Yahoo: Proposed Mississippi license plate would honor Confederate general, early Klan leader

[LeesburgSkinFan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_on_re_us/us_confederate_license_plates

Good stuff! Let's celebrate a traitor to the US and a Klan leader in one fell swoop. Sure feel sorry for the industrial recruiter that has to sell businesses on the idea to locate or relocate their company to Mississippi when those folks see a founder of the KKK on the license plate....especially if they have a large number of minority executive/employees.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

http://www.moviequotesandmore.com/image-files/forrest-gump-quotes-2.jpg


Now when I was a baby, Mama named me after the great Civil War hero General Nathan Bedford Forrest. She said we was related to him in some way. What he did was he started up this club called the Ku Klux Klan. They'd all dress up in their robes and their bed sheets and act like a bunch of ghosts or spooks or something'. They'd even put bed sheets on their horses and ride around. And anyway, that's how I got my name, Forrest Gump. Mama said the Forrest part was to remind me that sometimes we all do things that, well, just don't make no sense.

[Madison Redskin]

So the guy betrays his country, captures a Union army fort, oversees the massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Pillow) of black Union soldiers who surrendered, becomes a KKK leader, and some Mississippians want to honor him. Well, I guess that's about right.

[Henry]

Well, he was a hell of a cavalry officer. :)

[Bang]

Some quotes from Civil war historian Shelby Foote on Nathan Bedford Forrest:

The Army of Central Kentucky had two cavalrymen who had already contributed exploits to its legend: Captain John Hunt Morgan of Kentucky and Lt Colonel Nathan Bedford Forrest of Tennessee. Though the former had fought in the Mexican War as a youth and later commanded his hometown militia company, neither man had had a military education. The latter, in fact, a Memphis slave dealer and a Mississippi planter, had had little formal schooling of any kind.


In his first fight, northeast of Bowling Green, the 40-year-old Forrest improvised a double envelopment, combined it with a frontal assault - classic maneuvers which he could not identify by name and of which he had mostly likely never heard - and scattered the survivors of a larger enemy force

Nathan Bedford Forrest had 30 horses shot from under him during the course of the war. And he killed 31 men in hand-to-hand combat. And he said, "I was a horse ahead at the end."

~Bang

[SnyderShrugged]

Yeah, Forrest was well known for being the devil incarnate to many. probably not the best one to role model! There are a ton of Confederate Generals that could be honored in this way isnstead

---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 02:08 PM ----------


So the guy betrays his country, captures a Union army fort, oversees the massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Pillow) of black Union soldiers who surrendered, becomes a KKK leader, and some Mississippians want to honor him. Well, I guess that's about right.


I dont think you can fault the guy simply because he was on the losing side. he didnt "betray" his country. Also cant really hold him doing his job in the military by capturing a fort as any wrongdoing.

The KKK and the Massacre are certainly things that could be held against him though.

[Henry]

Some quotes from Civil war historian Shelby Foote on Nathan Bedford Forrest:

I'm working my way through Shelby Foote's books right now. So far this is my favorite passage about Forrest, during the Battle of Shiloh:


“Charge!’ he shouted, and led his horsemen pounding down the slope. Most of the skirmishers had begun to run before he struck them, but those who stood were knocked sprawling by a blast from shotguns and revolvers. Beyond them, Federal cavalry had panicked, firing carbines wildly in the air. When they broke two, Forrest kept on after them, still brandishing his saber and crying, “Charge! Charge!” as he plowed into the solid ranks of the brigade drawn up beyond. The trouble was, he was charging himself; the other, seeing the steady brigade in front, had turned back and were already busy gathering up their 43 prisoners. Forrest was one gray uniform, high above a sea of blue. “Kill him! Kill the goddam rebel! Knock him off his horse!” It was no easy thing to do; the horse was kicking and plunging and Forest was hacking and slashing; but one of the soldiers did his best. Reaching far out, he shoved the muzzle into the colonel’s side and pulled the trigger. The force of the explosion lifted Forrest clear of the saddle, but he regained his seat and sawed the horse around. As he came out of the mass of dark blue and furious white faces, clearing a path with his saber, he reached down and grabbed one of the soldiers by the collar, swung him onto the crupper of the horse, and galloped back to safety, using the Federal as a shield against the bullets fired after him. Once he was out of range, he flung the hapless fellow off and rode on up to the ridge where his men were waiting in open-mouthed amazement.

