the issue; one did. The question is whether General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the commander, ordered the massacre, knew of but did nothing to halt, or even encouraged the massacre, or, as Forrest later alleged, had nothing to do with the spontaneous action of soldiers enraged at seeing former slaves fighting them with guns. ( Battle of Fort Pillow)
Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest became Grand Wizard, claiming to be the Klan's national leader.[22][56] ( Ku Klux Klan, where a biography of Forrest is cited. He is also called, with a scholarly article cited, "first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan" in the Battle of Fort Pillow article.)
deisenbe ( talk) 21:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
We're not going to lie to our readers and tell them this article's accuracy is in question when it isn't. Joefromrandb ( talk) 22:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Also note that 3O has no jurisdiction here: this is not a dispute between two users; this individual has been attempting to peddle this nonsense for months, despite having had things explained to him by many, many others. Joefromrandb ( talk) 23:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
In my view, having read up on Forrest, this [4] is an accurate summary of the situation amd contains appropriate diversity of opinion. We do not need a POV tag on the page. Legacypac ( talk) 12:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nathan Bedford Forrest has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He is mentioned in Virginia Bethel Moon's page. Could someone please add her to his page? 222H ( talk) 20:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
As Deisenbe mentioned, this discussion has been posted to the POV noticeboard. I've also reached out to a couple of editors who have previously shown an interest, including Carlstak as he said, and also left talk page messages for users Oaklandguy and Megs. I will also mention it on relevant project and article pages like Military Biography and American Civil War to see if we can get any more informed views to add to the mix. FrankP ( talk) 14:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
To start things off, I'll bring together here a few issues which have been mentioned already as possible headings for discussion. As stated previously, I'm not personally a topic expert so I'm not pressing a particular point on these controversies except as an interested reader of the views which have been presented:
There will probably be more, please add them of course. One last thing, it may that as one contributor put it "this has already been discussed over and over again" -- if so, please would someone mind linking ot such discussions because as far as I can see on this talk page there has not been an in-depth recent discussion of these issues. FrankP ( talk) 14:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about Forrest's activities in the American Civil War, but his leadership in the Ku Klux Klan was probably in name only. As covered in our article, the original version of the Ku Klux Klan did not really have a centralized command structure, or a definite list of members. Nobody felt obligated to follow Forrest's commands. The situation was chaotic:
_______________
Jump on me if you have a mind to, but IMHO the question of whether Forrest was the founder of the Klan, and/or the first Grand Wizard of the clan, or its first president is an important one.
"That Thomas Jefferson owned slaves was not very important at the time, nor was his relationship with Sally Hemmings. Nobody cared, except possibly his wife."
I am assuming that you are not familiar with Jefferson's family life? Jefferson's only wife was Martha Wayles, who died in 1782. Martha's illegitimate half-sister Sally Hemings was about 9-years-old in 1782. Jefferson's affair with Sally started c. 1789, when Sally was already 16-years-old. At least that is when she had her first recorded pregnancy.
Also someone did care about the affair. "In 1802 the journalist James T. Callender, after being refused an appointment to a Postmaster position by Jefferson and issuing veiled threats of "consequences", reported that Jefferson had fathered several children with a slave concubine named Sally."
