Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest/Archive 1

Start
This one wasn't easy to do, as we're talking about one of the most controversial Americans of all time here.

As you read this, you're going to find it evident that I have a great interest in Forrest's military career, but I have tried to balance it with the things he did later in life, to his discredit. For someone who commanded no more than 7,000 men in his life, he had a huge impact on the tactics of modern warfare. As commander of a "silent army" of tens of thousands after the war, he had a huge (negative) impact on race relations in my country. You can't really present one without presenting the other.

I admire his genius, both as a avid reader of military history and as a proud Southerner, but I certainly don't share his racist attitudes, and I hope no one who reads this will construe it as such. I don't believe I have sugar-coated him in any way, but if someone feels I have, I apologize in advance. --John 18:30, 18 April 2002

Query
"perhaps the American Civil War's most highly regarded cavalry officer" I'm not an ACW expert, but where does George Custer fit into this? Was he just a cult of personality, or did he have skillz, as the kids say today? ;) jengod 20:48, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone seriously compares Custer to Forrest. If Custer hadn't died at  Little Bighorn he would have been another footnote to the Civil War. What Forrest accomplished was truly remarkable. J.E.B Stuart might be the only person who could compete with Forrest in terms of regard--although not accomplishment--in my opinion. --JVB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.181.9.206 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

Custer was known much more for his flair, gallantry and overall disdain for most of his superior officers. He was considered a snob and seemed to care little for his men and more for his own image. He was a brave and outstanding cavalry officer, but paled in comparison to the likes of Stuart and Forrest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.224.90.149 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Nathan Bedford Forrest
You have authored a remarkably balanced article, given the subject matter. Very little is known about Forrest's life following the war, so it is appropriate not to speculate too much. It is clear that he was Grand Wizard (or Cyclops) of the KKK, but that's about all that is known. His military genius being what it was, it would be a shame for the verified accomplishments of Forrest's war record to be eclipsed by the murky events of his life after the war, as inexcusable as they may be. -- AC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.33.128.142 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

What about Forrest's actions in the war itself? The massacre at Fort Pillow is "excusable"? Today Confederate apologists try to paint the secessionist movement as a noble cause that had nothing to do with slavery. Forrest's actions exposes the truth about the Confederacy---that it was a racist institution devoted to the preservation of slavery and the subjugation of an entire people. I shudder that people today still think of him as a hero. If years from now Germans decide to erect a statue and monument to Goebells, we will have no reason to complain Edward J. Cunningham 15:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Another PC'er. Gee you probably think that Nat Turner was a hero? Not all of history's characters fit a "black or white" defination of "good vs bad" guy. Political Correctness has another brainswashed student. MJW —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.59.152.2 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 24 December 2005  (UTC)

So we are supposed to reward "military genius" above basic human morality, AC? His definite role as the founder of the KKK is enough to make ANYBODY'S legacy a negative one. Forrest was a racist fighting a racist cause. That he did so somewhat successful does make it anymore noble. He should be remembered for what he was. Celebrating tactical prowess from an unfeeling perspective makes us all forget what war really is. MDR  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  69.92.11.117 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 6 January 2006  (UTC)

Nice straw man. No one is 'rewarding' anything and I never called anything Forrest did 'noble.' From a NPOV perspective his tactical capability was significant. Perhaps acknowledging this requires an 'unfeeling perspective', but welcome to Wikipedia. AC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.242.151.133 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The legacy of Bedford Forrest
It is a rare thing that one with such limited formal education, lack of social connections and of opportunity could become such a lightning rod of opinion. Yet Forrest has become just that. The article gives an excellent overview of the life and career of General Forrest. Like the author, I too from the South. I watch with interest the many who openly voice their distaste and, at times, outright hatred for Bedford Forrest. Hardly a year passes without certain groups in Memphis trying to disinter the bodies of the General and his wife and dump the remains in the Mississippi River. His association with the early stages of the Klan are well documented and used liberally to foster ever greater and wider dislike for him and his accomplishments.

