OK, let's do that. He was a great general for a "country" whose cornerstone rested on the "great truth" of white supremacy and that the proper role of blacks in society was as slaves. If military historians want to honor the man for his achievements as a general, that's fine. There are plenty of books on the subject, and if someone wants to erect a statue of him in a confederate cemetery, I'm good with that too.
And I understand these were complex men - neither all good nor all bad - and reflective of attitudes of their time and place. But for the grace of God.... I get that and I don't feel any need to really demonize the man. But the fact that he was a complex individual, and in some ways honorable individual, is just NOT a compelling argument for a mostly black community to be required by the State of Tennessee to forever honor a man who fought brilliantly to continue and expand the institution of slavery in a place of honor in their public parks.
Right, who happened to be Commander in Chief of an IMO evil cause. Relevant!
I've read all that and much more over the years. But my basic position is a community gets to decide who to honor and IMO it's a reasonable choice for a black community to NOT want to honor famous white supremacists who fought, brilliantly or not, to maintain and spread the institution of slavery. It's no more complex for me than deciding Jews need not maintain monuments to Hitler or the Nazis, some of them no doubt brave, honorable men, who fought brilliantly on behalf of the Third Reich.
That's a reasonable reply I actually agree with you, take the Forrest momuments and replace them in red areas of the state
of Tennessee, of which there are many, and let them reside there in piece. I also tend to believe that if the 2/3 black population
of Memphis knew a little more about Forrest they may have had pause about moving Forrest's resting place.
You probably already know, there were about 8 black men in his elite vanguard which was about 50 -80 of the
best troopers at any given time of the confederacy. 2 black men road with him the entire war.
Napoleon Nelson and Nim Wilkes were their names.
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest had slaves and black freemen serving in units under his command. After the war, Forrest said of the
black men who served under him, "These boys stayed with me.. - and better Confederates did not live.'
When the war started, Forrest asked 45 of his slaves (which he considered as servants) to join him, offering them their freedom
after the war, no matter how it turned out. They all joined him and although they had numerous opportunities to desert him, 44
stayed by his side until the end of the war.
Another point that must be made! 'Forrest was not a 21st Century man who believed in racial equality; he remained a man of
his time, sharing the almost-universal view of white Europeans and Americans in the 19th Century that Anglo-Saxons were
superior to other peoples, but neither was Forrest a reactionary racist who sought a return to slavery. Forrest worked to
accept the end of slavery and the social changes resulting from the war as indicated by his words to his men in his 1865
farewell address. A recent biographer of Forrest says “The reality is that over the length of his lifetime Nathan Bedford
Forrest's racial attitudes probably developed more, and more in the direction of liberal enlightenment, than those of
most other Americans in the nation's history.”
So it seems IMO Forrest surely had better relationships with blacks he counteracted
with than many of the union generals had who participated in the war at the head of black soldiers.
Forrest gave many speeches and talks around the Memphis area from 1866 to 1874. Most of these speeches talked
of peace, patriotism for the US Constitution, and trying to bring the country back together. Addressing an African-American group,
he was quoted as saying, "We are born on the same soil, breathe the same air, live on the same land, and why
should we not be brothers and sisters?"