[Madison Redskin]

I dont think you can fault the guy simply because he was on the losing side. he didnt "betray" his country. Also cant really hold him doing his job in the military by capturing a fort as any wrongdoing.

I respectfully disagree. If you support an insurrection against our government (which was essentially based on the government's meddling in the slave trade), lead a group of armed rebels, and kill U.S. troops, you are a traitor in my book.

[SnyderShrugged]

I respectfully disagree. If you support an insurrection against our government (which was essentially based on the government's meddling in the slave trade), lead a group of armed rebels, and kill U.S. troops, you are a traitor in my book.

I understand and also respect your view. but....


It wasnt an insurrection, it was a secession as agreed to in their voluntary entry into the union. Big difference.

[Bang]

I'm working my way through Shelby Foote's books right now. So far this is my favorite passage about Forrest, during the Battle of Shiloh:

Wow.
"Working through" is a good way to put it.
It's been a long time since I dove in there. Those volumes should be required reading for American history students.

~Bang

[Predicto]

This is utterly indefensible.

However, I must say that I'm looking forward to reading people's stalward efforts at defending it. :)

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

Only in Virg...I mean Mississippi.

[GhostofSparta]

Once more, Arkansas and Alabama are sighing to themselves "Thank God for Mississippi."

[twa]

This is utterly indefensible.

However, I must say that I'm looking forward to reading people's stalward efforts at defending it. :)

Hoping to pick up tips at defending the SF Board of Supervisors? :silly:

[SnyderShrugged]

This is utterly indefensible.

However, I must say that I'm looking forward to reading people's stalward efforts at defending it. :)

Is there anyone defending it here?

[thebluefood]

Is there anyone defending it here?

I think he's preparing for the folks who are going to.

And in response to this: well, can anyone here say they're surprised?

Sometimes you wonder if we should've let some states go during the war. Mississippi seems like one of those states.

[Predicto]

Hoping to pick up tips at defending the SF Board of Supervisors? :silly:

I never take on impossible tasks.

---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 03:14 PM ----------


Is there anyone defending it here?


Not yet, and frankly, I'm disappointed. Like I said, I was looking forward to reading them.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think he's preparing for the folks who are going to.

And in response to this: well, can anyone here say they're surprised?

Sometimes you wonder if we should've let some states go during the war. Mississippi seems like one of those states.


I'd be surprised if any one did defend it here. Anyone who knows the personal (not military) history of Nathan Bedford Forrest knows that he wasnt the most racially sensitive guy. (my way of saying race hater)

[MrSilverMaC]

Once more, Arkansas and Alabama are sighing to themselves "Thank God for Mississippi."

Unfortunately, so are some of us here in AZ. :(

[Prosperity]

shouldn't there be a law against using state funds to honor terrorists

[SnyderShrugged]

shouldn't there be a law against using state funds to honor terrorists

I know you arent claiming that every single Confederate soldier that fought in the war for their own independence was a "terrorist". You are way too smart for that.

[Predicto]

I know you arent claiming that every single Confederate soldier that fought in the war for their own independence was a "terrorist". You are way too smart for that.

If you know he isn't doing that, then why are you suggesting it? :)

[Henry]

I know you arent claiming that every single Confederate soldier that fought in the war for their own independence was a "terrorist". You are way too smart for that.

I don't think he is.

But Forrest and Morgan did a lot of, shall we say ... 'disrupting' in their theatre, which certainly looked a lot like what we consider terrorism today.

[SnyderShrugged]

If you know he isn't doing that, then why are you suggesting it? :)

because I'm trying to figure out what qualifies him as a "terrorist" yet not all others who fought on the same side.

---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 04:42 PM ----------


I don't think he is.

But Forrest and Morgan did a lot of, shall we say ... 'disrupting' in their theatre, which certainly looked a lot like what we consider terrorism today.

So did many of the Colonists during the American revolution

[twa]

shouldn't there be a law against using state funds to honor terrorists

I don't know ....Do they honor Sherman up there?:evilg:

[SnyderShrugged]

I don't know ....Do they honor Sherman up there?:evilg:


dang it! I was about to mention Sherman too! Nice grab

[HOF44]

Ask the British, we were all a bunch of terrorists.

