Nathan Bedford Forrest's Redemption (Kastler)

Status
Not open for further replies.

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Assessor
Kastler, Shane. Nathan Bedford Forrest's Redemption.

Predestination and Sovereign grace expose the Pharisee in all of us. We want “bad” people to “really get it good and hard,” but then God saves them. This offends many. Predestination is offensive because if Forrest received forgiveness, then Christians are obligated to forgive him, too.

The author gives a decent summary of Forrest’s life. The style is obviously popular, not historical. He has read all of the relevant material and is accurate in his analysis of it. There are some problems which I will list at the end of the review.

Forrest’s enigma is that he exhibited Christian principles before his conversion. Even more, these very principles enabled him to succeed. Yet, he refused to call himself a Christian. Part of the problem is that he knew he was obligated to hard violence in defense of Southern women and culture, yet he could not see--like many Christian pacifists today--that there is no tension between hard violence and holy violence when we defend the weak. It is a shame Forrest did not have good teaching on this point.

Forrest’s heroics make for good fiction, except that they are real. Passing over these (admittedly exciting) stories we will look at his rise through the Confederate ranks to emerge the military genius and hero to oppressed Southern women and children, both white and black.

The author does a good job in showing what really happened at Ft Pillow, where Forrest was accused of butchering surrendering troops. A quick listing of the facts shows that the case against Forrest wouldn’t stand in any court:
  • Forrest urged Union commander Bradford to surrender. Bradford refused, raised the flag high, and fought. If anything, he is the guilty one.
  • Only 42% of the Union garrison died. Not only is that remarkably low for Civil War standards, if Forrest truly wanted to massacre the garrison, well, why didn’t he?
  • Many of the soldiers who surrendered their weapons picked them back up. In any military or police setting, drawing a weapon on an armed military opponent is a death sentence. This is common-sense.
  • While it’s possible that Forrest’s men executed the soldiers at point blank range, a more likely explanation for the powder burns is that Forrest had long told his men to fight primarily with revolvers and shotguns, and given the close-quarters combat of the fort, this makes more sense.
  • The Union garrison at Ft Pillow had long raped and extorted the local population. It was so bad that Union commanders ordered a stop to it (which was disregarded by Booth and Bradford).

After the War:

Legend has it that he started “The KKK.” Lost Cause adherents try to vindicate Forrest by saying it wasn’t the same Klan as it was today. Of course, that’s true--but what’s the point? No one will believe it. They will also point out that the Radical Republican governor of Tennessee stoked tensions in the state, and so the Klan was formed as a defense unit. Again, that’s true but no one will believe it.

What is historically verifiable, though, is that Forrest did not start the Klan. Forrest denied he was ever a member (though Morton says he was). In any case, Forrest was instrumental in stopping the Klan during its first phase.

Conversion

It is better to speak of Forrest’s regeneration than trying to pinpoint a specific conversion experience. Regeneration is the new birth. Conversion is a revival back to life (which may at times overlap with regeneration). I disagree with Kastler that the sermon on Matthew 7 was the “defining moment.” I think his praying a few weeks earlier was. But no matter. It is a beautiful story nonetheless.

Evaluation

The book is quite good. Kastler (for the most part) keeps a tight narrative. I read the book in one afternoon. There is a lot of speculation and sometimes it gets the better of Kastler. While I am sure Forrest was a “racist”, Kastler contradicts himself on this point. He accuses Forrest of racism but never gives a specific example. And I don’t think racism governed Forrest’s actions in the slave-trade. For one, Forrest refused to break up families, 2) Forrest, having grown up poor, was likely more influenced by money than some sinister racist plot, and 3) the Freedman’s Bureau, no friend to white Southerners, criticized Forrest for being too nice to blacks!
 
I’ve always found the story of his confrontation with Braxton Bragg after the battle of Chickamauga to be both slightly amazing and comical. Forrest allegedly burst into Bragg’a tent and expressed his displeasure with him the following way..

“I have stood your meanness as long as I intend to….You have played the part of a damned scoundrel, and are a coward, and if you were any part of a man I would slap your jaws and force you to resent it. You may as well not issue any more orders to me, for I will not obey them, and I will hold you personally responsible for any further indignities you endeavor to inflict upon me...If you ever again try to interfere with me or cross my path it will be at the peril of your life.”
 
Last edited:
Many of the soldiers who surrendered their weapons picked them back up. In any military or police setting, drawing a weapon on an armed military opponent is a death sentence. This is common-sense.
The troops had been propagandized that they would be taken into slavery if captured, which provided motivation to fight to the death.
 
