This is the whole story of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
The most controversial figure of the civil war. A military genius, a private, a Lieutenant General, a villain, a hero, he was hated and he was loved.
VIDEO HERE (1 hour 15 minutes)
This is the whole story of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
The most controversial figure of the civil war. A military genius, a private, a Lieutenant General, a villain, a hero, he was hated and he was loved.
VIDEO HERE (1 hour 15 minutes)
I've always admired N. B. Forrest. A bunch of my ancestors fought the yankee invasion.
ReplyDeleteCalling the War of Northern Aggression a 'civil' war is wrong. In a civil war, both sides are fighting for control of one government. We had our own Government and werent trying to gain control of the yankee government.
Yeah, but you were fighting to still try to continue to enslave folks which is just plain wrong. Look at what slavery has cost us at this point 100's of years later with the democrats (your side) initially enslaving blacks bought from blacks in Africa to current day, enslaving then with victimhood, handouts and the destruction of the nuclear family in their communities to keep them down but yet still voting demonKKKrat.
DeleteThe demonKKKrats are the same today as they were in the late 1800's, but instead of Killing and lynching them, they figured out how to destroy them with great success.
PS: It appears N. B. Forrest towards the end of his life became a "Republican", being fair and honest with God's black children which lead to his death.
DeleteAh James, it is obvious you have not done your own research. I do agree with you on what slavery has cost us. The Confederacy was NOT fighting to keep slavery in place. Look it up, even Lincoln admitted to that fact. How can anyone believe that the boys in gray would want to lose their lives over slavery? If you believe that, then you are sadly mistaken. Please do research, read old books, new books, just read books. You don't need the internet unless you are ordering information, great books. Here is a suggestion, confederateshop.com Hybo
DeleteTRUE!
DeleteFour states, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia voted. NO! on secession, until Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers. Those States ONLY seceded because they thought Lincoln was going way, way too far. They refused to be part of invading what they considered sovereign States. Also, letters from both Union troops, and Confederate troops found that over 90 % did not see slavery as the reason they fought. They were, to them, Confederates, fighting a second War of Independence. Union troops, in their minds were preserving the Union
DeleteThey weren’t just fighting to keep slavery not matter what is taught in school.
DeleteOnly about 3% owned a slave so why would the other 97% fight for something that didn’t mean anything to them ? Slavery was AN issue , yes , but the biggest part was states rights as stated in the constitution.
We are still feeling the ripples from Lincoln wiping his ass on it now with Federal overreach .
At the time of the War, the Democrat and Republican parties were polar opposites of what they are today. Democrats get tagged with promoting slavery and Republicans credited for ending "the peculiar institution" It is true to some degree that Democrats did advocate for the right to own personal property (which included slaves) once it became an issue. Slavery was far from the root cause of the War. The Emancipation Proclamation was signed into law as an Executive Order by Lincoln. This was an attempt to free slaves in Southern States (being their own country Confederate States of America did not recognize Lincoln's authority. However, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free men in bondage in northern states. It was at this time when the U.S. government made the war an issue of "freeing the slaves". As Anon stated earlier, only a very small percentage of white people owned slaves. Contrary to popular belief, there were many free blacks that owned slaves. One of the largest slave owners in Alabama was free black man. Blacks owning other blacks as slaves was way more common than people can imagine. If people really knew history and what Lincoln thought of the "negroes" and what he planned to do with them once the war ended, I do not believe most Republican politicians would be praising Lincoln the way they do today. Lincoln said himself that if it meant freeing the slaves to preserve the Union he would do that or if took keeping the "negroes" in bondage to preserve the Union, he would do that too. This video link is a good start for somebody who is looking for the true causes of secession.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/lWXnTF2iACo
As far as Forrest is concerned, in my opinion he has been slighted by politicized writers since the 1950's. He has been propagandized for founding the KKK (which he did not). His actions as a commander and a man speak louder than written words. One example is the fact that Forrest had 55 "slaves" that followed him to war. He paid them the same wage as other Confederate soldiers out of his own pocket and promised them land once the war was over. As the war was drawing to a close he gathered these men together and told them he did not believe victory was possible and that they should return home to their families. He also told them they had fought valiantly and he would still honor his promise of giving each of them land. Not one left.
Deo Vindice
“Rich man’s fight, poor man’s war” like most of them, if not all.