The accusation was used by the 1800s press to attack Jefferson. In the United States presidential election, 1804, "The Federalists made attacks on Jefferson's alleged atheism, his support for democratization, and his affair with Sally Hemings the centerpiece of their campaign, arguing that Jefferson's affair with an enslaved woman was hypocritical given his continuing support for slavery." Dimadick ( talk) 12:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
If you peruse the archives at Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials, you can see I'm no proponent of revisionist history. And it's true, North and South, that African American lives did not matter as much as those of whites during the Civil War era. But, I challenge the assertion that Fort Pillow was just another minor battle and that it was commonplace to kill surrendering opponents during the Civil War. It matters little whether Forrest gave the order (or did nothing to stop the slaughter) – if the troops under his command were that ill disciplined, the blame still falls on him, much like Sherman's March to the Sea. Lincoln's cabinet proposed that if Forrest were captured, he should be turned over for trial, and that he had violated the tenets of Halleck's International Law; or, Rules Regulating the Intercourse of States in Peace and War. The Fort Pillow Massacre was an aberration, and the troops under Forrest's command were guilty of what we would now call war crimes. To expand on Deisenbe's analogies, a more modern example would be William Calley, the My Lai Massacre, and the 90-95% it takes up in his Wikipedia biography. My Lai was one of the most shockingly criminal episodes of the Vietnam War, just as Fort Pillow was "the" atrocity of the Civil War. If all the massacred troops at Fort Pillow had been whites (instead of just a small percentage), Forrest's fate would've likely been the same as Wirz for Andersonville, but it was a massacre nonetheless. As to the 36% of this article devoted to coverage of Fort Pillow, perhaps that seems excessive, but it's partly due to the fact that only Fort Pillow and Brice's Cross Roads are discussed in depth, while none of his many other battles have their own sections. Mojoworker ( talk) 22:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Massacres of captured soldiers has been a war crime since the beginning of time. The expectation of living is why soldiers surrender instead of fighting to the death. Many civil war soldiers were simply paroled back home. Slaughtering them was very unexpected and the event rightly should be a major focus of the bio. That said, a good summary and a link to the Fort Pillow page is apropriate. Legacypac ( talk) 22:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@ FrankP: Joefromrandb has just removed the POV hatnote, with the comment that it's "nonsense". https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nathan_Bedford_Forrest&diff=827853911&oldid=82785112 deisenbe ( talk) 23:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
To broaden the discussion a bit, the statement that "Forrest fought by simple rules" is not supported by the body of the article, which states that claims that he had a simple military doctrine are not correct. This is hagiography-type wording. People unfamiliar with military issues tend to see statements like this as being praise of the subject (he showed those desk generals how to get things done!, etc). In reality, any competent modern general has to attend to a wide range of complicated issues. Cavalry raids of this era were very complex, and the leaders who didn't attend to this complexity ended up ineffective, dead or prisoners. Presumably Forrest invested time in gathering and analysing intelligence, preparing logistics, training his men, etc. Nick-D ( talk) 07:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the long quote from Forrest's farewell address to his troups, which may belong somewhere, but not here. I don't think it even merits a summary or a brief quote. I have also restored the POV template Joefromrandb removed yesterday, since the issue is not resolved (here).
deisenbe (
talk)
11:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I added a more recent quote than the Wills one on his KKK activities. deisenbe ( talk) 16:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
"In my family, Robert E. Lee was second only to the Holy Trinity, and ranked above them here on earth. The reality is that he defended slavery and advocated violence against recalcitrant slaves. He does not deserve statues built in his honor"
Having had a grandfather, mother, and older brother who all loved American Civil War-related novels and films (they have quite a fanbase here in Greece), I always found it frustrating that Lee has been the object of a hero cult for so long, and that people overlook both his own flaws and what he was fighting for. I would advise you to not let your antipathy for a historical figure to colour your writing. Dimadick ( talk) 19:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Since three days have gone by with no reaction to the Hurst quote, and in view of the discussion here, I would like to change the last two paragraphs of the lede to the following. Any objection?
He’s about as complicated individual as I have ever had to deal with: his word not to be trusted, but seemingly he did regret the violence against blacks he was exposed to. Probably somebody does, but I don't know another example of a former slave trader calling for racial harmony, nor anyone so publicly and continually associated with violence against blacks.
I keep tinkering with this trying to make it perfect, finally concluded it will never be and I might as well put it out there.
In what has been called "one of the bleakest, saddest events of American military history," [1] troops under Forrest's command committed a massacre of surrendered Union troops, mostly Negroes along with some white Southerners fighting for the Union, at the Battle of Fort Pillow. Noncombatent women and children were also slaughtered. Forrest was blamed for the massacre in the Union press, and the news of it had a significant effect on Northern morale. The consensus of recent historians is that Forrest did not order the massacre; after multiple investigations he was not charged with a crime nor dereliction of duty. It was, however, the South’s publicly stated position that slaves firing on whites would be executed, along with the Southern white enemies, who were traitors. The women and children were co-conspirators and supported the traitors. His troups were carrying out policy, they were obeying orders. By his inaction Forrest showed he saw no desire to stop it, and his repeated later denials that he knew that a massacre was taking place are not credible. At the same time, this was one small incident in his distinguished career as a general. The label "Butcher of Fort Pillow" would, however, dog Forrest for the rest of his life, and contributed to his business problems after the war.