Yet, books about Forrest and art prints of his many experiences continue to be remarkably popular with the public, at least in the South. He was crude and, at times, overly harsh. So were the times in which he lived. He was brilliant as a military officer. In fact, had he been given command of combined arms, he would most assuredly accomplished more striking successes than those now on record. He used his personal negroes as wagon drivers for his command and gave them their freedom only when it was clearly evident that the end was near. It is of more than passing interest that the great majority of those slaves, when given the freedom they so longed for, chose to stay with Forrest. Those who were under his iron discipline for so many years, who knew the temper of the man in ways no one then, or now, ever could, made the decision to stay with him as free men and continue their service.

Forrest lived in a time and a life none of us today can truly comprehend. It is a very simple thing for us to point to certain aspects of his life and condemn him as illiterate and racist. Those things he may have well been, yet, in the end, as death drew near, Forrest saw clearly the errors of his life and spoke to the remorse he held on more than one occasion. It is one thing to lead a life of violence and disobedience to the common god of society, of which he is often accused. It is another thing altogether to recognize one's failures and repent of them to the One whose opinion really matters, as did Forrest.

I wish Fort Pillow had never happened and that the Klan had remained a group of kids at play. Still, Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the truly great men produced by a truly great country. That's why my son's name is Forrest. Michael Sawyer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.92.69 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 February 2005 (UTC)


 * This may be unpopular, but if we are to mention his involvement in the Klan, couldn't we mention his speech at the Jubilee of Pole Bearers. Just mentioning the former seems to me as lacking good faith considering that he apparently made amends in his later years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.81.36.33 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 July 2005  (UTC)


 * Where can I find this speech? I don't apologize for my vehement opposition to racism and slavery, but I will be shooting myself in the foot if I alienate EVERY descendent of Confederate soldiers. If Forrest showed genuine remorse for what the KKK had become (and perhaps his own actions as well) he could actually become a role model. What exactly did he say? Edward J. Cunningham 01:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I mean how more brainwashed can somehow get into the PC dialouge. "don't apologize for my vehement opposition to racism and slavery"<<<<How much more repeative PC can one get? I guess that somehow someone cannot lament on what may have done wrong in the past or where their intentions may have been misplaced. MJW —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.59.152.2 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 24 December 2005  (UTC)

good article, but
Why do people automatically connect NBF with the KKK? The KKK was a 'secret society' which kept no real records or documents. There is no actual proof that NBF had anything to do with the KKK other than being asked to lead the group in its early stages when it was a nobel cause (defending the South against reconstruction(the real evil you were not taught about in school)). After the klan died down for several years and was esentially not needed b/c the true Southern citizens took care of their own, the idle hands turned to evil. At that time NBF stepped in and asked (asked, not told b/c he was not actually a part of the organization) the klan to formally disban. After NBF asked them to disband and before then most of the honorable Southern men had removed themselves from this organization as they did not need it anymore. you should know some other real facts.

Forrest had 65 Black troopers listed on his muster roll at surender. His adjutant penned the word trooper by each name in all the paperwork of these individule men as far back as records can be researched. Others that did the job were noted as teamsters, blacksmiths, cooks, personal assistant, etc. For NBF to use the term "trooper" in this case meant that the man had arms, honorably fell in rank, and was commanded in battle. There were 8 Black Confederate soldiers in Forrest's Escort (his personal guard!). Each member of the escort caried at least: two pistols, one shotgun, one rifle, multiple knives and or sabers. They were all the best of the best horsemen and fighters.

The yankees were the ones to mark out the title by each Black Confederate name.

