Was Nathan Bedford Forrest a Villain?

[jim pfleck]

I think that he was one of the best combat commanders of the war, who had a keen eye for ground and an excellent sense of timing. His personal courage was exceptional and if leading from the front matters, he had few equals in that. I think the Union was lucky that Forrest was never given the chance to lead an infantry division and work his way up from there to corps command or higher, unlike Stuart at Chancerlorsville or Sheridan on the Union side.

That said, he was certainly a villain. He was a product of his place in time but many, likely the majority of his countrymen, rejected slavery for many reasons and Forrest fought on the wrong side of a war fought over slavery (before someone takes this comment and turns this thread into a discussion of the causes of the war, please ask yourself what State's rights that were involved did not concern slavery and why Lincoln's election triggered secession). Simply put, there were millions of Americans who thought slave trading was evil and that the ownership of human beings was disgusting, immoral, and ungodly. The founding fathers, in their writings, found excuses for their slave holding. By 1860, the slave holders, slave traders, slave breeders, and slave states had decreed slavery God's plan. The abolitionists and freesoilers disagreed, and a political movement strong enough to threaten slavery won an election and led to secession. So yes, I think Forrest is a villain.