Amderspm Cpp[er. Matjam Bedfprd Fprrest amd Sje;bu Fppte" A :oar. a Great Gemea;. amd a Great Covo; War Jostproam

"You will lay down your arms immediately and surrrender your forces to me, or I will not be responsible for the consequences." N. B. Forrest

The above--not word for word, but Shelby Foote give you the exact words in his narrative history of the Civl War, Volume 3: From Red River to Appomattox"--is the chilling message Confederate calvary commander Nathan Bedford Forrest would send to the Union commander of any entrenched forces he was about to attack. It did not matter whether those forces were black or white. Since Nathan Bedford Forrest was the most feared Confedeate general of them all, with a bloody reputation that he obviously encouraged, this was a threat that tended to get Forrest results that cost less bloodshed than would otherwise be the case. Despite the implication of "no quarter" in Forrest's chilling message, there is no evidence that he followed a policy of killing prisoners when the enemy did not surrender. Forrest simply had the same clear-eyed view of war as the great Union advocate of total war: William Sherman. War is about defeating the enemy--not about being a "gentleman".

That brings us to Anderson Cooper (one of the big liars on The Liar Network, CNN). Yes, almost 150 years after the fact, Cooper LIBELED Forrest in a POLITICAL propaganda attack worse than the propaganda against Forrest in the Union press of 1864. What can you say about a media that has DTERIRATED over 150 years? Well, you can say that William Sherman was right. He regarded the press as a worse enemy of the Union cause than the Sourhern soldiers. And Anderson Cooeper is one of the worst--because most sanctimonious---of a truly bad lot.

Yes, we are talking about the battle at Ft. Pillow in 1864. Immediately after the battle, propagandists in the North labeled the battle as a "massacre", and expecially a massacre of black soldiers. They blamed Forrest for the massacre. They were, after all, in a WAR, and Forrest was among the most hated of ttheir enemies. The outcry was so bad that President Abraham Lincoln and Secretary of War Stanton felt compelled to look into the question of whether Forrest had engaged in the massacre of troops who had already surrendered. William Sherman's equiry resulted in Forrest being absolved of any "war crimes"--Anderson Cooper (typically) brshing this aside as if Sherman had whitewashed Forrest for reasons of his own. Anderson Cooper is a despicable human being, for whom the "truth" means nothing at all.

Let us go to Shelby Foote. Shelby Foote is the Civil War historian (not to say he did not go beyond te Civil War at times) who was prominently featured by Ken Burns in Burns' acclaimed PBS series on the Civil War. His nrrative history of the Civl War (in three volulmes) is probably the best overview of the Civil War ever writtten (rating 100 out of 100, on a scale of 0 to 100, where Anderson Cooper is a 0, for lack of any lower rating) being possible).

Foote--a Southerner (modern), but more neutral and truthful than Anderson Cooper j(propagandist that he is) has ever even imagned himself being, descrites Fort Pillow in volume 3 of his massive historical narrative (you should read it--I doubt if Anderson Cooper can read). Forrest, in April of 1864, brought his forces on a raid in western Tennessee toward Ohio. In the process, he decided to attack the Union forces at Fort Pillow. Forrest sent his usual ultimatum (having nothing to do with the black union soldiers which constituted about half of the soldiers at Fort Pillow. For reasons known only to himiself-and though Anderson Cooper left the impression that Fort Pillow did surrender, because Anderson Cooper is a liar--the Union comander refused to surrender, but asked for time. However, the Union controlled the nearby river, and Forrest had intelligence that reinforcements might be arriving by water (whre there was a Fedral gunboat that failed to take any part in the action). In typically brilliant fashion, Forrest attacked the fort, and the defenders were overwhelmed.

Here is where the "controversy" occurs. There is no doubt this was a BATTLE (despite Cooper ignoring this fact 150 years later in his anxiety to paint Forrest as an evil human being--a casae of projection, in my opinion). Forrest lost 14 men killed and 86 wounded. However, the Union forces were all killed and captured. The problem is that most were killed, rather than captured. This led Anderson Cooper to assert essentailly that Forrest lined up the "Negro" troops and massacred them. That is absrud. As Foote says, what is true is that the Confederates probably kept firing after the battle was really over, despite efforts by Forrest to stop the firing when it was clear the firght was over. Further, Foote notes that some 60% of the white troops (to listen to Cooper's report you would get the idea that there were no white Union troops there) were captured, while only 20% of the black troops were made prisoner. As Foote notes, this is certaily a prima facie case for "discrimination" in the killing, although hardly evidence that Forrest deliberately ordered the killing of the blakc troops. As stated, despite the whipped up hysteria in the North falsifying what happened at Ft. Pillow, Forrest was basically cleared by Sherman's enquiry.