Do not automatically connect NBF with the wrong doings of the KKK when he had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Deo Vindice —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.107.233.84 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 15 August 2005  (UTC)


 * Alright, I am calling you out on this even if nobody else here does. Just exactly when and how was the Ku Klux Klan EVER a "nobel cause"? [sic] Edward J. Cunningham 15:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Forrest helped found the Ku Klu Klan, so he had everything to do with it. Besides, just because he opposed the METHODS of the Klan in later years does not mean he saw the light and saw that their GOALS of white supremacy was wrong. Ultimately, the goals of the Confederacy and the KKK were one and the same. Edward J. Cunningham 15:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The ignorance of Deo Vindice is staggering. First of all to complain that textbooks paint Reconstruction in anything but a negative light ("carpetbaggers"?) is absurb. Secondly, the fact that he had black manservants proves what? Undoubtedly they were NOT armed until the very end of the war, because it would have been illegal beforehand. In defending Forrest you seem to be making a vague argument that he and the South did not possess racist ideals. I think the man himself would seriously beg to differ. 130,000 slaves left plantations to fight for the Union army, while historians who've reviewed surviving Confederate records have found that hardly any were actual Confederate soldiers. Those that did join the army did so often just to get uniforms and desert. The idealogy under which the Confederacy operated was contingent upon blacks NOT being in the army lest they prove themselves the equals of their white counterparts. MDR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.92.11.117 (talk • contribs) 8:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ugly statue
There's a hideous statue in Nashville, Tennessee by the I-65, as seen here. Should this be mentioned? --Apostrophe 04:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I was going to lecture you on NPOV until I followed the link. Yes, it is truly hideous. However, the fact of being commemorated over a hundred years after his death by a bad statue is only notable if the statue itself is notable. If it is on a list of ten worst statues (it might be), or part of a tour of hideous artworks, then mentioning it might encyclopedic. As for simply including a (public domain) photo of it, that's a separate question. -Willmcw 06:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Oh...My... I asked myself,"What would NBF have thought of this "tribute"? The words "spinning" and "grave" spring readily to mind. Hamster Sandwich 01:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Did Forrest really wear a skirt? Who know that on top of his other faults the man was a cross-dresser??--Edward J. Cunningham 15:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In other posts, I may be criticizing Forrest's actions at Fort Pillow or as head of the KKK. In this case, I am ONLY criticizing the statue. I do not mean to suggest that Forrest actually was a cross dresser! Edward J. Cunningham 01:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"No man shall kill me and live..."
There is an apocryphal story that Forrest was dismissing one of his officers (a Major), when the subordinate pulled out a small pistol (Derringer?) and thrusting it into Forrest's side, fired the weapon. Forrest seized the major's wrist and held his arm in such a way to incapacitate him from fireing a second shot. Forrest was said to have reached into his own pocket with his free hand, pulling out a folding knife (which he opened with his teeth) and proceeded to repeatedly stab his attacker. The men are separated and taken to different locations. Forrests' surgeon proclaimed his wound to be mortal, and did not expect the general to survive till the following morning. Hearing this diagnosis, Forrest is said to have exclaimed, "No man shall kill me and live!" whereupon he left his bed and sought to find the major who had attacked him. Upon finding him, Forrest began to once more beat the other man, at one point throwing him through a window. The two men were again separated and taken to neutral locations. Later the same evening, the generals' surgeon recanted the previous opinion he had made as to the severity of the wounds sustained by the pistol shot, and he now felt Forrest would survive the attack. A contrite Forrest went to the subordinate who had attacked him, and made a personal apology to the major, shortly before that man expired from the result of the beating he had recieved at the hands of the inimitable Forrest.