[hawgboy]

I respectfully disagree. If you support an insurrection against our government (which was essentially based on the government's meddling in the slave trade), lead a group of armed rebels, and kill U.S. troops, you are a traitor in my book.
Which means we're all traitors to Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth II :silly:

[Henry]

because I'm trying to figure out what qualifies him as a "terrorist" yet not all others who fought on the same side.

---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 04:42 PM ----------



So did many of the Colonists during the American revolution

Maybe because he was a member of the KKK?

[SnyderShrugged]

Maybe because he was a member of the KKK?

So were lots of people back then. All members certainly weren't terrorists, even though they were all horrible racists.

Robert Byrd wasnt a Terrorist was he?

[Mr. Sinister]

So were lots of people back then. All members certainly weren't terrorists, even though they were all horrible racists.


But I'm sure that they supported the extremist ideals of the KKK at the same time. I still don't think that makes it better.

[SnyderShrugged]

But I'm sure that they supported the extremist ideals of the KKK at the same time. I still don't think that makes it better.

Never said they were good or better or even acceptable. Forrest was a despicable man and a truly horrible racist and all who think like he did should be removed from polite society. But to frame him as a terrorist is simply inaccurate.

[RansomthePasserby]

So were lots of people back then. All members certainly weren't terrorists, even though they were all horrible racists.

Robert Byrd wasnt a Terrorist was he?

Honestly, the KKK is a terrorist organisation in my book.

Forrest may have been a good soldier, but he was not a good man. Definitely not worthy of honor.

[SnyderShrugged]

Honestly, the KKK is a terrorist organisation in my book.

Forrest may have been a good soldier, but he was not a good man. Definitely not worthy of honor.


agree completely except for the terrorist part.

Though I could even go with that one too if there is anything that shows where he took part in terrorist acts after the war. I'm mainly defending the fact that confederate soldiers were not terrorists or traitors.

[Henry]

agree completely except for the terrorist part.

Though I could even go with that one too if there is anything that shows where he took part in terrorist acts after the war. I'm mainly defending the fact that confederate soldiers were not terrorists or traitors.

They weren't all terrorists but they were traitors. Maybe they had perfectly rational, reasonable and noble reasons to be traitors (I don't necessarily agree with that) but traitors they were.

---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 05:11 PM ----------


Which means we're all traitors to Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth II :silly:

Well, I doubt there are many roads, statues or license plates honoring American Revolutionary War heroes over there. :)

[SnyderShrugged]

They weren't all terrorists but they were traitors. Maybe they had perfectly rational, reasonable and noble reasons to be traitors (I don't necessarily agree with that) but traitors they were.

No, they really werent. The only way that they could have been considered such would be if the states hadnt formed a voluntary union. Secession was a right demanded by the states prior to forming the union.

They felt abused by the Federal Government economically (slavery, etc) and acted as they were allowed to act in the constitution. Technically, that option still exists btw, heck many states still even have it in their own constitutions to boot.

The reason it is now seen as "traitorous" is that the North won through force of arms.


Let me please ask a hard question. Are all those hundreds and thousands of Egyptians that protested for the last 18 days traitors?

[Henry]

No, they really werent. The only way that they could have been considered such would be if the states hadnt formed a voluntary union. Secession was a right demanded by the states prior to forming the union.

They felt abused by the Federal Government economically (slavery, etc) and acted as they were allowed to act in the constitution. Technically, that option still exists btw, heck many states still even have it in their own constitutions to boot.

A yes, the legality claim.

And now the thread will really take off. :)


The reason it is now seen as "traitorous" is that the North won through force of arms.

Yep. Your point?


Let me please ask a hard question. Are all those hundreds and thousands of Egyptians that protested for the last 18 days traitors?

In the eyes of the government I'm sure they were. Now that the government is not there anymore they aren't.

[SnyderShrugged]

A yes, the legality claim.

And now the thread will really take off. :)



Yep. Your point?



In the eyes of the government I'm sure they were. Now that the government is not there anymore they aren't.


