Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Image of Louis Napoleon Nelson

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)

Here's a brief biography of Charles Kelly Barrow: C. K. Barrow, along with a list of the books he has authored on that specific topic:Black Southerners In Confederate Armies: A Collection of Historical Accounts

here's another by J. H. Segars ...It's peculiar that an African American's genuine attempt to divulge & portray the history of his ancestors, appear irrelevant to Forrest's page. Azarbarzin (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"But most professional historians dismiss the notion that African-Americans donned the Confederate uniform to defend the South. In fact, blacks were officially banned from serving until the last months of the war." -- NPR News, Jacob Fenston, interview with Barrow. [2]

Neither Barrow no Segars qualify as RS. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:45, 7 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..."Michael Taylor, Curator of Books, LSU Libraries - Does this qualify as RS? ...of course not :) Azarbarzin (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, no? The South isn't surrendering. Page 202-203 are visible from this reliable book, and those pages cite Segars. This introduction argues it's not so simple, but that's far from endorsing Segars and his Lost Cause friends. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not... black and white. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) There are definite accounts of a few Confederate blacks, but as exceptions, not some grand alliance of Slaves and the Confederacy, where these two authors seem to try and push it. Sources that promote their own interests can be cited in some cases, but not exclusively. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 03:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• What is the point anyone of including this image, even if some connection were proven? What is this other than another version of George Wallace having a black friend, an attempt to whitewash the image of the founder of the KKK? (Early leader, whatever.) Drmies (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I could be wrong, but the era of George Wallace as compared to N. B. Forrest renders a gap of a century (give or take a few years). One sided views, I do not subscribe to - otherwise I'd join the crowd which intends to bring down the statues and monuments of T. Jefferson & G. Washington. Those who have an interest in the civil war era, know the culprit behind the creation of the Ku Klux (1866-1871). They have researched the events of the Reconstruction era and the activities of the Union League. I would like to cordially suggest Stanley Horn's book, entitled: Invisible Empire - cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to say, but in the South, a century means nothing. Perhaps you want to look up what Faulkner had to say about the past in the South. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies:I will gladly do that again and, kindly suggest to others (not you) to look up Straw man and compare it with a near impeccable example of Wallace and his black friend. You would expect a novice to resort to that fallacy not an admin in the wikiland. I wouldn't bring the argument into North vs. South either - generalizations of this sort (in the South, a century means nothing)), belong to the mindset of folks who are fond of stereotypes. I'm not. There are fine and noble folks in the North as they are in the South. One could mention James Madison, T. Jefferson, G. Washington, Andrew Jackson for the Southern mindset while equal number of patriots could be enumerated in the other direction. Let's hang on to the issue of the Wizard of the Saddle and his black confederate soldiers (albeit petty in some eyes), before jumping to other discourses. Cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yawn--please explain why this picture should be in this article. If you can't make that connection without having to resort to patronizing or to doubtful theories about Black Confederates, well. Not that it matters here, but I know there are fine people on both sides. The president told us so. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't yawn at your views. In fact, I won't yawn @ anyone's views even if I were an admin. Neither does Nelson's service at Forrest's cavalry put me to sleep. What's worthy of a yawn, is when the judge & jury become one and the same. Look up the term recuse. If you set that admin robe aside for a moment or two, you'd surely realize that the inclusion of Nelson's picture in Forrest's is worthy of more than a yawn. Cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

“Those boys stayed with me, drove my teams, and better confederates did not live “– that is a quote from Forrest, about confederate soldiers like LN Nelson. I included the citation too from here, or here (can't recall which), simply to portray wiki as an encyclopedia which earnestly routes for a balanced view. Apparently it turned out to be a futile effort, resulting in yawns. ;) cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the reason Drmies wrote yawn was because the discussion had gotten off topic, not to be less than earnest. The reasons for not including an image of L N Nelson are valid. 1) There is no particular reason for an image of this individual, who was very loosely connected to Forrest, to be included in the article. 2) The view that there were black soldiers openly fighting under Forrests command, indeed that there were more than a small number of black soldiers openly fighting in the Confederacy is a fringe viewpoint and should be handled with care and would be undue if added without comment to the Forrest article. I also add the point, 3) the image itself is unencyclopedic (because of the frame effect added to it) and possibly a copyright violation.

Regarding the first point, I think it is valid to point out, as was done, that there are racist reasons to prefer a picture of Nelson to a picture of a more influential member of Forrests force - Newton's inclusion is clearly meant to try to rehabilitate Forrest's image which is an editorial decision that is not in line with scholarship but is in line with political aims of certain contemporary groups. Regarding the second point, I would be very surprised if you, Azarbarzin, are not aware that this view is not in-line with mainstream scholarship. I understand that many people have held and published this view, but for historical articles on major subjects, there is an expectation that most references should come from peer reviewed scholarship or be based on peer reviewed scholarship (that is, a newspaper article is ok, but it is preferable that a scholar familiar with historical consensus be a part of the article). Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Smmurphy: I'm grateful for your comments. Kindly let me know whether this author meets that scholarly criteria.