deisenbe ( talk) 12:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Forrest was a founding member and first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, at the time a loose collection of local groups that used violence and threat of violence to maintain white control over the newly-liberated and enfranchised slaves. But he soon became disillusioned with the lack of discipline among the various white supremacist groups across the South, ordered that the Ku Klux Klan costumes be destroyed, [2] and withdrew from the organization. (That he could issue such an order confirms that he was a Klan leader.) Without any coordinated leadership, the Klan gradually disappeared. In the last years of his life, Forrest publicly denounced the violence and racism practiced by the Klan, insisting he had never been a member, and made repeated public speeches in favor of racial harmony.
In what has been called "one of the bleakest, saddest events of American military history," [3] troops under Forrest's command massacred Union troops who had surrendered, most of them black soldiers, along with some white Southerners fighting for the Union, at the Battle of Fort Pillow. Forrest was blamed for the massacre in the Union press, and the news of it had a significant effect on Northern morale. The consensus of recent historians is that Forrest did not order the massacre; after multiple investigations he was not charged with a crime nor dereliction of duty. It was, however, the South’s publicly stated position that slaves firing on whites would be executed, along with Southern whites who fought for the Union, who were considered traitors to the Southern cause. According to this position, Forrest's troops were carrying out Confederate policy, and were simply obeying orders. By his inaction Forrest showed that he
saw no desirefelt no compunction to stop the slaughter, and his repeated later denials that he knew a massacre was taking place, or even that such a massacre had occurred, [4] are not credible. At the same time, this was one small incident in his distinguished career as a general, but his role in it would, however, dog him for the rest of his life, [5] [6] and contributed to his business problems after the war.
Carlstak ( talk) 15:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Forrest
seems to havejoined the Ku Klux Klan apparently in 1867, two years after its founding in 1865, and served as its first Grand Wizard; [7] at the time the group was a loose collection of local groups that used violence and the threat of violence to maintain white control over the newly liberated and enfranchised slaves. [8] He soon became disillusioned with the lack of discipline among the various white supremacist groups across the South, ordered that the Ku Klux Klan costumes be destroyed, [9] and withdrew from the organization (that he could issue such an order confirms that he was a Klan leader). Without any coordinated leadership, the Klan gradually disappeared, until its resurgence after the release of D. W. Griffith's film, The Birth of a Nation, which electrified viewers across the United States, especially in the South. [10] In the last years of his life, Forrest publicly denounced the violence and racism practiced by the Klan, insisting he had never been a member, and made repeated public speeches in favor of racial harmony.
I'm going ahead and posting it, further tweaks can be made there. Inefficient to do it here. I've made a few more small changes. The "women and children" is in the report Congress commissioned which is based on interviews of eyewitnesses. I’ll put in a reference, but I have to think about where. I get yelled at for notes in the lede.
There also seem to be multiple reports that there was real savagery, real desire to kill, such that it startled the witnesses (other soldiers). There's less documentation for this, but someone at the time (I think) said the explanation was that the men were enraged seeing former slaves (who of course the South had been kind to) trying to kill them. These troops had never seen black Union soldiers before.
It's always refreshing to go back to original sources - a breath of fresh air. And for Fort Pillow there are abundant reports, both Union and Confederate. Every survivor wrote about it, even if in a letter or diary. Many gave testimony that was, I believe, professionally recorded (transcribed). It was in every Union newspaper, and then the Senate and House together passed a resolution calling for an investigation.
Another thing I just ran into yesterday is that "Remember Fort Pillow" was used as a battle cry in the north, especially among the blacks. Like Remember the Maine.