So we agree then that acts undertaken before the end of the war wouldnt be considered treasonous. Once the North won and disallowed secession via force of arms, they in effect outlawed the states right to leave the union they voluntarily joined and with the understanding that if said union did not live up to the agreement down the road, then they could leave.


a key point is that none of the colonies would have ratified the constitution nor joined the union if they ever believed that if they felt it wasnt agreeable to their right to self govern that could leave it.

[RansomthePasserby]

agree completely except for the terrorist part.

Though I could even go with that one too if there is anything that shows where he took part in terrorist acts after the war. I'm mainly defending the fact that confederate soldiers were not terrorists or traitors.

I was saying a large portion of the KKK were terrorists, not confederate soldiers. I'd say a lot of confederate soldiers were honorable men who were just defending their "homeland" from what they believed was an outside invasion (a misguided belief imo). General Lee and General Jackson were 10X the man Forrest was.

[SnyderShrugged]

I was saying a large portion of the KKK were terrorists, not confederate soldiers. I'd say a lot of confederate soldiers were honorable men who were just defending their "homeland" from what they believed was an outside invasion (a misguided belief imo). General Lee and General Jackson were 10X the man Forrest was.


we are on the same page then

[Larry]

I know you arent claiming that every single Confederate soldier that fought in the war for their own independence was a "terrorist". You are way too smart for that.

And I know you are claiming that the Confederates were "fighting for their own independence".

(But part of your point is correct. "Terrorist" isn't the right label. (Or at least, I haven't seen any evidence of it.))

---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 05:34 PM ----------


So were lots of people back then. All members certainly weren't terrorists, even though they were all horrible racists.

Robert Byrd wasnt a Terrorist was he?

Uh, I think I'd argue that he was. At least in the sense of "a member of an openly terrorist organization". (I don't know whether he, personally, carried out any acts of terrorism.)

But yep, I think the "terrorist" label fits the KKK, as a whole, pretty well.

[SnyderShrugged]

And I know you are claiming that the Confederates were "fighting for their own independence".

(But part of your point is correct. "Terrorist" isn't the right label. (Or at least, I haven't seen any evidence of it.))

---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 05:34 PM ----------



Uh, I think I'd argue that he was. At least in the sense of "a member of an openly terrorist organization". (I don't know whether he, personally, carried out any acts of terrorism.)

But yep, I think the "terrorist" label fits the KKK, as a whole, pretty well.



I think independence was one of numerous reasons for the war between the states, so I actually am not claiming what you think I was claiming. It was simply the label I was discussing

I can see how as an organization, the KKK is considered terrorist, at least at points in history. I think we are fairly close in opinion on this too.

[Predicto]

How does the Fort Pillow massacre fit into your analysis, SnyderShrugged? Given that event is probably what Forrest is best remembered for as a rebel leader. :whoknows:

[SnyderShrugged]

How does the Fort Pillow massacre fit into your analysis, SnyderShrugged? Given that event is probably what Forrest is best remembered for as a rebel leader. :whoknows:


It was an act of war, that became an unnecessary massacre at the end led by an awful man. Remember though, that it was mainly seen as a massacre because of the heavy union losses in the battle. Some have said that under the flag of truce, that Union soldiers were awaiting a contingent of reinforcements and were biding time under the guise of the commander "discussing his options with his subordinates" .

In short, some claim that forrest attacked due to discovering shenanegans. personally, I think that was a BS story used by forrest to justify his anger and killing of freed slaves that fought for the union.

[Predicto]

It was an act of war, that became an unnecessary massacre at the end led by an awful man. Remember though, that it was mainly seen as a massacre because of the heavy union losses in the battle. Some have said that under the flag of truce, that Union soldiers were awaiting a contingent of reinforcements and were biding time under the guise of the commander "discussing his options with his subordinates" .

In short, some claim that bedford attacked due to discovering shenanegans. personally, I think that was a BS story used by forrest to justify his anger and killing of freed slaves that fought for the union.

Some have said that, but few people believe it. The fact remains that almost all of the black union soldiers were killed while almost all of the white union soldiers were taken prisoner. And it wasn't seen as a massacre because of heavy losses, but because contemporary witnesses said that it was a massacre.