Here’s the author's wiki page

The Legislature of Tennessee authorized Governor Harris, on June 28th, 1861, to receive into the State military service all male persons of color between the ages of fifteen and fifty. These soldiers would receive eight dollars a month with clothing and rations. The sheriff of each county was required to report the names of these persons and in case the number of persons tendering their services was not sufficient to meet the needs of the county, the sheriff was empowered to impress as many persons as were needed... Azarbarzin (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The author isn't exactly the important point, the important point is current scholarly consensus which is generally based on peer-reviewed publishing (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). We, as editors, have to make a lot of choices about what qualifies, and when no high quality sources are available, lesser quality sources are often just fine. For instance, I am citing a book published in 1920 for another article I'm writing because I can't find a more up-to-date source for that information. If/when something more up-to-date is published about my subject, my material can/should be replaced. Wesley's article is well discussed in contemporary scholarship. In this instance, see the conclusion of Bruce Levine's 2006 book on the subject (Levine, Bruce. Confederate emancipation: Southern plans to free and arm slaves during the Civil War. Oxford University Press, 2006.). I have a lot of respect for Wesley, but on this and other points, we have better sources and really ought to use them. For what it is worth, if you are interested in continuing to discus black confederates, that conversation should probably go on either of our talk pages or possibly at Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War, and not on Forrest's page (feel free to ping me [and others involved here] if you do want to continue the conversation elsewhere). Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting book indeed. Since you suggested it, I am almost certain that you have read it. It actually cites not only Wesley's article, but a book by Segars also (which someone here labeled as not reliable).

Especially pages 12-13, ought to be suggested to those colleagues who use the phrase "doubtful theory" pertaining black confederate soldiers. I can only suspect that since you "have a lot of respect for Wesley", you do not subscribe to that infamous & doubtful theory.

It appears that the consensus is - Forrest was a freakin' racist and any reference to him "fie tin" along with black soldiers (whom he labeled - better confederates did not live) falls outside the groupthink. Thank you again for suggesting B. Levine's book. cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, Segars is referenced in number 81 and 82 on page 13, (Wesley is reference number 74 on page 12). I'm not sure what you are implying, but Levine would not seem to find Segars to be reliable on the points he discusses in the intro. Regarding the other points, I'm not sure what you are saying but suggest moving the conversation not directly about this article to another location. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"reason to include lengthy quotes from the primary source. Secondary sources are much preferred." (first revert) User:Joefromrandb

"Multiple editors have deemed this lengthy and undue " (reason for second revert – User:A D Monroe III... this is after I shortened it to a brief paragraph with secondary sources.

and finally when I abbreviate it to a one liner under the new pic (the first edit had no pic), I am showered with south has been unchanged for 100 years, Wallace and the black buddy, doubtful theory, and … let’s move this Nelson fella to another page.

You were kind enough to explain someone’s yawn, but while having respect for Wesley, you remained silent when the yawner labeled Forrest’s black soldiers as doubtful theory. Could you kindly answer a simple question – did Forrest (aka the KKK dude) have black confederate soldiers in his cavalry or was that a myth already debunked by the better sources like Levine (who apparently supports Wesley's view)? Azarbarzin (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

(FYI, it's helpful to link diffs rather than quote them by hand, as that avoids getting both the attribution and edit comment incorrect, as was done for my edit here. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC))

@A D Monroe III:Great idea - although I'm of the belief that the history of this (and other wiki pages) are easily accessible, I'll abide by your suggestion. it's here & anyone could simply click on the button (compare selected revisions) and observe what has transpired. cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be silent about whether or not blacks enlisted as soldiers in Forrest's cavalry. Levine does not support Wesley or Segar's view. I have not seen any scholarly research suggesting that Forrest had black soldiers in his troop and have seem various researchers say there were not, including Levine and Simpson as mentioned in this discussion. You ask for a statement of fact but technically I only give a response about my view of the consensus of scholars; I hope that is ok.

I will note that I have seen evidence from by a genealogist that individuals with African heritage did enlist in CSA cavalry units that at some point were under Forrests command, but they were not enrolled by Forrest, were of Indian heritage, and, the geneaologist believed, may have been seen as Indian and not as black by themselves and others. I do not have the evidence and could not re-look it up from memory and would not suggest adding it to the page as it would fail WP:NOR in the format I saw it. But I do acknowledge that there were likely black CSA soldiers, possibly even who served under Forrest, although there is no RS that suggests such a thing was normal or done openly, etc, and I think including such material in this page would be undue, POV, and OR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'm thankful for your response. Levine's book is here. Several pages are posted on Google Books. Aside from the title of his book (Confederate Emancipation: Southern Plans to Free and Arm Slaves during the Civil War), kindly point out where Levine displays, debunks, disagrees, opposes... the article/views authored by Dr. Wesley.