DeleteJFM
That was one of the worst decisions the Confederacy ever made (being able to hire a substitute).
DeleteNathan had a statue here (Rome GA) at the entrance to a cemetery that has a lot of Civil War dead. It also has the remains of Ellen Wilson, Woodrow's wife. Local vibrants got Nathan removed. History is being discarded. We have tolerated too much for too long.
ReplyDeleteThe Memphis vibrants got Forrest's statue, his grave and his wife's grave moved.
DeleteHaving grown up in Mississippi, a story heard many times was that there was a group of German tourists coming through the state in the mid-1930s on their way to NOLA. They also visited battle sites like Brice's Xrds, et al, where Forrest commanded. Once people saw Rommel's picture years later newspapers, Time, Life, etc. they swore he was one of that group.
ReplyDeleteMy wife is from Maryville, Tennessee. When I first visited there in '74, her parents lived on "Forrest Ave." Later it was "Forrest" on one end of he block and "Forest" on the other. By the time we bought the house and moved there in '04, the whole street was "Forest". Done quietly.
ReplyDeleteThe document used by Virginia to ratify the new Constitution includes these words:
ReplyDelete"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power, not granted thereby, remains with them, and at their will; that, therefore, no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."
Virginia was accepted under these terms, and thus her secession from the Union was legal. This means Lincoln's invasion of Virginia was illegal.
I've wondered most of my life why people don't juxtapose the numbers of wealthy today vs the ordinary and average onto that time, and you'd probably be right Anymous, 97% of the population did not own slaves. That seems like such an obvious given, but we're spoon fed that crap even before hitting kindergarten that the War of Aggression was about freeing slaves.
ReplyDeleteAlso a given, I've worked with horses, and maybe some do, but most people do not beat their animals. If we truly looked at a human as property, then would it be treated any more or less than a work horse?
Hollywood loves its lies, as do politicians, charlatans, and race baiters.
I’ve always understood the war of northern aggression to be about states rights
ReplyDeleteA couple of points here…the first constitution in North America to forbid the sale of slaves was the confederate constitution
Less than 1.8% of the total us owned slaves
Opinion warning on. I tend to follow the money when I am researching a subject.
ReplyDeleteSlavery, worldwide and in the Colonies, had been a divisive issue since the late 1600s.
In the Civil War, it was the bloody shirt used to inflame popular opinion in the North, but I do not believe that it was the actual _cause_ of the War.
The Southern States equivalent cause for popular anger was "States' Rights", viewing the States as they were acknowledged to be under the Articles Of Confederation, and in the signing of the Constitution, as independent nations. The Constitution ended the "seperate nations", but all powers not specifically granted to the Feds are reserved to the States, or the people. This was the drum that Southetn money beat to get their volunteers to fight. Contrast with the Northern Draft Riots in New York and elsewhere.
Prior to the Income Tax in 1913, the Federal governments' only income was from tarriffs, imposts, and excise taxes (as on whisky).
The Southern economy was an export based one (cotton, lumber, and tobacco), which also imported lots of goods from Europe.
Northern manufacturing intetests did not export, and wanted to reduce imported competitive products.
They got a punitive level set of tarriffs passed which primarilly affected the Southern economies. (50% tax levels).
The resupply and rearming of Ft Sumpter was the natch to the tinder of the tariffs. Charleston was then the highest volume port on the continent, and the Federal Ft Sumpter controlled access to that port, to enforce those tarriffs.
The Federal government could not afford to lose the money that they got from tarriffs on Southern goods, and had to force a war to keep those States bound to the Union. The loss of the Southetn economy is part of why it took the Federal government 15 years after the War to retire the Greenback Dollars for sound (gold) money.
First, the level of import/export tariffs in 1860 were at their lowest level since the war of 1812.
DeleteSecond, it's "Ft. Sumter", not "Sumpter". Considering that the attack on US troops manning that fort - while negotiations as to its disposition were in progress - was the fuse that lit the War of Southern Hubris. I am amazed that you got it wrong. Misspell it once and it's a typo, misspell it every time and it's ignorance.
All above are valid arguments. And it applies to days issues. But, gentlemen, we have a greater problem(s). Our nation is about to go under, just like the Titanic. Those who do not know or care understand history are doomed to repeat it. Let everyone of us garner our courage, arm ourselves with the armor of God, and prepare to do battle once more.
ReplyDelete