Well, you got me started. deisenbe ( talk) 22:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Eicher240
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I've been asked at my talk page to explain my removal of an image of Louis Napoleon Nelson and am responding here. Nelson's connection to Forrest is a popular claim made by his grandson, Nelson W. Winbush. I've updated the Winbush page to clarify that claim a bit. [1] Basically, there isn't any reason other than Winbush's claims to think that Nelson was a Confederate soldier. A number of scholars have researched the subject, and it is most recently discussed briefly in an article by Brooks D. Simpson (Simpson, Brooks D. "African Americans in Confederate Military Service: Myth and Reality" in Moody, Wesley, Alfred J. Andrea, and Andrew Holt, eds. Seven Myths of the Civil War. Hackett Publishing, 2017. p60). Although it is possible that more scholarship will be done, I think there is reason doubt that Winbush's claims are true and I don't think it is useful to include a touched up image of Nelson on a page about Forrest. Smmurphy( Talk) 20:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
In May of that year (1861), about 1,500 free black New Orleanians responded to Confederate governor Thomas Overton Moore's call for troops, forming the Louisiana Native Guard. Although its colonel was white, it was the first military unit in American history to have black officers... [2] Azarbarzin ( talk) 01:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
I have tagged this section in the article as original research. The only sources cited are several period era newspapers and a blog. All of this is offered to support the claim that, "In July 1875, Forrest demonstrated that his personal sentiments on the issue of race now differed from those of the Klan ... ." Unless there is a more scholarly source that actually makes this claim, the section needs to be eliminated.
Even if better sourcing can be found, the section violates WP:UNDUE. A single speech in 1875 constitutes a very small part of NBF's life. There is no way to justify covering this single incident with six paragraphs -- four of which are direct quotes from his speech. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 18:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
PS Wills' biography does not mention the incident at all. Hurst's does mention it (page 366) but only says, "It evinces Forrest's familiar offhand vanity but also the racial open-mindedness that seemed to have been growing in him since 1868." It is mentioned, however, in the context of Forrest's conscious efforts to improve his image for political purposes. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 19:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
You have a valid point that the section is too long and that a single speech that is not necessarily devoid of self-interest should be highlighted in this fashion. Nevertheless we must avoid tunnel-vision and you do not dispute that the speech took place. Pretending it didnt happen is therefore also a falsification of history in the other direction. You refer to Wills and Hurst - I think both concur that at the very least publicly Forrest's statements moved away from supporting slavery. Here is what the Library Journal 1992 (Reed Business Information) summarises as Wills position in the book about Forrest post war:
″Wills shows that his subject followed self-interest in promoting both the welfare of black workers and the Ku Klux Klan's goals.″
His speech to his men at the end of the war would also indicate that having surrendered he advocates respect of the laws of the Union. The section on his Klan involvement states that he wanted to influence black voters. Hurst alleges he had little to fear from black voters because of the poll tax in the Tenessee constitution. All of this makes Forrest's postwar POV particularly as an early Klansman relevant, based on available evidence at this time it seems impossible to state with certainty how much Forrest was being honest rather than political. Therefore the article should not conclude either way even by implication. A rewriting of the section should be in line with what was done for Robert E. Lee where a specific paragraph is devoted to 'Lee's views on race and slavery'. The general gist should be that he went from slave trader to someone who at least publicly apparently advocated racial peace. This should be framed with the remarks of the researchers that there is doubt on whether this was simply a political expediency. Anyway something like that. I contest your opinion that this element is original research - its not - but you are right it is far too prominent and unbalanced. TrustyJules ( talk) 16:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The cite being edit-warred over is a editorial opinion piece. Per WP:RS, it is not a reliable source for the fact, but merely that the author believes the fact. I would therefore believe that it does not belong in the lede. It's possible it would fit in the Legacy section. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The following, which I don't think I wrote, was deleted by @ 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam: because, according to him, it has a "political agenda" and "political bias".
The New York Times has won 122 Pulitzer prizes and is the largest daily newspaper in the U.S. It is the U.S. " newspaper of record". You cannot dismiss it in this way, with no documentation at all, and I'm going to call in an uninvolved editor if this continues. deisenbe ( talk) 18:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Anyone seeing this, please review the recent edit history of this article. There is a clear agenda in reverts. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nathan_Bedford_Forrest&diff=820658430&oldid=820656317
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nathan_Bedford_Forrest&diff=824142680&oldid=824130632
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nathan_Bedford_Forrest&diff=827384004&oldid=827382884
The recent disputes center on two points: 1) What responsibility did Forrest have for the Fort Pillow massacre, and 2) Forrest's involvement with the Ku Klux Klan.