No one is arguing "normal or done openly". We are, referring to 1860's here, although I hardly believe that this sort of event was done or carried out in secret (you may of course, disagree):

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...Azarbarzin (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, Wesley is discussed briefly in Levine (2006) in the introduction on page 12. He is also discussed in the conclusion on page 150 and 151. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to quote you. "Levine does not support Wesley or Segar's view - When you say "discussed" did you mean "not support"? - Kindly qualify your claim of "does not support". It's a simple/cordial request, since you were the one to suggest Levine's book. Do you believe that Governor Moore's call for troops was a covert act? cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion by Levine is nuanced in many ways, and I recommend you try to find a copy of the book. I can look and see what other authors say, but I can only repeat myself that Levine and Simpson do not support the idea that blacks were allowed to join the CSA. They were given limited opportunities early in the war to join local defense forces, but Forrest was in Confederate and not state service, I believe. That said, this thread is very far off topic and should really focus on this article about Forrest, and not on other issues, including what I might believe. Looking at the index, Levine does not seem to discuss Forrest or the June 1861 call for black volunteers in Tennessee, I brought him into the conversation because his books are, I think, the best contemporary source on neo-Confederate and Dunningite theories. Simpson only mentions Forrest in the context of Nelson, which really is the matter at hand.

In some attempt to get back on track, can I ask that you instead consider whether or not you still believe that an image of Nelson is useful in this article? Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I regret that the burden of proof was shifted on me. Allow me to expand. How would you feel if I were to suggest a book which supports X and when asked for a concise citation (meant to qualify my claim), I'd venture into saying: Go read the book. Quite peculiar. Not my style, but I understand others maybe fond of it.

As I have repeatedly stated, my original edit (which for some reason no one cares to mention/discuss) did not have a pic. The history page attests to that. Once it was reverted for being interminable, I reduced it twice to the point that it was merely a pic with one sentence and two citations. Although, you kindly proclaimed that the pic (of a soldier who has passed away 83 years ago) might fall into the realm of copyright violation.

What I posted originally (which was void of a pic) contained a phrase by Forrest, regarding his views on the black confederate soldiers being the best he has known (I'm paraphrasing now). Despite the fact that I have provided a few resources to show that contrary to the views of the yawning admin, black confederate soldiers are NOT a doubtful theory, this topic is now reduced to [pic or no pic]. For an admin to have that type of preconception, I hardly think that I (or anyone else for that matter) has the slightest chance to include Forrest's views on his black confederate soldiers (BCS), especially in the KKK section of his wiki page.

Alas, I will, for the sake of the tolerant folks following this talk page, include another source regarding the BCS, in the sincere hope to convince the yamners and the proponents of "doubtful theory" that not only Forrest, but other confederate regiments, had BCS:

I’ll quote from Kenneth W. Noe’s book, entitled “Perryville: This Grand Havoc of Battle” -- I’ll leave the topic/decision of [reliable vs. not reliable] to others in this discussion – The author’s credentials are here:

…Sixteen companies of free men of color marched through on their way to fight in ." "The part of ' Brigade that the 42nd was facing were the 'Louisiana Tigers.' This name was given to Colonel Gibson's 13th Louisiana Infantry, which included five companies of 'Avegno Zouaves' who still were wearing their once dashing traditional blue jackets, red caps and red baggy trousers. These five Zouaves companies were made up of Irish, Dutch, Negroes, Spaniards, Mexicans, and Italians."

In short, pic or no pic, could not be of essence, when the apparent majority including the admin, labels the BCS as doubtful theory. How on earth could you discuss a matter like "Disney World in Florida", when your addressee/audience, labels the very existence of Florida as doubtful theory? ;) cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear on the copyright of an image in the US, regardless of when an image (or painting) is created, it can still be under copyright if it was not published until after 1923 (see WP:PD). When you uploaded the image, you said it was your own work, which is almost certainly not true. I am not certain when it was taken or published and under what license it was published, but In the Tampa Bay times article about Nelson you post, there is an image where he is wearing similar clothes and is standing next to his grandson, Winbush. Winbush was born in 1929 and looks to be 2 years old or so in those images, so my guess is that picture was taken in 1931, and possibly your picture as well. Anyway, for copyright, there is a high-ish burden of proof.

Regarding black soldiers serving under Forrest, I'm happy to transcribe what Simpson writes about Winbush's claim, let me know if this link doesn't work for you: [3]. As for transcribing Levine, I'm open to any reasonable request but there isn't anything particular to Forrest that we've discussed in that book so it wouldn't be useful for this talk page. The broader question of whether substantial numbers of black soldiers served in the CSA, that is a discussion for elsewhere, possibly the aforementioned talk page of Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War. Most importantly, we all can hold whatever beliefs we want, but the standard for inclusion in the encyclopedia is reliable sources (or more properly, WP:CCPOL of which WP:UNDUE is particularly useful here). Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm certain there are many who work tirelessly to transform & portray the BCS to cooks and jambalaya chefs. I'm amazed that these enlightened researchers do not have the resources available to you & I. Here's an Indiana newspaper, The Daily Evansville Journal, which writes:

The Cincinnati Enquirer, State Sentinel and Vincennes Sun will never tell their readers that our brave Indiana boys were overpowered, shot down and captured by negro regiments. The paragraph, of which we speak, is as follows:

"A fierce engagement ensued, during which our forces, being assailed by at least four times their own number, were driven back & attacked by two rebel negro regiments. Our artillerists double shotted their guns and cut the black rebels to pieces, and brought their battery safely off."

The same paper continues:

The [Nashville] Union says further: “It has been stated repeatedly, for two weeks past that a large number, perhaps one-fourth, of Van Dorn's force were negro soldiers, and the statement is fully confirmed by this unfortunate engagement.”