A very fair review, your thoughts closely resemble mine. I must say that reading Forrest’s words after his regeneration (as you put it) were very encouraging to my soul. It is always a joy to hear men and women describe the wonderful change that knowing the Saviour brings in their lives.
 
The troops had been propagandized that they would be taken into slavery if captured, which provided motivation to fight to the death.

How much of this propaganda knowing of Andersonville and the like? (That was not rhetorical. This is a genuine query with honest curiosity at the core of the question).
 
What is historically verifiable, though, is that Forrest did not start the Klan.
True, but I think you underestimate Forrest's importance at the beginning of the Klan. While he was not there at its initial formation, by most accounts he joined the first year or the beginning of the next year. It is a pretty well-established historical fact that he was its first significant leader. See titles like A Battle from the Start: The Life of Nathan Bedford Forrest (Wills 1993) or Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography (Hurst, 1994). Forrest was known as the "Wizard of the Saddle" during the war between the States for his incredible ingenuity and success as a cavalry leader, and most agree this is why the head of the Klan was known by the title "Grand Wizard."

Forrest denied he was ever a member (though Morton says he was).
Well then either he is lying or a bunch of fellow Klansmen who named him as one of their prominent members were lying. I'm guessing only the former had much of a reason for lying.

In any case, Forrest was instrumental in stopping the Klan during its first phase.
This is a very odd statement. By all contemporary accounts, especially from those sympathetic to him, he was a major impetus in the Klan movement almost from its inception. Or do you mean something else by "first phase"? I would suggest his later distancing from the Klan and his attempt to deny his involvement are linked largely to his political ambitions. I don't deny that he eventually had a change of heart, softened his racism, and worked to eliminate the KKK. But to whitewash the history of his early influence in establishing the Klan is not historically plausible.

You might want to balance Kassler's work by reading the recent title Nathan Bedford Forrest: In Search of the Enigma (Foxx 2022).
 
Or do you mean something else by "first phase"?
There were three Klan eras.

The first era, or phase, ended in 1869 when Forrest ordered it dissolved as its work of asymmetrical warfare against the occupying force and its puppet governments was largely accomplished in most of the Southern states. @RamistThomist is correct in his statement, although I might have worded it differently. Its leadership was largely veterans or respected community leaders.

The second era kicked off with the theatrics surrounding the premiere of Birth of a Nation in 1915 and may have been fueled in part by the rape and murder of Mary Phagan (although the resulting trial is notable in that they jury took the testimony of a Black man to convict a white man, suggesting racism in the deep south was not as strong as we've been led to believe in that era, that Klan was particularly strong in the midwest although the Stone Mountain rallies were famous. That Klan lost momentum with the rape and murder of Madge Oberholtzer, and what was left of it disbanded in the 1940s.

The third Klan era kicked off with opposition to the civil rights movement and was active from the 1950s to the 1970s. It was marked by a series of fractions and a lack of a central leadership. Significant funding came from the FBI. The last big name leader of a Klan group was David Duke but even he eventually abandoned his white robes. This movement was generally from the lower classes. The upper classes in the South tended to work through the Citizen's Councils.
 
There were three Klan eras.

The first era, or phase, ended in 1869 when Forrest ordered it dissolved as its work of asymmetrical warfare against the occupying force and its puppet governments was largely accomplished in most of the Southern states. @RamistThomist is correct in his statement, although I might have worded it differently. Its leadership was largely veterans or respected community leaders.
If the first phase ended in 1869, what phase do the military surpressions of the Klan in 1871 fall into?
 
If the first phase ended in 1869, what phase do the military surpressions of the Klan in 1871 fall into?
I guess that proves that Forrest wasn't really involved with the Klan if the locals didn't follow his orders to disband.
 
You mean Elmira (Hellmira) and Camp Chase and Camp Douglas which had access to intact supply lines (unlike Andersonville)?

Of course I did not mean that since I never heard of them. Why the sass? lol My question was genuine coming from a no-nothing like me.
 
Of course I did not mean that since I never heard of them.
They were northern death camps for Confederate prisoners. Although the Yankees had good transportation and adequate food and medical supplies, they starved many to death. Unlike Andersonville, where there weren't adequate supplies available, and the locals brought food that was available in the area to the camp. All of the prison camps were bad, but if you want to refer to 'the like' of Andersonville, you need to look north.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top