deisenbe ( talk) 16:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Joefromrandb: It is totally against Wikipedia policy for the object of a complaint to remove the complaint. If I’m wrong another editor should remove it. I will report you if you take this out a second time. deisenbe ( talk) 20:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Fort Pillow became the most controversial battle of the war. That a massacre occurred is not the issue; one did. The question is whether General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the commander, ordered the massacre, knew of but did nothing to halt, or even encouraged the massacre, or, as Forrest later alleged, had nothing to do with the spontaneous action of soldiers enraged at seeing former slaves fighting them with guns. ( Battle of Fort Pillow)
Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest became Grand Wizard, claiming to be the Klan's national leader.[22][56] ( Ku Klux Klan, where a biography of Forrest is cited. He is also called, with a scholarly article cited, "first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan" in the Battle of Fort Pillow article.)
deisenbe ( talk) 21:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
We're not going to lie to our readers and tell them this article's accuracy is in question when it isn't. Joefromrandb ( talk) 22:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Also note that 3O has no jurisdiction here: this is not a dispute between two users; this individual has been attempting to peddle this nonsense for months, despite having had things explained to him by many, many others. Joefromrandb ( talk) 23:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
In my view, having read up on Forrest, this [4] is an accurate summary of the situation amd contains appropriate diversity of opinion. We do not need a POV tag on the page. Legacypac ( talk) 12:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nathan Bedford Forrest has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He is mentioned in Virginia Bethel Moon's page. Could someone please add her to his page? 222H ( talk) 20:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
As Deisenbe mentioned, this discussion has been posted to the POV noticeboard. I've also reached out to a couple of editors who have previously shown an interest, including Carlstak as he said, and also left talk page messages for users Oaklandguy and Megs. I will also mention it on relevant project and article pages like Military Biography and American Civil War to see if we can get any more informed views to add to the mix. FrankP ( talk) 14:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
To start things off, I'll bring together here a few issues which have been mentioned already as possible headings for discussion. As stated previously, I'm not personally a topic expert so I'm not pressing a particular point on these controversies except as an interested reader of the views which have been presented:
There will probably be more, please add them of course. One last thing, it may that as one contributor put it "this has already been discussed over and over again" -- if so, please would someone mind linking ot such discussions because as far as I can see on this talk page there has not been an in-depth recent discussion of these issues. FrankP ( talk) 14:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about Forrest's activities in the American Civil War, but his leadership in the Ku Klux Klan was probably in name only. As covered in our article, the original version of the Ku Klux Klan did not really have a centralized command structure, or a definite list of members. Nobody felt obligated to follow Forrest's commands. The situation was chaotic:
_______________
Jump on me if you have a mind to, but IMHO the question of whether Forrest was the founder of the Klan, and/or the first Grand Wizard of the clan, or its first president is an important one.
"That Thomas Jefferson owned slaves was not very important at the time, nor was his relationship with Sally Hemmings. Nobody cared, except possibly his wife."
I am assuming that you are not familiar with Jefferson's family life? Jefferson's only wife was Martha Wayles, who died in 1782. Martha's illegitimate half-sister Sally Hemings was about 9-years-old in 1782. Jefferson's affair with Sally started c. 1789, when Sally was already 16-years-old. At least that is when she had her first recorded pregnancy.
Also someone did care about the affair. "In 1802 the journalist James T. Callender, after being refused an appointment to a Postmaster position by Jefferson and issuing veiled threats of "consequences", reported that Jefferson had fathered several children with a slave concubine named Sally."