Incidentally, the picture in Tampa Bay Times is here. That is not the picture I posted. Kindly pay attention. The link I provided in my previous post, states the copyright laws (it's also referenced at the bottom of my talk page, responding to Diannaa). I realize that it's customary for some folks to teach matters to others which they already know. Quite alright. No harm done.

It's either my poor command of the English language or your lack of attention to detail (I suspect the former), because I keep repeating myself that we first need to debunk that the BCS is a doubtful theory, then, we could move on to Forrest's commentary regarding the Black Confederates. Had the topic in this talk page been Forrest's views on his black soldiers, we would have saved ourselves a few hours. The picture ought not have been the topic -- In short, based on my first post, Forrest's comments in the KKK segment, regarding BCS being the best of his soldiers, would suffice. I'll gladly simplify this even further, if it's not clear enough. cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the picture, my point was that the two images were likely taken the same day. Nelson appears to be the same age and is certainly wearing the same outfit in the two pictures. Since one picture is likely taken in 1931, I am guessing the other is, too. When you uploaded the picture, you stated you were the author. I am assuming that is not true (that is, I am assuming you did not take the picture). You also said that you held the copyright. That may be true, but I doubt it. I am being patient regarding the issue, but I think you should probably ask that that image be removed from commons as a violation.

Regarding debunking theories, that isn't really our job here as wikipedia editors. If you have resources not available to scholarly historians that you would like to write about, there are outlets for that information (see List of history journals). Putting that information on wikipedia in the form you seem to be suggesting may be original research and a violation of policy.

In any case, I think we are in agreement not to add the image of Nelson to the page, even if our thoughts on the matter differ. Regarding slaves serving under Forrests command, let me create a new section head for that topic so that discussion can be less cluttered. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I commend you for your talents. You guess people's ages by their accouterments. Old man looks to be the same age & he's wearing the same clothes, hence you deduce >> taken same time. Of course, I am certain that he had a ton of clothing, but since he picked that one, then it must be...wheww - Could you find another pic of Nelson with different clothing?

Regarding debunking the mindset of the yamner admin, I have repeatedly stated that with that sort of character who believes BCS is a myth or doubtful theory, neither me nor you, nor any of the kind folks reading this page, could mutate anything in that regard on Forrest's page. The fellow has already made his mind that a black confederate soldier is akin to hocus pocus. Another fellow has purchased/read a book that these black fellows were mostly guys with expertise in cole-slaw and fried chicken !

When you stated that "I do acknowledge that there were likely black CSA soldiers, possibly even who served under Forrest, although there is no RS that suggests such a thing was normal or done openly" I posted the troop call from Governor Moore and kindly asked you whether that call was a covert one. No answer, quite alright ;) Azarbarzin (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Using your logic - same clothes = same year :) Take a look here

Azarbarzin (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Speech to black Southerners

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)

Even if sourced, quoting Forrest's own words at length is effectively a primary source; no reason to emphasize it. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be removed. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:11, 9 November 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)

I like the idea of a section on Forrest and Race that can discuss his actions and views over time, especially given that in Bradley's biography on Forrest there is a chapter with exactly that title. If no one else does, I'll look for a copy of the book and mock up a draft. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Just as an update, I looked over Bradley's book. Its ok, but the appendix on Forrest and Race is not what I was expecting. The book and especially this section are not in line with modern historical approaches (see also a review of the book in Tennessee Historical Quarterly Vol. 67, No. 3 (FALL 2008), p. 260). Given this and other issues, I've decided to drop my attempt to add such a section to this article. However, I am happy to contribute if anyone else drafts something. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

NYT

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 New York Times

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".

Reliable sources differ, yet according to the New York Times, "During the Civil War, Forrest presided over the slaughter of surrendering Union troops — many of them black — at Fort Pillow in Tennessee. He later served as the Ku Klux Klan’s first grand wizard, consolidating a ragtag collection of secret societies into a group that became a factor in national civic life."

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)

Citing the New York Times and a Youtube lecture in the lede for these two issues is silly (I'd also argue that in the long-run, Foote probably shouldn't be cited as an unbiased, authoritative source either). Per WP:MOS:LEADCITE, it may be useful to cite this material as it is somewhat controversial, but the citations used in the body are at least somewhat superior to those three, and the material in the body should be sufficient to come up with a reasonable summary of Forrests role in the KKK and at Fort Pillow. I'm not planning on wading deeply into it, but I would support a move to use more academic biography for sources, cutting primary sources to a minimum, and removing long quotes in favor of more clear prose. The same issues exist in the Battle of Fort Pillow article. If anyone is having trouble accessing academic sources, I recommend checking out Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library - feel free to ask me about it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

