The article “The Contested Image of Nathan Bedford Forrest” was written by Court Carney. It was published by the Southern Historical Association in The Journal of Southern History in August 2001. The publication focuses on the history of Nathan Bedford Forrest, an important figure in the Civil War era, and how his views and actions advanced racism and influenced the opinions of the following generations. The purpose of writing the article was to explain in-depth how different people tend to have differing perspectives on the heroism stature accorded to him during the civil war. Some believe his admiration and stature were well deserved, while Nathan attracts contempt and anger from African Americans. The author can explicitly explain how different groups have a contested image of Nathan Bedford Forrest and how he still haunts America in modern society.
Nathan Bedford was a well-established and connected slave trader and an early leader of the Ku Klux Klan, an American white supremacist group. The general is famous for his exploits during the Civil War in the 1870s and his attitude toward Black Americans. The Civil War occurred between 1861-1865, and it was between the Union and the Confederacy (Carney, 2001). The main issue that resulted in the dispute was whether slavery practices would be allowed to be expanded to the western territories. General Bedford was involved in the massacre of black troops at Fort Pillow. His image was modified in the twentieth century, and he was considered an honorable soldier serving his country. However, his image became more polarized when it came to racial terms.
Carney was able to adequately explain why he supports the argument that the image of Nathan Bedford has attracted contestation among different groups. The writer presents how the differing groups’ perspectives are linked to his actions and attitudes, especially regarding African Americans. According to Carney, the admirers of the general see him as an exaggerated synthesis of racial animosity and southern pride (Carney, 2001). Others perceive him as a colorful war hero who fought well for his country. However, most Black Americans do not see anything positive about the general, given he was a slave trader and member of a White supremacist group. They also view him as a representation of extreme southern history, demanding the razing of monuments elected to honor Bedford. Therefore, the author of the article is able to show why Bedford has a contested image.
However, the author fails to expound on the North’s perspective on Nathan’s actions and how the existing norms and practices shaped his ideologies and actions. The leading cause of the Civil war was the disagreement on permitting slavery in the territories (Carney, 2001). The prevention of slavery in the western territories was believed to result in trade extinction. The writer only focuses on the views of southern white supremacists and African Americans, hence omitting the views of the people from the Northern part comprised of the Union. He also fails to expound on how community aspects, such as slavery during the Civil War, may have shaped Nathan Bedford’s attitudes and how the conditions are different in modern American society.
Thus, Court was able to adequately support his argument on why Nathan Bedford had a contested image even in modern America. The article provides a detailed explanation of the life of the general, including his involvement in the slavery trade, the killing of Black troops at Fort Pillow, and as a leader of a white supremacist group. The author showed how his image was a point for contestation, with admirers seeing him as a colorful soldier. In contrast, the African Americans see him as a racist. Carney, however, failed to include the perspective of the Union on the issue and how the existing ideologies shaped Nathan’s views. The article explicitly explains the controversies surrounding Nathan as an important figure in the country’s history, especially racism.
References
Carney, C. (2001). The Contested Image of Nathan Bedford Forrest. The Journal of Southern History, 67(3), 601-630.
write