The accusation was used by the 1800s press to attack Jefferson. In the United States presidential election, 1804, "The Federalists made attacks on Jefferson's alleged atheism, his support for democratization, and his affair with Sally Hemings the centerpiece of their campaign, arguing that Jefferson's affair with an enslaved woman was hypocritical given his continuing support for slavery." Dimadick ( talk) 12:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
If you peruse the archives at Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials, you can see I'm no proponent of revisionist history. And it's true, North and South, that African American lives did not matter as much as those of whites during the Civil War era. But, I challenge the assertion that Fort Pillow was just another minor battle and that it was commonplace to kill surrendering opponents during the Civil War. It matters little whether Forrest gave the order (or did nothing to stop the slaughter) – if the troops under his command were that ill disciplined, the blame still falls on him, much like Sherman's March to the Sea. Lincoln's cabinet proposed that if Forrest were captured, he should be turned over for trial, and that he had violated the tenets of Halleck's International Law; or, Rules Regulating the Intercourse of States in Peace and War. The Fort Pillow Massacre was an aberration, and the troops under Forrest's command were guilty of what we would now call war crimes. To expand on Deisenbe's analogies, a more modern example would be William Calley, the My Lai Massacre, and the 90-95% it takes up in his Wikipedia biography. My Lai was one of the most shockingly criminal episodes of the Vietnam War, just as Fort Pillow was "the" atrocity of the Civil War. If all the massacred troops at Fort Pillow had been whites (instead of just a small percentage), Forrest's fate would've likely been the same as Wirz for Andersonville, but it was a massacre nonetheless. As to the 36% of this article devoted to coverage of Fort Pillow, perhaps that seems excessive, but it's partly due to the fact that only Fort Pillow and Brice's Cross Roads are discussed in depth, while none of his many other battles have their own sections. Mojoworker ( talk) 22:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Massacres of captured soldiers has been a war crime since the beginning of time. The expectation of living is why soldiers surrender instead of fighting to the death. Many civil war soldiers were simply paroled back home. Slaughtering them was very unexpected and the event rightly should be a major focus of the bio. That said, a good summary and a link to the Fort Pillow page is apropriate. Legacypac ( talk) 22:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@ FrankP: Joefromrandb has just removed the POV hatnote, with the comment that it's "nonsense". https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nathan_Bedford_Forrest&diff=827853911&oldid=82785112 deisenbe ( talk) 23:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
To broaden the discussion a bit, the statement that "Forrest fought by simple rules" is not supported by the body of the article, which states that claims that he had a simple military doctrine are not correct. This is hagiography-type wording. People unfamiliar with military issues tend to see statements like this as being praise of the subject (he showed those desk generals how to get things done!, etc). In reality, any competent modern general has to attend to a wide range of complicated issues. Cavalry raids of this era were very complex, and the leaders who didn't attend to this complexity ended up ineffective, dead or prisoners. Presumably Forrest invested time in gathering and analysing intelligence, preparing logistics, training his men, etc. Nick-D ( talk) 07:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the long quote from Forrest's farewell address to his troups, which may belong somewhere, but not here. I don't think it even merits a summary or a brief quote. I have also restored the POV template Joefromrandb removed yesterday, since the issue is not resolved (here).
deisenbe (
talk)
11:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I added a more recent quote than the Wills one on his KKK activities. deisenbe ( talk) 16:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
"In my family, Robert E. Lee was second only to the Holy Trinity, and ranked above them here on earth. The reality is that he defended slavery and advocated violence against recalcitrant slaves. He does not deserve statues built in his honor"
Having had a grandfather, mother, and older brother who all loved American Civil War-related novels and films (they have quite a fanbase here in Greece), I always found it frustrating that Lee has been the object of a hero cult for so long, and that people overlook both his own flaws and what he was fighting for. I would advise you to not let your antipathy for a historical figure to colour your writing. Dimadick ( talk) 19:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Since three days have gone by with no reaction to the Hurst quote, and in view of the discussion here, I would like to change the last two paragraphs of the lede to the following. Any objection?
He’s about as complicated individual as I have ever had to deal with: his word not to be trusted, but seemingly he did regret the violence against blacks he was exposed to. Probably somebody does, but I don't know another example of a former slave trader calling for racial harmony, nor anyone so publicly and continually associated with violence against blacks.
I keep tinkering with this trying to make it perfect, finally concluded it will never be and I might as well put it out there.