One can of course argue that it is not a contemporary newspaper article written back then but now, 150 years later, which means the prizes and credentials are pretty unimportant and, as the title of it already says, it was written as part of todays social-political discussion. But letting this aside, those sentences were intserted into the lead section - directy below a paragraph already dealing with the same content and directly above a paragraph already dealing with the same content. But those two paragraphs already summarize the same information and convey the dispute and discussion around it in an IMHO pretty good way. Also they negate the absolute terms of those sentences. The fact that the sentence begins with "Reliable sources differ" makes the absolute terms even more out of place. But more details are following in the main text as there are subsections about both Fort Pillow and his KKK membership. So the information is already there and the NYT brings nothing new to the table. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Smmurphy: , the way you described historian Matt Atkinson's lecture at the Gettysburg NPS is very disrespectful. It's not just some "Youtube lecture," but it is a very highly qualified source from a very well respected organization. I love doing research in this field, and one of the sources I use are Gettysburg NPS's Youtube channel in which they have well-qualified individuals give researched lectures. I'm having trouble finding anything silly in that. I know this is not the scope of the current discussion, but since you brought it in I think this needs to be addressed for future visitors. 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources are generally based on peer review, and when a subject is discussed heavilly in academic sources, academic peer review is preferred to journalistic peer review. Atkinson's lecture is not peer reviewed and the New York Times does not get the level of academic peer review that academic journals and books generally get. Atkenson does note biographies by Brian Steel Wills and Jack Hurst at the outset and those are likely sources for his lecture. We cite both of those sources in the body of the article, and as I said, and if there is anything in the lecture that belongs in this article, it is likely that you will also find it in those books. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Disputed template

Anyone seeing this, please review the recent edit history of this article. There is a clear agenda in reverts. For example:

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Nathan_Bedford_Forrest&diff=820658430&oldid=820656317

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Nathan_Bedford_Forrest&diff=824142680&oldid=824130632

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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)

Yes, there is indeed a clear agenda: Wikipedia policy. This has been discussed again and again. You don't get to litter the article with tags just because your preferred version has been rejected. We follow what scholarly sources have to say about the matter, not op-ed pieces. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Except in the case of material favourable to Forrest, it seems. The quote about "General Order Number One" references a Huffington Post article, which in turn sources the quote from PBS. Double standard? FrankP (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Disputes regarding (1) Fort Pillow massacre and (2) KKK membership

@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)

Wow. You really have no idea how any of this works, do you? "The object of a complaint": yeah, he really did say that. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, a third opinion was requested for this article, I'm offering to help. I'm prepared to listen to both of you, but I must say straight off Joefromrandb you have not helped your case by removing the disputed tag twice and also carrying out another revert earlier today. Can you give me one good reason I should not invoke WP:3RR if there are further reverts? FrankP (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

And Deisenbe, does the dispute solely concern the NYT article by Brent Staples, or are there other sources you wish to bring in? FrankP (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It definitely does not concern only that. Before bringing in other sources, of which there are plenty, I’d like to be clear what is being disputed. I would just call your attention to passages in two other WP articles:

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)

OK, thanks, we should get to those issues and discuss them. But before we do, let's address the issue of the Disputed template. That is supposed to alert readers of a dispute over factual accuracy for which there is a currently ongoing discussion in the Talk page. Like here. So the template seems like a valid thing to add. And Help:Maintenance template removal says "It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first". So I suggest you should add the template to the article if you think that will help. FrankP (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Leaving aside the Disputed tag issue; the real issue is, basically, that certain stuff and citation tags are inserted into the lead section while it both already contains much better formulations of the content and should not need any citations as it basically sums up the isses that are treated in several sections of both this and respective linked articles. But instead of discussing the content within the respective sections today´s discussion is just a repeat of that from a few weeks ago where the same happended with the lead section because apparently somebody has a problem with understanding lead sections. ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it a little early to say today's discussion is a repeat of the earlier one when we have hardly started discussing anything? And Deisenbe has suggested two topics which relate to the content (of lead and sections), so that's a start isn't it? FrankP (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Except that instead of starting a discussion there were, beside the Disputed tag, the same lead section citation-seeking edits made (and reverted) that we had before. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

But this is (or could be) the discussion. FrankP (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Could be and should be. Hopefully with few more people involved. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:23, 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)

It’s not a question of what’s in the lede. If I put something there that should be in the article, I stand corrected. But the question remains.

Perhaps Joefromrandb might courteously explain to me and you to what “nonsense” I am allegedly trying to peddle. deisenbe (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not claiming any "jurisdiction". My attention was drawn to the article at 3O but Wikipedia is the encyclopedia "anyone can edit". I have as much right as any other user to participate on this page. FrankP (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

OK I've raised an edit warring issue at ANI. @Joefromrandb: I listed the 5 reverts you've made in the last 12 hours. I don't think that's any way to help improve the encyclopedia. Also, on this page, I'm tending towards the view that there may be a POV problem with the article (perhaps that would be a better tag to put on it, rather than factual accuracy), and perhaps issues of article ownership. It would be good to have some folks review it from that standpoint, and I hope we can move forward. I will continue to seek assistance from other editors to see that happens. FrankP (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree POV would be better. I didn't think of it. deisenbe (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC).