I haven't found anything online to verify this story, but I remember it from a couple hard-copy biographies I once owned about the General. I wouldn't mind seeing the story included somewhere within the article proper, it seems a clear glimpse into the determination and fighting spirit of NBF. Hamster Sandwich 21:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Controversy
"Nathan Bedford Forrest stands as the paramount hero on the Tennessee landscape. He gets a bust in the state capitol, a statue in Nathan Bedford Forrest park in Memphis, obelisks at his birthplace in Chapel Hill and at Nathan Bedord Forrest State Park near Camden, and thirty-two different state historical markers, far more than any other person in any other state in America. Tennessee supplied three United States presidents--Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, and Andrew Johnson--but Forrest gets more markers than all three put together." (James W. Loewen, Lies Across America p. 258). "While it sounds scholarly to aver that "controversy remains" [regarding Forrest's behavior at Ft. Pillow] it isn't. Historians have uncovered and published the facts of the massacre in plain view." Very few reputable historians outside of "proud Southern" Confederate sympathizers accept that there was a "controversy" to what took place that day. The consensus view is that the Confederate atrocities at Ft. Pillow violated the rules of war and constituted a massacre. It is true, however, that Forrest simply followed well established Confederate precedent and policy when he ordered the killing of "all captured blacks [surrendered or not] wearing a U.S. uniform." contributed by 69.91.83.109

I moved this section here from the main article space. It seemed more appropriate here. While I am not adverse to the sentiment expressed within the passage, there is I feel some subjectivity involved within the certain terms within it, ie. "Historians have uncovered and published the facts of the massacre in plain view." and "Very few reputable historians outside of "proud Southern" Confederate sympathizers accept that there was a "controversy"" and "The consensus view is that the Confederate atrocities at Ft. Pillow violated the rules of war and constituted a massacre". These comments are more appropriate for the discussion section of the NBF entry. I welcome any discussion regarding my decision to move the comment to this page. Hamster Sandwich 23:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know... is it really in dispute, outside of hardline "apologists" (not the best term, but...). NPOV doesn't mean no controversial statements, but I think if there's two opposing views, they may both need to be mentioned, not both ingored. See the Fort Pillow entry for what I'm taking about (maybe we should just reference it there, and not duplicate here). Nae'blis 02:19:51, 2005-09-01 (UTC)


 * NPOV does mean including all significant points of view. If there are sourced POVs, then we should include them. While this paragraph needs some re-writing, it sources at least one of its comments, which is a higher standard than some other material in this article. I suggest we restore it to the article and re-write in there. -Willmcw 22:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the first paragraph has some useful information that could be reworked for addition to the article, however I don't see much in the second that is not more appropriate for the discussion page. I suppose my thinking was that certain parts of the passage in the paragraph are already dealt with, at least as regards the Fort Pillow massacre, in the article as it was. The mention of the memorials to Forrest could certainly be added as an addendum, but I didn't really feel that the passage above, as I cut it out of the article and pasted it here was entirely appropriate not only for a stand alone "chapter" but at the end of the section that dealt with the aftermath of Fort Pillow where I originally found it. Hamster Sandwich 01:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I placed the editted passage below the original contribution above, for easy contrast. I kept most of the material from the first version, but in an editted and condensed form. Hope no one minds the changes too much. Hamster Sandwich 23:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Posthumus legacy
In retrospect Nathan Bedford Forrest still stands as a hero to many Tennesseeans. There is a bust of Forrest at the state capitol building in Memphis and a statue of the General stands in Nathan Bedford Forrest Park also at the capitol. Obelisks have been placed at his birthplace in Chapel Hill and at Nathan Bedford Forrest State Park near Camden, and there are thirty-two other state historical markers. The state of Tennessee has supplied three Presidents of the United States of America, namely; Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, and Andrew Johnson, but Forrest has had more markers and monuments placed than all three of these presidents combined.