In what has been called "one of the bleakest, saddest events of American military history," [1] troops under Forrest's command committed a massacre of surrendered Union troops, mostly Negroes along with some white Southerners fighting for the Union, at the Battle of Fort Pillow. Noncombatent women and children were also slaughtered. Forrest was blamed for the massacre in the Union press, and the news of it had a significant effect on Northern morale. The consensus of recent historians is that Forrest did not order the massacre; after multiple investigations he was not charged with a crime nor dereliction of duty. It was, however, the South’s publicly stated position that slaves firing on whites would be executed, along with the Southern white enemies, who were traitors. The women and children were co-conspirators and supported the traitors. His troups were carrying out policy, they were obeying orders. By his inaction Forrest showed he saw no desire to stop it, and his repeated later denials that he knew that a massacre was taking place are not credible. At the same time, this was one small incident in his distinguished career as a general. The label "Butcher of Fort Pillow" would, however, dog Forrest for the rest of his life, and contributed to his business problems after the war.
deisenbe ( talk) 12:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Forrest was a founding member and first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, at the time a loose collection of local groups that used violence and threat of violence to maintain white control over the newly-liberated and enfranchised slaves. But he soon became disillusioned with the lack of discipline among the various white supremacist groups across the South, ordered that the Ku Klux Klan costumes be destroyed, [2] and withdrew from the organization. (That he could issue such an order confirms that he was a Klan leader.) Without any coordinated leadership, the Klan gradually disappeared. In the last years of his life, Forrest publicly denounced the violence and racism practiced by the Klan, insisting he had never been a member, and made repeated public speeches in favor of racial harmony.
In what has been called "one of the bleakest, saddest events of American military history," [3] troops under Forrest's command massacred Union troops who had surrendered, most of them black soldiers, along with some white Southerners fighting for the Union, at the Battle of Fort Pillow. Forrest was blamed for the massacre in the Union press, and the news of it had a significant effect on Northern morale. The consensus of recent historians is that Forrest did not order the massacre; after multiple investigations he was not charged with a crime nor dereliction of duty. It was, however, the South’s publicly stated position that slaves firing on whites would be executed, along with Southern whites who fought for the Union, who were considered traitors to the Southern cause. According to this position, Forrest's troops were carrying out Confederate policy, and were simply obeying orders. By his inaction Forrest showed that he
saw no desirefelt no compunction to stop the slaughter, and his repeated later denials that he knew a massacre was taking place, or even that such a massacre had occurred, [4] are not credible. At the same time, this was one small incident in his distinguished career as a general, but his role in it would, however, dog him for the rest of his life, [5] [6] and contributed to his business problems after the war.
Carlstak ( talk) 15:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Forrest
seems to havejoined the Ku Klux Klan apparently in 1867, two years after its founding in 1865, and served as its first Grand Wizard; [7] at the time the group was a loose collection of local groups that used violence and the threat of violence to maintain white control over the newly liberated and enfranchised slaves. [8] He soon became disillusioned with the lack of discipline among the various white supremacist groups across the South, ordered that the Ku Klux Klan costumes be destroyed, [9] and withdrew from the organization (that he could issue such an order confirms that he was a Klan leader). Without any coordinated leadership, the Klan gradually disappeared, until its resurgence after the release of D. W. Griffith's film, The Birth of a Nation, which electrified viewers across the United States, especially in the South. [10] In the last years of his life, Forrest publicly denounced the violence and racism practiced by the Klan, insisting he had never been a member, and made repeated public speeches in favor of racial harmony.
I'm going ahead and posting it, further tweaks can be made there. Inefficient to do it here. I've made a few more small changes. The "women and children" is in the report Congress commissioned which is based on interviews of eyewitnesses. I’ll put in a reference, but I have to think about where. I get yelled at for notes in the lede.
There also seem to be multiple reports that there was real savagery, real desire to kill, such that it startled the witnesses (other soldiers). There's less documentation for this, but someone at the time (I think) said the explanation was that the men were enraged seeing former slaves (who of course the South had been kind to) trying to kill them. These troops had never seen black Union soldiers before.
It's always refreshing to go back to original sources - a breath of fresh air. And for Fort Pillow there are abundant reports, both Union and Confederate. Every survivor wrote about it, even if in a letter or diary. Many gave testimony that was, I believe, professionally recorded (transcribed). It was in every Union newspaper, and then the Senate and House together passed a resolution calling for an investigation.
Another thing I just ran into yesterday is that "Remember Fort Pillow" was used as a battle cry in the north, especially among the blacks. Like Remember the Maine.
Well, you got me started. deisenbe ( talk) 22:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Eicher240
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)