I added it. deisenbe (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

FrankP has requested that I take a look at the article. I agree that the POV tag should remain in the article till these issues are resolved. I will keep an eye on it, and will evaluate each section as time allows (I have a big real-life project going now). The entire article, being one about such a disputed subject, certainly needs many more citations from reliable sources. I will help to improve it. Carlstak (talk) 12:50, 26 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)

Indeed we do not. I've removed it as nonsense. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I do agree the NYT op-ed cite should not be used as a source. Carlstak (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have put this on POV noticeboard (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard) deisenbe (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Legacypac, it is clear that some editors do think the article is NPOV, and I respect that. What strikes me (as an outsider, with less than encyclopedic knowledge of Forrest or this historical topic) is that equally there are several people who have expressed the opposite view in this Talk page. So a discussion of the issues seems warranted. I'm starting a new section which the POV tag can link to. FrankP (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Forrest is a favourite for statues, and a namesake for roads, schools etc in the former Conferate States of America. List of Confederate monuments and memorials The Civil War continues to be fought over his memory. See Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials Legacypac (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2018

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 21:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

NPOV discussion

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:

• The two historical questions raised by deisenbe in the previous section -- Fort Pillow & KKK membership; while it is often impossible to be certain about historical facts, the article may or may not be neutral about these questions
• The lead section -- does it "read like a hagiography", or does it represent the subject appropriately?
• Are sources favourable to Forrest treated differently to those critical of him?
• Are some of the stated claims about Forrest, especially those with regard to his racial views, original research?

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)

• My 2 cents - this seems to be an imposition of modern political discourse on an historical figure - I think too much space is given to KKK and Fort Pillow in the article as a whole - it seems that details of both have wide ranging opinions (which should be presented - the breadth of view) - in much shorter prose than what is currently devoted to both in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 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:

• "Despite Gordon's and Forrest's work, local Klan units never accepted the Prescript [a set of regulations created by George Gordon ] and continued to operate autonomously. There were never hierarchical levels or state headquarters. Klan members used violence to settle old personal feuds and local grudges, as they worked to restore general white dominance in the disrupted postwar society."
• The historian Elaine Frantz Parsons describes the membership: Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen."
• "Klan leader Nathan Bedford Forrest boasted that the Klan was a nationwide organization of 550,000 men and that he could muster 40,000 Klansmen within five days notice. However, the Klan had no membership rosters, no chapters, and no local officers, so it was difficult for observers to judge its membership. It had created a sensation by the dramatic nature of its masked forays and because of its many murders."
• "Many people not formally inducted into the Klan had used the Klan's costume to hide their identities when carrying out independent acts of violence. Forrest called for the Klan to disband in 1869, arguing that it was "being perverted from its original honorable and patriotic purposes, becoming injurious instead of subservient to the public peace". Historian Stanley Horn argues that "generally speaking, the Klan's end was more in the form of spotty, slow, and gradual disintegration than a formal and decisive disbandment". A Georgia-based reporter wrote in 1870: "A true statement of the case is not that the Ku Klux are an organized band of licensed criminals, but that men who commit crimes call themselves Ku Klux". " Dimadick (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't get a sense of bias. I am bothered by the use of extensive quotations, rather than summary of the material: IMO, quotes are only for things that can't be said any better (or must be reproduced verbatim). A couple of the phrases in the lead bugged me as needless comment, so I removed those, but otherwise... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Trekphiler, the issue of use of quotations has come up as well -- see Talk section on "Speech to Black Southerners". The entire speech is quoted in the article, in addition to preceding commentary that seems to amount to WP:OR. Rjensen has just removed the OR tag, adding the edit summary "not an issue here", without reference to the Talk page discussion. Each one of these items may be relatively small, but there have been edit wars over these points leading to the present effort to enable a broader discussion. FrankP (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Would @Dimadick: favor us with the sources for his quotes? deisenbe (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Deisenbe From the context I understood they come from the Ku Klux Klan article FrankP (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I already noted "As covered in our article". We have an extensive and well-sourced main article on the Klan. Also covering the differences between various incarnations. Dimadick (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I am also not an expert in this area, but I also question the neutrality of this article, which relies too extensively on quotations. Megs (talk) 02:52, 27 Febreuary 2018 (UTC)

_______________

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.

• The head of the KKK is the Grand Wizard. Forrest was "wizard of the saddle." No one else connected with the KKK was referred to as a wizard before it became a KKK title.
• It’s "an imposition of modern political discourse on an historical figure." I don't know whether to agree with this or not. But I would point out that "modern political discourse" is used routinely in writing history. Columbus's "Discovery of America" (he didn't call it that) was not given much weight at the time. He was trying to find a route to Asia, and he hadn't found it. It wasn't until gold was discovered in Mexico almost 30 years later that it was retrospectively turned into something important. 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. But they are given great importance today. I could easily multiply these examples.

An example of the reverse: no one gives a lot of attention today to the concept of Manifest Destiny. But in the nineteenth century it was huge.

• If the KKK had disappeared completely by 1870, and never reappeared, Forrest's role in it would be a footnote. But the first KKK period was idealized in The Clansman, which led to Birth of a Nation, and the Klan's rebirth stronger than before.

• We always want to know who was first. Who discovered penicillin? Who made the first radio transmission? Who was Dr. Condom? Things we feel are important, we want to know the origin of.