It is NOT--despite Anderson Cooper's idiocy--a "war crime" (or a crime at all) to kill fleeing soldiers on a battlefield. Sherman's soldiers were tro be, and had been, at least as brutal as Forrest under a commander given to saying things just as strong as Forrest on what needed to be done in war (and threatening the enemy with just as bad if they failed to do what Sherman wanted--surrender). Why were more black troops killed than whites? It would not be surprising in the Southern soldiers were more inclined for "revenge" on black troops. It would be suruprsing if they had any other attitude, as Southerners had sort of an irrratioinal fear of blacks getting out of control and conducting a massacre of whites in the South. But Conderate soldiers insisted that fleeing Union soldiers kept their weapons, and did not surrender. Might black soldiers--knowing how feared and hated they were in the South, or at least believing it--have been more afraid to surrender than white soldiers. Might black soldiers--thinking they might go back to slavery or exectution rather than being honored as prisoners of war--have been too afraid to surrender? It makes sense to me that such explanatioins may be at least a part of the reason more blacks were killed. Still, it was hardly "genocide". 20% of the black troops WERE captured alive. Nor is "massacre" the right word for a batttle where the victorious troops merely failed to stop killing as fast as they probably could--and should--have done.

Fort Pillow was actually a military victory for the South, and Forrest's raid was acclaimed in the Suoth as such. That is part of the reason the propaganda in the North was so vicious as to the alleged "massacre". Propaganda is one way to diminish the effect of a military defeat--not a major batttle or defeat for the Union, but a defeat nevertheless. That is a reason it is significant that Lincoln and Sherman did not condemn Forrest. Lincoln was facing an election in November of 1864, and whatever he could do to raise people's anger against Forrest instead of himself was bound to help him. Lincoln needed the perception he was winning the war to keep the DEMOCRAT (same as now) NEGOTIATION CROWD ("can't we all just get along") from forcing a "compromise" with the South by defeating Licon. (Lincoln ould be saved from this fate by Grant, and by Sherman's burning of Atlanta.)

Nathan Bedford Forrest was the best horse calvary commmander who ever lived. You could debate it--Phil Sheridan turned out to be no slouch--but I am willing to stand by that statement. The main qualification would have to be that Forrest was not on a stage where he was a truly crucial factor in the war. But his military genius is beyond question. That, again, brings us to Anderson Cooper. The reason Anderson Cooper decided to rev up the CNN propaganda machine against the long dead Nathan Bedford Forrest is that some people in Mississippi (I think) were proposing to put Forrest on a licesnse plate (or some such thing). Cooper and CNN saw this as an opportunity to allege that this was all about INSULTING BLACK PEOPEL (showing that the South has not learned a thing, and is still racist). As I have repeatedly shown, CNN and Anderson Cooper are absolutely obsessed with race.

No, Nathan Bedford Forrest was NOT to be honored as a slave trader (which he was before the war). He was to be honored as the military genius he was, who was a credit to his state (Mississippi, or whatever) in the service he gave to that state. All of that is objectively true, and I would have no problem honoring Forrest in, for example, 1942. It is not too much of a stretch to say that Forrest must have inspired General Patton ("you job is not to die for your country; it is to make the other poor bastard die for his country"). When we honor Thomas Jefferson, are we honoring Thomas Jefferson as a SLAVE OWNER? Don't be silly. We are honoring Thomas Jefferson as one of the great minds in history, and great advocates of libery in hisotry (not to mention a Founder of this country). This is DESPITE Jefferson being a slave owner, rather than because of it. Should black people TODAY be upset that we honor Jefferson? That is absurd, but that is the basic problem with pumping up hysteria about honoring Forresst for beig a military genius. This political "concern" over the feelings of modern black people is really insulting to them It says they are incapable of getting beyond racial sins of the past, and honoring a genius for his genius, without excusing his faults. I would hope West Point still teaches about the tactics of Forrest.

You might be surprised to know that I believe Anderson Cooper was RIGHT on the "issue" of whether a Southern state should go out of its way to honor Natahn Bedford Forrest in NEW ways 150 years later. No, I would NOT take away any honors he has already received, or any proclamations of his birthday as some sort of day to be noted (or, for example, his name n a school). But it is time to get past the Civil War. Forrest should get his due in history books and history classes, without concentrating on the "massacre" at Fort Pillow or the alleged Ku Klux Klan membership. Foote balances it all pretty well. But we need to treat the Civil War as part of the past. There is no CURRENT need to honor either Forrest or Sherman with NEW honors 150 years later. CNN, and the other people trying to gin up this hysteria over Forrest way beyond the point I am making, are NOT willing to put the Civil War behind us. For them, it is POLITICAL to continue to label the U.S. a RACIST country. Among other things, it advances THEM (so they think) politically and professionally, and they don't really care if it does black people any good to be constantly told that racists are still out to get them. Yes, these people even keep calling for "reparations" to MODERN black people for slavery. You can't get any more counterproductiove than that (an idea that has faded, predictably, with budget problems throughout the country, but willprobably rear its ugly head again).