Achilles Clark, a soldier with the 20th Tennessee cavalry, wrote to his sister immediately after the battle: "The slaughter was awful. Words cannot describe the scene. The poor, deluded, negroes would run up to our men, fall upon their knees, and with uplifted hands scream for mercy but they were ordered to their feet and then shot down. I, with several others, tried to stop the butchery, and at one time had partially succeeded, but General Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs and the carnage continued. Finally our men became sick of blood and the firing ceased."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest

[twa]

Uh, I think I'd argue that he was. At least in the sense of "a member of an openly terrorist organization". (I don't know whether he, personally, carried out any acts of terrorism.)

But yep, I think the "terrorist" label fits the KKK, as a whole, pretty well.

Not anymore, they have renounced violence.....just like the Brotherhood :ols:

[thebluefood]

I don't know ....Do they honor Sherman up there?:evilg:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSkmn0wCcGVbBErijGkNBpURIzHqqiet QYZhdOesFaAd9V7pUCV
You mad 'cause we styled all over you.


:D just kidding. Love you, southerners.

[RansomthePasserby]

I don't know ....Do they honor Sherman up there?:evilg:

Sherman >>> Forrest. Just sayin.

[HailGreen28]

http://www.uscconlinealbum.com/photos/photo01/2d/0e/0842c9b80357.gif

[Henry]

So we agree then that acts undertaken before the end of the war wouldnt be considered treasonous. Once the North won and disallowed secession via force of arms, they in effect outlawed the states right to leave the union they voluntarily joined and with the understanding that if said union did not live up to the agreement down the road, then they could leave.

a key point is that none of the colonies would have ratified the constitution nor joined the union if they ever believed that if they felt it wasnt agreeable to their right to self govern that could leave it.

Er ... that's your interpretation. Mine is that the states had no clear right to secede, and therefore their attempt to do so could be considered treasonous. Had they won independence through force of arms, as the founding fathers did, it would have been a moot point.

Ben Franklin said 'we shall either hang together or we shall surely hang separately' because he knew the leaders of armed rebellion would be considered traitors until independence was won.

Same goes for the Egyptians. Once they 'won' Mubarak stepping down, whether or not they were traitors to his government doesn't matter anymore.

The Confederates, having tried to win independence and failed, never got past being traitors to the Union.

---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 09:47 PM ----------


It was an act of war, that became an unnecessary massacre at the end led by an awful man. Remember though, that it was mainly seen as a massacre because of the heavy union losses in the battle. Some have said that under the flag of truce, that Union soldiers were awaiting a contingent of reinforcements and were biding time under the guise of the commander "discussing his options with his subordinates" .

In short, some claim that forrest attacked due to discovering shenanegans. personally, I think that was a BS story used by forrest to justify his anger and killing of freed slaves that fought for the union.

Once they are unarmed prisoners, and you kill them en masse ... it becomes a war crime.

---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 10:15 PM ----------


I don't know ....Do they honor Sherman up there?:evilg:

Oh sure. During Union Victory Appreciation Month ... celebrating our rich heritage of kicking the Confederacy's ***. :evil:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/virginia-s-confederate-history-month---griffin-mascot

[thebluefood]

Sherman Nuclear Bomb

:ols:
Oh, Lord. He'd be like a kid in a candy store.

[RansomthePasserby]

:ols:
Oh, Lord. He'd be like a kid in a candy store.
In Sherman's defense, he didn't intentionally go after civilians. He just destroyed infrastructure, and therefore the South's will to fight. Which is the quickest and most efficient way to win a war. I don't see it as any different than our long range industrial bombing against the Germans in WWII.

[thebluefood]

In Sherman's defense, he didn't intentionally go after civilians. He just destroyed infrastructure, and therefore the South's will to fight. Which is the quickest and most efficient way to win a war. I don't see it as any different than our long range industrial bombing against the Germans in WWII.

Eh, whatever the reason, it was effective and we won the war.

[RansomthePasserby]

Eh, whatever the reason, it was effective and we won the war.

Which, imo, ultimately saved lives.

[GSF]

Never said they were good or better or even acceptable. Forrest was a despicable man and a truly horrible racist and all who think like he did should be removed from polite society. But to frame him as a terrorist is simply inaccurate.

Forrest was absolutely a terrorist. Not b/c he was a confedrate soldier, but b/c he was a grand wizard in the KKK. Terrorists use fear and violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal. That's exactly what the Klan did.

