ume to be slammed shut than to bernscanned. The mini-tale of the eapturedrnCaptain S. L. Freeman on page 108 is arnsalient example: “Following a brief struggle,rnthe Confederates succeeded in recapturingrntheir artillery pieces, but failedrnto liberate Captain Freeman. Their failurerncost him his life. As he ran alongrnin the hands of his captors, they apparentlyrndid not believe that he was runningrnfast enough, as one of the Unionrncavalrymen shot him through the headrnand rode away.” Thus the murder ofrnCaptain Sam Freeman is blamed on thernSoutherners who couldn’t extricate himrnfrom federal hands and not on the Yankeernwho pulled the trigger. Such a logicrnwould produce some striking results, ifrnuniversally applied.rnBut here such a logic is mostly restrictedrnto the interpretation of thernmind, motives, and actions of NathanrnBedford Forrest, whom even Shermanrncalled “the most remarkable man ourrnCivil War produced on either side.” InrnWills’ rehash of Forrest’s tragic confrontationrnwith Lieutenant A. WillsrnGould, for example, the “temper,”rn”harsh actions towards his friends,”rn”mood,” “hair-trigger temper,” “anger,”rn”passion,” etc., attributed to Forrest arernassembled to bury the point—namely,rnthat Gould shot Forrest with a pistol,rnwhich the General construed as an attackrnupon his person committed withrnintent to do grievous bodily harm. Forrest’srndispleasure at being shot by hisrnown lieutenant and his subsequentrnlethal rcs]30nse with a knife seem somehowrnto constitute a fault of character.rnWills concludes: “Indeed, had the generalrnplayed a more noble role in the affair,rneven at the end of it, his earliest biographers,rnThomas Jordan and J. P.rnPryor, would have surely included it inrntheir account. Instead they conspicuouslyrnavoided the entire subject.” Ofrncourse thev did—but not because thernincident discredited Forrest. Jordan andrnPryor omitted the story because LieutenantrnGould’s behavior was disgracefulrnto him and embarrassing to his relatives.rnJohn Wyeth’s subsequent accountrnomitted Gould’s name for the same reason.rnWills goes to considerable troublernto distort the story of Lieutenant Gould.rnBut then again, throughout this accountrnwe are asked in effect to disapprovernof Forrest’s manners. Forrest actuallyrnraises his voice at people duringrnmoments of stress, such as when underrnattack by thousands of invaders tryingrnto kill him and his associates with riflesrnand cannons. Forrest even allows oathsrnto pass his lips, and during the biggestrnwar ever fought in the Western Hemispherernhe behaves violently on the battlefield,rnordering his men to fight andrnsometimes even doing so himself! Cetrnanimal est tres mechant, / Quand on I’attaquernil se defend.rnAs Professor Wills skirts the obviousrnwith theories, we may wonder if we havernmissed the point, or rather whether thernpoint has missed the historian:rnWhether Forrest engaged inrnviolence because he was a backcountryrnSoutherner or becausernviolence was part of his character,rnhe undoubtedly embodied thernstruggle between “passion” andrn”control” that Dickson Bruce discussedrnin Violence and Culture inrnthe Antebellum South. He struggledrnfor control over his emotionsrnthroughout his life. Consequently,rnhe emphasized discipline andrnorder, both as a civilian and as arnmilitary commander.rnIs it necessary to point out that by definitionrnall humans feel a conflict betweenrnpassion and control or that (also by definition)rnall leaders, civilian and military,rnemphasize order? Or that Forrest neverrnheard of Bruce’s 1979 book?rnAmong other shortcomings, Wills’rnbook gives little sense of why Forrest wasrna hero to his people, why he was the subjectrnof so many stories as to enter thernfolklore of the South and of the woddrn(“Firstest with the mostest”), or why—rnuntil now—he attracted only outstandingrnwriters. Even in fiction the generalrnlooms large, yet Wills’ treatment of Forrestrnin Faulkner is niggling, and Forrestrnin Caroline Gordon’s None Shall LookrnBack (1936), m Shelby Foote’s Shilohrn(1952), in Perry Lentz’s The Fallmg Hillsrn(1967), and in Lawrence Wells’ Rommelrnand the Rebel (1986) goes unmcntioned.rnWhat does not go unmentioned arcrnrecent efforts by the National Associationrnfor the Advancement of ColoredrnPeople and the Congress of RacialrnEquality to remove the bronze equestrianrnstatue of Forrest in Memphis, disinterrnthe bones of him and his wifernpresently buried thereunder, and renamernForrest Park. Though Forrest’s fame wasrnearned on the held of battle, his days asrna slave trader before the war and as thernreputed leader of the first Klan after itrnhave made him, even more than otherrnConfederate icons, a convenient targetrnfor a war upon history. It is hard to seernhow destroying the memorial of a herorncan promote either the advancement ofrncolored people or racial equality, unlessrnof course what is desired is a principlernof effacement that will later be appliedrnto all those drives and avenues (notrnstreets) named for the Reverend “Dr.”rnMartin Luther King, Jr.rnWell, Forrest Avenue in Atlanta hadrnits name altered about 13 years ago withrnlittle result as far as advancement orrnequality is concerned, though I thinkrnsuch a contemptuous gesture says a lotrnabout a culture that dares not acknowledgernthe greatest fighting man in itsrnown history. While awaiting the inevitablernoutcome of such emasculation,rnsome may yet wish to contemplate thernheroic parabola of Forrest while we arernstill allowed to do so. The rough-hewn,rnself-taught soldier who refused to surrenderrnat Fort Donelson, who predictedrnthe results at Shiloh, who rebukedrnBragg after Chickaniauga, and who defendedrnthe Army of Tennessee after thernmad Hood had wrecked it, was a manrnwhose native gumption was always superiorrnto the mere education of professionals.rnHis story is best told by AndrewrnLytic, whose Bedford Forrest and HisrnCritter Company (1931) has just nowrnbeen republished by J. S. Sanders ofrnNashville. Lytlc’s life of Forrest is highlyrnrecommended to all those, of whate’rner hue or degree of advancement, whornknow a hero when thev see one.rn].0. Tate is a professor ofFjiglish atrnDowling College on Long Island.rnIr.t Immediate iutnirnClJKONld^^^.,rn.’^’i^l^’y.’f^.’rrn:. – Vrnrni.i.i-kr’i »TMB88..-^”rn• • * ‘rn• “Vvrn’ fc’rn1-800-877-5^9rn• ‘ • – V • •rnDECEMBER 1992/41rnrnrn