No, the problem is not whether Forrest should receive a license plate (or whatever). That is simply not important. It is surely a bad current idea, but hardly worth even a national story. WHY is it a national story (worth an entire segment on Anderson Cooper). I told you that. It is because Cooper, and CNN, want to lable the ENTIRE COUNTRY--excpet for enlightened people like thme-as racists. this is just a political vehilce--like the original Fort Pillow exaggeratioins in 1864---to advance that political goal.

But why am I correctly calling Anderson Cooper a liar, when he is "correct" on the "issue" of whether a state should give NEW honors to Civl War "heroes"? Let me quote you what Anderson Cooper said when the advocates of this license plate (or whatever) tried to reference Shelby Foote. "Shelby Foote is dead." Cooper was actually quoting what had just been said by his civil rights activist guest (trying to overstate for his own political purposes). How much more of a LIAR can you get than to assert that it is some sort of answer to reference to a respected historian to say that he is DEAD? Message to Anderson Cooper: This, alone, exposes you as a SANCTIMONIOUIS LIEAR of the very worst kind--willing to say absolutely anything to support your agenda. Anderson Cooper will probably tell you, as Dan Rather told you, that it is the basic "truth" of the AGENDA that is important, and not whether you are telling the truth about indiviudal facts. Tjat is EVIL stuff: "end justifies the means" stuff. Shelby Foote is one of the great historians of the Civl War: Ken Burns saw him as such. And Anderson Cooper dismisses him as DEAD? Anderson, lyou are a despicable human being. And all of you should read Shelby Foote. (By the way, I happened to be in the process of reading volues 2 and 3 of Shelby Foote's narrative history at the time Cooper gave his propaganda report. I had not yet reached the account of Fort Pilow by Foote, which I just reached this weekend. That explains the timing of this article, as to a Cooper program of almost a week ago.)

Robern Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. He is nonored in West Virginia for the good things he did. Nathan Bedford Forrest was allegedly a member of the Ku Klux Klan at a time when the Klan was representing itself as a counter to UNION CARPETBAGGERS. No, this is nt to condone the Klank, but to say that there was much more reason to believe the Klan had some reason for being after the Civil War than when Robert Byrd joined. The Klan, after the Civil War, posed as a fighter of corrupt oppression. Now it is argued whether Forrest really joined the Klan. If he did, it is argued he quickly dropped out after he saw where the Klan was headed. We KNOW that Forrest ws not out there burning and killing, and directing Klan activities. How do we know that? Easy. Forrest was a HIGH PROFILE former enemy of the Unioin. It is absurd to suggest that he was not being watched--if not by the authorities, then by epole who had it in for him. Again, Forrest was never charged, nor even arrested, for being a member of the Klan or violating his oath of loyalthy he had to take as a former Confederate. Again, Cooper was more intereted in CHARACTER ASSASSINATION of a dead man--150 years later--than the truth. That is because Cooper does not care about the "truth". Just keepig him honest. Yes, it is obvious that the whole "controversy" over Forrrest and the Ku Klux lKlan, as well as about Fort Pillow, is a matter for historians like Foote. It is IRRELEVANT to a prsent honor for Forrest as the military genius he was (an honor that simly makes no current sense, and probably represents the same kind of attempt at attention by its advocates as by those exaggerating the evils of Forrest).

Doubt me? Dont. There were allegations, during his life., that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Communist, or a Communist sympathizer. I know that is now denied as a fantasy of J. Edgar Hoover, but what if something came out (as it might have, for all I know, since it would receive no publicity) that King actually had sympathetic contacts with the Communist Party? So what? King, as I have previously stated, was a GREAT MAN. Tring to tear him down with nits--correct or not--is evi stupp (unless it is presented as a minor part of an historical analysis or biography of Kin'g's entire life). That is why I have previously said that I see no reason to try to tear down Martin Luther King to argue that we should not have a "Martin Luther King" holiday. NO other man is nonored by name with a national holiday, except Jesus Christ. And I am sorry, but King was not Jesus Christ--a great man, but not quite that great. Even Washington and Lincoln, of course, no longer have a "real" national holiday. That is the argument against the King holiday--NOT some manufactured attempt to tear King down by libeling him after his death. That is the Cooper Big Lie here: that it is okay to tear down Nathan Bedford Forrest so long after his death, in a completely biased manner, in order to bolster your "argument" against honoring a military genius. That is incorrect. Unless Forrest had been CONVICTED of terrible crimes, Cooper has no business putting Forrest before a media Kangaroo court more than a hundred years after his death. The propoeed honor was for Forrest as a military genius, who used that genius fighting for his state (and what he regarded as his country. This long afterward, I regard that as a mistake. But it does not make CHARACTER ASSASSINATIOIN by exaggeration and lies the right kind of "argument" to make against this mistake. I say again: If you listened to Anderson Cooper, you got the idea that Forrest lined up Negor troops at Fort Pillow and shot them. That was a LIE. No way could you listen to Cooper and understand the real issues of what happended at Fort Pillow (explored by Foote), because Cooper was not interested in the "truth". Cooper is never interested in the truth. Just keeping him honest.