• Finally, Forrest's credibility is zero, or at least open to serious question. He denied even being a member of the KKK, while at other times he spoke of it pridefully. Sure, people's views can and do change. That's irrelevant to this point. deisenbe (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"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)

re - Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings - if this article would treat Fort Pillow (a minor battle in Bedford's career) and the KKK as is done in Thomas Jefferson#Jefferson–Hemings controversy (x2) - or even at somewhat greater length - that would be NPOV. As it is - too much emphasis (in terms of screen space) is given to a minor battle and the Klan (including long primary tracts) - and much too little on how he happened to make his way up from private to Lt. Gen.Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Well I deserved that. My apologies. Here's some other examples of how we use history for political purposes: 1) Crispus Attucks was not a special hero in the eighteenth century. He was not given any special attention; he was just one of the six killed in 1770. The idea that schools would be named for him was inconceivable. (So far as I know there are no schools named after any of the others.) Abolitionists made him into a hero long after his death. If you look at the joint tombstone of the five, of which there’s a picture here, it says a child of 12, Christopher Snider [sic](Christopher Seider) was the first victim. He was the important one at the time (see the article), but today is almost forgotten. 2) Indian removal was popular in the early nineteenth century; much later it is seen otherwise, at least by most.

I don't agree that the Fort Pillow massacre was a minor incident; only Confederates saw it that way. It was the subject of a special report commissioned by the U.S. Congress (https://archive.org/details/fortpillowmassac00unit, https://www.nytimes.com/1864/05/06/archives/the-fort-pillow-massacre-report-of-the-committee-on-the-conduct-of.html). Other primary sources on it, including Forrest's own report, are at http://www.civilwarhome.com/ftpillow.htm. As you'll see there, the Confederates of course didn't call it a massacre, so from their point of view it was a minor battle. deisenbe (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that Crispus Attucks or Sally Hemmings (quite a long article) is the analog to Battle of Fort Pillow, and Nathan Bedford Forrest is the analog to Thomas Jefferson or Boston Massacre. Forrest and Jefferson both have historical weight. Forrest was a hero in the south, and actually accomplished quite a bit in life - his war record definitely has quite a bit of depth. At present - 1605 words out of 4406 words of our civil war portion (or 36%!!!) are devoted to Fort Pillow and Forrest - and this for a battle not large in scope. The subsequent Battle of Brice's Cross Roads - described as Forrest's greatest victory - gets a paltry 228 words (5% of total civil war - 14% percent of the words devoted to Fort Pillow). It is one thing when a purely modernish political football article gets inflated - e.g. if Crispus Attucks gets inflated to be a long article - no biggie - might be a waste of editorial time - or might not (no limits to size beyond readability on Wikipedia after all) - but his role shouldn't be inflated in Boston Massacre (where he is indeed mentioned appropriately). Surely we should also cover the controversy around Pillow and Forrest - just in less words in relation to the rest of the article. The amount of modern political football (and these things change...) in an article like this one should be limited to less lines.Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I second Icewhiz here. Books about Forrest, even academic ones, spend a more limited amount of space talking about Forrest and the KKK or Forrest and Fort Pillow than this article. For instance, a google scholar search of '"Forrest" "civil war"' for me gets "28,200" results while '"Forrest" ("Ku Klux Klan" OR "Fort Pillow")' gets "4,800" results (I understand this isn't a comparison of like with like, but it does indicate to me that Icewhiz is more or less right). I'm strongly in favor of a direct approach to our wording about Forrests actions - both in terms of his responsibility for the massacre at Fort Pillow and his leadership in the KKK. I'm also in favor of mention of his role as hero and villain in historical memory. But, as I've said before, I'm most in favor of using only relatively recent scholarly publications as sources, as this is a historic figure who has been the subject of a large amount of research. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

A co-contemptuous example - Ulysses S. Grant's General Order No. 11 (1862) (which is directly attributable to him and is arguably the most severe antisemitic act by a US government official - ever - expelling Jews as a class of people from Tennessee - the sort of thing viewed severely today, but not so much back in the day (country clubs would go on excluding non-WASPs for quite a while...)) - gets a six line paragraph in the midst of his Vicksburg campaign (and two subsequent mentions in relation to his presidential campaign and subsequent term - as this was an actual issue at the time). And this is an FA article. I think the treatment of General Order No. 11 (1862) in Grant's article is appropriate - in relation to Grant's bio - it is an issue - but a small one - to be covered at an appropriate length (6 lines) - and this order arguably had a much greater influence on Grant's subsequent bio (as it was actually an issue on his road to the presidency) - and the order itself was fairly exceptional in American history in this period (as opposed to massacres of soldiers and African Americans - which sadly - were more common place).Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the best way to improve the section on Fort Pillow would be to remove some or all of those massive quotations. It was definitely an important event, but proportionally it takes up so much of Forrest's page, and the content is almost entirely duplicated on the page for the massacre itself. Too much of this sections tries to go back and forth on whether he ordered the massacre, which is detail that should be left to that article and be summarized more concisely here. If there is historical consensus either way, then present that, and if not, then a brief description of the different points of view. We don't need these large quotations from contemporary and modern sources alternately condemning and defending him. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:45, 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)

I absolutely agree that the Fort Pillow Massacre was an important event with impact far larger than that of the simple military aspects, and it's often featured prominently in studies of American history. That might be an argument for keeping the section as it is, and just expanding other sections. Except that size is not the only problem with the Fort Pillow section. It relies too heavily on quotations, and essentially litigates the question of Forrest's responsibility. To me it seems like he almost certainly was directly responsible and either ordered the slaughter or condoned it, but I'm not an expert on the subject, and perhaps other opinions should be represented. But the current section goes far beyond representing the prominent points of views of experts. It features large quotations from primary sources, contemporaries, and an obituary. These should be cut or drastically reduced. Grant's and Sherman's reactions have no place here, and the three paragraphs from his New York Times obituary absolute need to go. If there need to be quotes, they should be from prominent modern Civil War historians, and representative of the academic consensus. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@FrankP: Joefromrandb has just removed the POV hatnote, with the comment that it's "nonsense". https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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)