History will always remember Forrest for the debacle and massacre at Fort Pillow, although it is true, however, that Forrest was simply following already established Confederate precedents and when he ordered the killing of "all captured blacks [surrendered or not] wearing a [Union] uniform." Forrest will also be remembered (and reviled, by some) for his controversial association with the Ku Klux Klan. But equally and evidently, N.B. Forrest will always be regarded as a military leader of great native ability, and one who advanced the principles of cavalry deployment and mobile strike forces that has remained down to the present philosophies and tactics of modern mobile warfare. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hamster Sandwich (talk • contribs) 23:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sheesh! Why is it that the same people that proudly explain how Stonewall Jackson (a very religious man) broke the law in educating his slaves to read and write, yet when Forrest shoots the black soldiers at Fort Pillow he was merely "following orders"? We did not accept that B.S. during WWII and we should not accept it now. Edward J. Cunningham 15:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess you are not aware that at Bedford's funeral a great majority of folks who attended his funeral service were actually Black. I guess that after the war Forrest telling his fellow Southerners that they would have to learn to co-exist with the new freed Blacks. It is amazing that Political correctness does to folks, just repeat what the guilt-ridden left wants you to say and all will be fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2005 207.59.152.2 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 24 December  (UTC)


 * First of all, there is legitimate controversy surrounding his involvement with the Klan and with FT. Pillow. This is also told through a southern POV, as Forrest's huge defeat at Corinth is not even mentioned once and his role in the Klan is almost justified. I don't care if he repented later in life, his actions deserve to be put on a table in an unbiased way. This article does not do the job and will be flagged. TruthQuest 11:08, 2 August 2006


 * Also, this whole "left" thing is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Further political baiting will be ignored. This isn't a political issue, it's a matter of facts and controversy being promoted without shame. So stop the liberal guilt stupidity immediately. TruthQuest 11:08, 2 August 2006
 * Those on the left are not guilt-ridden; they suffer from the clash between their wish to be patriotic and their deep sense of shame that you, and Nathan Forrest, are among their countrymen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.254.112.125 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article?
I am going to submit this article for approval as a Featured Article on the main page. It's as good now as most any biography that has been featured in that space recently, and feel that all of the editors that have made contributions here should take some pride in the way it has turned out. Any questions, comments or ideas on this proposal are most welcome. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 02:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is ridiculously apologetic towards Nathan Forrest. More research is needed and the pro southern diatribe needs to be cut before we can donsider this as such.

This thing stinks of praise for a controversial man. TruthQuest -- 10:55, 2 August 2006 72.193.141.15

poke around here for some good info
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/discredited.html#lester -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The article says: "There is a bust of Forrest at the state capitol building in Memphis and a statue of the General stands in Nathan Bedford Forrest Park also at the capitol."

The state capitol is in Nashville. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DWoodbury1 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hagiography for a dispicable scoundrel
This article is a joke. I think I can guess the color of the skin and the nationality of the person who wrote it. And that bit about Forrest with a bullet lodged near his spine and picking up a union soldier. Give me a break. Where did that factoid come from? The minutes of some Klan meeting? Forrest was the moral equivalent of Adolph Hitler - and as for the comment below, the United States is no more "great" than any other nation on earth -- including the many Native American nations who were wiped out by -- people like Nathan Bedford Forrest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.158.217.164 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 7 November 2005  (UTC)

Another politically correct hothead. Gee how nice it is for someone to educate us on what is moral or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.59.152.2 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! An honest opinion for once. Why does everyone feel it necessary to protect the truth?! Why can't anyone realise that what the KKK do and have done is ridiculous? People that power our countries, or protect our towns are runnning these pathetic puritanical societies. Do they not comprehend that no matter how hard they try to overthrow the US they will not suceed, as in case no one else has noticed but hmm, the entire world is bursting with mixed cutlural societies!

They failed in the 1800's and will not succeed now just as Adolf Hitler failed with his nazi party in the 20's, 30's and 40's.

Thank you( y.e.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.69.177.201 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Posthumous legacy
The opening sentence of this section has many NPOV and factual problems with it. These items need to be fixed in order to bring this article into compliance with WP:NPOV. Rangerdude 05:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It states an opinion about Fort Pillow as fact.
 * It attributes an order to Forrest at Fort Pillow that is unsourced, and doesn't seem to appear in any of the standard historical accounts of the battle.
 * It espouses the anti-Forrest POV on the battle, when in fact the events that happened at the battle are heavily disputed.

