RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Hurst, Jack. Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography.
Hurst does not whitewash Forrest’s faults, but he does allow Forrest’s virtues (and repentance) come to light in an age when even the “Progressives” still held on to ugly prejudices. At no point will this review defend some of Forrest’s more notorious actions (e.g., Fort Pillow and his role in the Klan). At the same time, however, one should not attribute to Forrest things he never did. Hurst divides his book into the following sections: slaver, civic, soldier, and penitent.
While having only a limited education, Forrest manifested all of the qualities of a genius (something both Lee and Grant would later admit) combined with a blunt realism. Shermon knew Forrest was the best fighter on either side of the war. The people who did not appreciate this, notably Davis and Bragg, failed to utilize Forrest in ways that would have hurt Sherman.
Slaver
There is no way to put a positive spin on a slave trader. On one hand, owning slaves is something the New Testament never condemns. On the other hand, in various places it does condemn slave trading. Forrest was wrong. There is no point in saying otherwise. Nonetheless, the way he treated his slaves illustrates his psychology.
(1) No one regarded him as a demon (Hurst 9). That makes sense. Forrest did some terrible things, but he did not have the mentality to be cruel. Vicious, to be sure, and he was quick to wrath, but he was also quick to forgive.
(2) He did not divide slave families (though probably more for reasons due to slaves’ working harder when they are not emotionally destroyed).
(3) Slaves who are treated kindly do not run away. As Hurst notes, “To be successful, a slave trader had to be known as humane” (39).
(4) He freed his slaves before the war ended.
Alderman
You have to admit it is kind of funny to think of someone like Forrest on the town council. One anecdote will suffice. When the town was overrun with stray dogs, Forrest remarked that there was a Mexican in town who would be willing to lasso all the dogs. They laughed at him. Forrest was right.
Soldier
Forrest’s Tactics
(1) He conserved manpower “by using his force as a lightning infantry where his horses would reach the destination and then dismount” (Hurst 4).
(2) His aim was always to take the offensive. The charge was the way to achieve his goals (5).
(3) He rejected the West Point maxim that a third of the commander’s force should be held in reserve (5).
Was Forrest responsible for the Fort Pillow massacre? Not entirely. To be sure, there was a racial element to it, but eyewitness testimony is contradictory. Some say Forrest stopped the slaughter after the black federals surrendered. Others say he did not. We do know the flag was still flying over the fort when the killing got ugly.
For all his greatness as a soldier, Forrest lacked the ability to take orders from men he knew were his inferiors. That is probably why he never got the promotions he wanted. And in the one main battle he lost, though he was not in charge, he would not take responsibility. That is the difference between him and Lee. Forrest was big-hearted, but Lee had that greatness of soul, illustrated at Gettysburg, that could take responsibility for a loss.
The Klan
This part is confusing. On one hand, Forrest is said to have been a leader in the Klan. On the other hand, Forrest himself before a congressional inquiry denied direct involvement. He did admit to being in the “Pale Faces” (a group similar to the Klan). I think he had some honorary membership but did not ride with them, if only because he was too busy planting and trying to build railroads.
Conclusion
The book ends with a moving account of Forrest’s conversion. Among biographies of Forrest, this focuses more on on pre-war and post-war Forrest, though sufficient attention is given to his military exploits.
Hurst does not whitewash Forrest’s faults, but he does allow Forrest’s virtues (and repentance) come to light in an age when even the “Progressives” still held on to ugly prejudices. At no point will this review defend some of Forrest’s more notorious actions (e.g., Fort Pillow and his role in the Klan). At the same time, however, one should not attribute to Forrest things he never did. Hurst divides his book into the following sections: slaver, civic, soldier, and penitent.
While having only a limited education, Forrest manifested all of the qualities of a genius (something both Lee and Grant would later admit) combined with a blunt realism. Shermon knew Forrest was the best fighter on either side of the war. The people who did not appreciate this, notably Davis and Bragg, failed to utilize Forrest in ways that would have hurt Sherman.
Slaver
There is no way to put a positive spin on a slave trader. On one hand, owning slaves is something the New Testament never condemns. On the other hand, in various places it does condemn slave trading. Forrest was wrong. There is no point in saying otherwise. Nonetheless, the way he treated his slaves illustrates his psychology.
(1) No one regarded him as a demon (Hurst 9). That makes sense. Forrest did some terrible things, but he did not have the mentality to be cruel. Vicious, to be sure, and he was quick to wrath, but he was also quick to forgive.
(2) He did not divide slave families (though probably more for reasons due to slaves’ working harder when they are not emotionally destroyed).
(3) Slaves who are treated kindly do not run away. As Hurst notes, “To be successful, a slave trader had to be known as humane” (39).
(4) He freed his slaves before the war ended.
Alderman
You have to admit it is kind of funny to think of someone like Forrest on the town council. One anecdote will suffice. When the town was overrun with stray dogs, Forrest remarked that there was a Mexican in town who would be willing to lasso all the dogs. They laughed at him. Forrest was right.
Soldier
Forrest’s Tactics
(1) He conserved manpower “by using his force as a lightning infantry where his horses would reach the destination and then dismount” (Hurst 4).
(2) His aim was always to take the offensive. The charge was the way to achieve his goals (5).
(3) He rejected the West Point maxim that a third of the commander’s force should be held in reserve (5).
Was Forrest responsible for the Fort Pillow massacre? Not entirely. To be sure, there was a racial element to it, but eyewitness testimony is contradictory. Some say Forrest stopped the slaughter after the black federals surrendered. Others say he did not. We do know the flag was still flying over the fort when the killing got ugly.
For all his greatness as a soldier, Forrest lacked the ability to take orders from men he knew were his inferiors. That is probably why he never got the promotions he wanted. And in the one main battle he lost, though he was not in charge, he would not take responsibility. That is the difference between him and Lee. Forrest was big-hearted, but Lee had that greatness of soul, illustrated at Gettysburg, that could take responsibility for a loss.
The Klan
This part is confusing. On one hand, Forrest is said to have been a leader in the Klan. On the other hand, Forrest himself before a congressional inquiry denied direct involvement. He did admit to being in the “Pale Faces” (a group similar to the Klan). I think he had some honorary membership but did not ride with them, if only because he was too busy planting and trying to build railroads.
Conclusion
The book ends with a moving account of Forrest’s conversion. Among biographies of Forrest, this focuses more on on pre-war and post-war Forrest, though sufficient attention is given to his military exploits.