To add to what Nick-D just wrote, pretty much everything in quotes in the lede could/should be removed from that section. Things that Forrest, Sherman, and Grant said about Forrest were meant to have a certain meaning at the time but aren't perfectly useful ways of summarizing Forrest today. "Wizard of the saddle" and "Devil Forrest" are already in the infobox as nicknames, "the most remarkable man" quote is usually sourced to Sherman, not Grant, and is based on heresay in a 1908 hagiography by Wyeth (a Confederate veteran lost causer) [5]. The first quote by Forrest in the lede, as Nick-D says, is an oversimplification and the second, as Icewhiz says, overemphasizes Forrests role in ending the KKK. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, Smmurphy. The short quotes are pertinent, and what was thought of him by his contemporary opponents is still relevant. Please reread the text more carefully; "the most remarkable man" quote is attributed to Sherman. Carlstak (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops, you are right about that quote being attributed to Sherman. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a great deal of work to be done yet on this article, and I'm doing what I can with limited time. This article in its present state is shamefully inadequate, and a downright disgrace. I am truly amazed that no one has bothered to fact-check this mess and correct its many errors. For one example of its flaws, it cites Shelby Foote, who is not a reliable source, several times. His works are oriented to be read by a popular audience and not scholarly; they don't even include footnotes. I'm a southerner, and have ancestors who fought for the Confederacy.

I never could stand Foote, and listening to his folksy mannerisms in Ken Burns's documentary made me want to retch. I'm not at all impressed by Burns's romanticization of the subject, (i.e., the Civil War) either. His striving to present both sides, North and South, as forces led by honorable men serving God and country amounts to historical revisionism. His coverage of the moral aspects of the struggle obscures the fact that the South was wrong, wrong, wrong, and that the "Lost Cause" was immoral. 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, and Shelby Foote's gauzy "history" does not deserve to be cited in this article. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Carlstak (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hear, hear! deisenbe (talk) 14:22, 1 March 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)

It is not my antipathy, it is historical fact, and anyone who reads his letters can see for themselves. As for my writing, of course I am free to express any such antipathy on the talk page, but not in the article itself, and I have not done so. Carlstak (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to lede

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," 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.

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, 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.

deisenbe (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine, but it needs some minor copy editing it needs some changes and more cites of reliable sources. I submit:

In what has been called "one of the bleakest, saddest events of American military history," 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 desire felt 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, 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, and contributed to his business problems after the war.

Forrest seems to have joined the Ku Klux Klan apparently in 1867, two years after its founding in 1865, and served as its first Grand Wizard; 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. 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, 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. 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.

Carlstak (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that |saw no desire| be replaced with |felt no compunction| which I believe still delivers you editor's intent, but may be more semantically expressive. DeXXus (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Carlstak (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Carlstak:. What I object to is saying that in 1867 he “seems” to have joined the Ku Klux Klan. This implies doubt. Is the question about the year 1867, maybe it was some other year? Or are you questioning his mmbership at all? Leaving aside Forrest’s own denials, what evidence is there that he was not a member? I’ll cite you evidence that he was if necessary. How could he issue that order to destroy the masks and costumes if he were not a member? And I would say he “was elected” rather than “served as”. deisenbe (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No, no, not at all. I'll have to rephrase it for clarity. I meant only that he was not a founding member, and that the year he joined is uncertain. Of course he was a member of the KKK. How could I be questioning this obvious fact when I added a citation to support his serving as its first Grand Wizard, and retained the contention "that he could issue such an order confirms that he was a Klan leader"? My wording was influenced by the source I cited, James Michael Martinez, who wrote: "he seems to have joined the group not long after the April 1867 general council adjourned" and "or else Morton traveled to Memphis to ask Forrest to serve as the Grand Wizard," which would indicate that he was not elected. Please reread what I wrote. I cannot, however, support the assertion that women and children were killed in the slaughter at Fort Pillow. I've searched and cannot find a single academic or otherwise scholarly source that supports that claim. Carlstak (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

Nice job, deisenbe. I agree about primary sources; as you know, we have to be careful to avoid violating WP policy on WP:original research when using them. One thing: "hit movie" sounds a bit casual for a historical encyclopedia article to my ear. How do you feel about changing it to "movie to gain a mass audience", or something similar? Carlstak (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You are correct—Forrest was elected "Grand Wizard". I've boldly changed "America's first hit movie" to "America's first movie to gain a mass audience" ("Hit movie" sounds too modern for a phenomenon of 1915), added the fact that he ordered the dissolution of the Ku Klux Klan, and made a few other minor changes. Carlstak (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The American Expericence 2018 PBS website says Forrest was the leader of the Ku Klux Klan. In name only ? Does one think that Forrest's name and Confederate General reputation helped bring members into the Klan? Here is the source: "Grant, Reconstruction and the KKK". pbs.org. American Experience. 2018. Retrieved April 10, 2018.

References