The radicalism I’m talking about is the radicalism of slavery… not the radicalism of rebellion or how Forrest fought. It’s not a perfect analogy for sure, I grant you that. However, slavery was an institution that had to go. It was intolerable to the ideals of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. It was intolerable to the great American experiment. Just as despotism and the radical Islamic life is intolerable to America today.

Forrest, as much as he loved the Constitution and America, just was on the wrong side of the slavery issue. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were as well. Myriad ancestors of mine were too, from Virginia House of Burgesses members to widowed plantation owners in Civil War Louisiana. In no way am I’m saying that they were the exact Osama bin Ladens of their time… they weren’t… but they were upholders of an institution that had to be vanquished, much like bin Laden’s violent jihad culture or Saddam Hussein’s brand of despotism must be stood up to and vanquished.

Again, it’s definitely not a perfect analogy… but we’re still the same country of Lincoln (with the same ideological commitments), yet now our interests span the breath of the world, and not just below the Mason-Dixon line.

However, his article makes a good point. Forrest was awesome at War, and sometimes we, as a people, must have War… and if we do, we too must be awesome at it. And Forrest is as good an American example as any about how to go about being awesome at it. I’d surely want a Nathan Bedford Forrest next to me in battle, if not leading me into it. The only problem is he was on the fire eating, radical side of the Civil War, i.e. the radical Islam or despotic Arab side of the War.

U.S. Grant or William Tecumseh Sherman would be better models to write about, I think, because despotic and violent, radical Islam is going to unfortunately have to be beaten down over time by the United States just like the Confederacy was. Vanquishing the Taliban in Afghanistan or the despotic Saddam in Iraq is something akin to Grant liberating Mississippi or Sherman marching to the Sea. A lot of Lincoln is needed from our leaders, and a lot of Forrest is needed in our soldiers (or really Grant and Shermans, among many others).

I think the reason why Forrest is so widely disliked (and sometimes even hated) isn’t simply because he was “a racist.” You’re right, there weren’t many whites of the time, Northern or Southern, who wouldn’t be considered racist today. What distinguishes Forrest is the actions he is associated with that are seen, with justification, as being linked to that racism–particularly his prewar slave dealing, Fort Pillow, and his postwar involvement with the KKK. I agree that the last two of these are more complicated than they are often made out to be, but it’s disingenuous to suggest Forrest is so controversial simply for holding racist attitudes. It’s his concrete actions that make him controversial.