The Military Genius
Throughout my education (in class and out), I've heard that Forrest was considered a military genius, and this point of view is repeated in the article. Unfortunately, the majority of my training concerns the eastern theater of the war. For that purpose, could someone explain why Forrest is regarded as such? The article doesn't quite offer much on the premise, other than he beat forces larger than his own. Could someone more informed add some tactical or strategic information which reinforces Forrest's reputation? Currently, the only tidbit I know of his strategy is the often repeated, "Get there firstest with the mostest." Please take this more as a request, than a criticism. RebelAt 01:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association
On July 5, 1875 Nathan Bedford Forrest delivered an address to the Pole-Bearers Assocation outside Memphis. The Pole-Bearers were an all black organization. The exact wording of this talk is available at several locations on the web. In his short address, General Forrest clearly advocated that he favored a reconciliation of the races and expressed a wish that black Americans could be integrated into a American society. By all accounts his comments were well received. This is in direct opposition to the balance of his life as a slave trader, a Confederate officer, and in his role in the formation of the KKK. Either the man was an outrageous liar or instead late in his life, he had ungone a profound change in his thinking. Such transformations are not unheard of: John Newton (1725 - 1807), the ex-captain of a slave ship, turned minister who wrote, "Amazing Grace," and more recently the once Governor of Alabama, George Wallace. If this is true, then it makes General Forrest, in spite of the controversy regarding his life, an amazing historical personality worthy of redemption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Memaffett (talk • contribs) 00:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC) and —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Memaffett (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 February 2006  (UTC)


 * The website where the information comes from is clearly biased and does not cite its sources. This could easily be a fabrication and I'm removing it. TruthQuest 11:18, 2 August 2006

I would also like to know if the story of his riding his horse into the lobby of the Peabody Hotel in Memphis is true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Memaffett (talk • contribs) 00:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Memaffett (talk &bull; contribs).

KKK apologism
Hello KKK? In this article it is stated as a fact that Nathan Forrest was not involved in a "despicable" KKK. These are coming from his own mouth and can not be used to accurately describe his involvement. Furthermore, this article implies that the role of the KKK was not a bad one, even in the beginning stages, and that is also debatable. I'm going to submit this for a neutrality mention as it's obviously told from a POV that "sucks up" to Nathan Forrest and that will not be tolerated. TruthQuest 11:03, 2 August 2006

WHY NOT DRAGOONS
I think everyone can accept that the KKK is bad. but that shouldnt obstruct the truth. Adolf Hitler is still studied today but not because of hero worship. I'm not absolving him from his flaws, but it seems to me, that you want to obfuscate any of his positive attributes or records due to his association with such a draconian group. But yeah, horrible guy, a slave-trader before the war.

Regardless, that isnt my actual message in here. I have no idea why Forrest's unit was never classified as Dragoons. They are essentially the very definition of Dragoons. Why is it so hard? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.122.80 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Neo Confederate Problem
There seems to be a leaning tilt towards unfounded neo confederate sites. One is the CSA Silver Dollar Site and the other is the Nathan Bedford Forrest memorial website. Both of these sites do their best to glorify the mythology of Nathan Bedford Forrest and do not seem unbiased in their estimation. Yet, their information is on this page as if it's complete fact. The speech that one mr.Forrest gave at the Pole Bearer's association is in question, to say the least, as it is a completely self congratulatory mess that has one source that hasn't been verified. The other website has him killing two men and wounded two others, despite the fact this is also unfounded by the website.

Both Websites should NOT be used as sources for an article in wikipedia. They tell an unfounded POV for neo confederate sympathesizers and they should be removed from this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.193.141.15 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 March 2007  (UTC)