Now Forrest was a slave trader before the Civil War. As previously stated, Jefferson (not to mention Washington) was a slave owner. It is irrelevant to what Forrest accomplished in the war. But, again, Cooper refused to simly state the fact that Forrest was a slave trader. Rather, Cooper wnet on to say that Forrest WHIPPED his slaves with a bullwhip. If you don't understand that shows that Cooper is only interested in PROPAGANDA, thewn you don't understand anything. It may well have been coommon for slave traders to have a whip. But it is absurd propaganda to hysterically state that Forrest whipped slaves, as if that hysperical propaganda added anyting to the discusion. It certainlyl added nothing to the fact that Forrest was a slave trader. That was not a savorty occupation, but it was the way for Forrest to make money (since he was not an aristocratic plantation owner like Jefferson, although evidently Forrest was much more financially prudent than Jerrerson.

What is ironic is that Forrest was a little bit of an embarrassment to the high socieety of the South. Like Grant in the North, Forrest was not a high society person. Even though the economy of the South was--disastrously--tied to slavery, the "higher" classes of the South pretty much despised slave traders upholding theri life style. Like Jefferson, they were uncomforatble with slavery, while not having the courage to get rid of it. Yes, Rober E. Lee was a great man. But was he more of a military genius than Nathan Bedford Forrrest? Did he do more to defend his sattee? Was not Lee firghitng for slave owners as much as Forrest? So why does Lee have such a bettrer image than Forrest? I would bet Anderson Cooper would not dare attack Lee like he did Forrest (coward that Cooper is). The NORTH even advmired Lee. Why is that?

Sorry. I tell the truth. As Foote implies, it is a matter of HYPOCRISY and SNOBBERY. Yes, Forrest was in a distasteful business. But it was a LEGAL business (legal unde Federal law before the war, as well as under state law). And the North wanted cotton piked by Southern slaves. Indeed, a case can be made that blacks were just as badly treated in the North, as free men and women, as they were in the South as slaves. Yes, slavery is evil, apart from whether a slave is treated well or badly. But there is a lot of hypocrisy of an insidiously dishonest kind going on here. Forrest was not the kind of Southern gentleman that Lee was, but he was a military genius never--apparently--convicted of doing anything illegal in his life (the main illegal thing, of course, being that he was a rEBEL). (This has echoes of the present contempt that the left AND the Republican estabishment have for Tea Party HICKS who do not talk their language, although it is another Andrson Cooper type charcter assassinatioin to accuse Tea Party people of being racist.)

Yes, I know I have told you more about Nathan Bedford Forrest than you want to know. But two things are obvious:

1. Nathan Bedford Forresst was probably the best horse calvary commander who ever lived, who used those great talents for his state and what he regarded as his country. He would probably have even said that he was fiighting for the black people of his state and the South, since they were being invaded by a foreign ower (the Unioin). His military genius was unaffected by his politics, or faults as a man. he was never convicted of a crime--war crime or otherwise--espite being ultimately in the power of his enemies. I don't think he was ever even arrested for a crime.

2. Forrest was a great general in war--everyone agrees. Anderson Cooper is not a "grat" anything. Rather, he is a liar. This is not the first time I have said this. It will not be the last. The Forrest character assassination, with not interest at all int he "truth", shows that Cooper has no interest int he "truth". He is only interested in porpaganda, and is POSE as a "neutral" seeker of the "ruth" is a SANCTIMONIOIUS LIE. Just keeping him honest. At least Cooper is on the right network: The Liar Network.

P.S. Note, as usual, that the above has neither been proofread nor spell checked (eyesight). That is especailly relevant in this long an article--I would not argue if you say it is too long---since major errors are bound to creep into my typing, which gets worse the more I type. And yes, you should do yourself a favor and read Shelby Foote, if you are at all interested in history and/or the Civil War. You should do yourself another favor and not listen to Anderson Cooper, unless you do it-the way I do--just to find uot the leftist insanity of the day and to get material for this blog. I still wonder if it is worth it, since CNN has about as many viewers as this blog has readers (in other words, not many). I have described it as using a nuclear bomb on a gnat (exposing the "journalistic" crimes of CNN).