[sacase]

Ya'll do know that NBF already has parks, schools, roads on military bases and other things named after him. History is judging him harshly because what is socially acceptable has changed. From a military perspective he was an innovator and an excellent commander in the field. Personally, his views leave much to be desired by modern society.

---------- Post added February-12th-2011 at 02:43 AM ----------



Once they are unarmed prisoners, and you kill them en masse ... it becomes a war crime.[COLOR="Gold"]


Technically....no. The Hauge hadn't happened yet and the Geneva Convention had not happened either. Not to mention the Geneva convention was not signed by the US yet. Now it is a war crime, back then...no.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Of course the KKK was a terrorist orginization. I can't believe anyone would argue otherwise. Now were all KKK members terrorists? That's actually an interesting question. Are all members of al Qaeda terrorists?

[21cents]

wasnt widrow wilson our president a kkk member?

[Burgold]

Forrest was absolutely a terrorist. Not b/c he was a confedrate soldier, but b/c he was a grand wizard in the KKK. Terrorists use fear and violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal. That's exactly what the Klan did.


Of course the KKK was a terrorist orginization. I can't believe anyone would argue otherwise. Now were all KKK members terrorists? That's actually an interesting question. Are all members of al Qaeda terrorists?

yeah, I'm not getting that argument either. And yes, I would say all active members or current members of Al Qaeda or the KKK are terrorists. They provide support and engage in terrorist activities even if they don't personally tie the bomb to their chest or pull the sheet over their eyes.

Now, you can reform and stop being a terrorist by leaving the group and making ammends, but if you are knowingly in a terrorist group then you are a terrorist yourself.

[SnyderShrugged]

Some have said that, but few people believe it. The fact remains that almost all of the black union soldiers were killed while almost all of the white union soldiers were taken prisoner. And it wasn't seen as a massacre because of heavy losses, but because contemporary witnesses said that it was a massacre.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest


yep, thats what I said, some thought that and I personally think its BS. Not sure why you essentially reposted the same point.

---------- Post added February-12th-2011 at 08:33 AM ----------


Forrest was absolutely a terrorist. Not b/c he was a confedrate soldier, but b/c he was a grand wizard in the KKK. Terrorists use fear and violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal. That's exactly what the Klan did.

as I asked before, is Robert Byrd also a terrorist, since he also fits your logic? Are all KKK members former and present considered terrorists? I can understand how one may feel that they are BTW, I just take a more individualistic approach.

---------- Post added February-12th-2011 at 08:36 AM ----------


Which, imo, ultimately saved lives.

actually, Lincoln technically would have saved the most lives by allowing the states to peacefully secede as they had planned. Everyone, even many of the Nothern Pols, were taken by surprise at Lincoln going the military route. Many also believed that even after states seceded, that eventually they would have come back into the fold once they came to grips with a viable plan to end slavery. But its all hindsight now and no one can really know how it could have gone differently

---------- Post added February-12th-2011 at 08:42 AM ----------


Er ... that's your interpretation. Mine is that the states had no clear right to secede, and therefore their attempt to do so could be considered treasonous. Had they won independence through force of arms, as the founding fathers did, it would have been a moot point.

Ben Franklin said 'we shall either hang together or we shall surely hang separately' because he knew the leaders of armed rebellion would be considered traitors until independence was won.

Same goes for the Egyptians. Once they 'won' Mubarak stepping down, whether or not they were traitors to his government doesn't matter anymore.

The Confederates, having tried to win independence and failed, never got past being traitors to the Union.

---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 09:47 PM ----------



Once they are unarmed prisoners, and you kill them en masse ... it becomes a war crime.

---------- Post added February-11th-2011 at 10:15 PM ----------



Oh sure. During Union Victory Appreciation Month ... celebrating our rich heritage of kicking the Confederacy's ***. :evil:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/virginia-s-confederate-history-month---griffin-mascot

And many share your interpretation, especially supporters of the Northern side at the time. Though just as many, maybe even more, had the understanding that the States formed the union therefore could end it as well. It;s not outlandish to understand this perspective given the relatively closer proximity in time to the American Revolution, where many folks were quite skittish of a central national government to begin with.

Recall, that ALL of the Northern leaders each determined that it wasnt Treason. There were no treason trials for Generals of the confederacy because most did not believe secession was treason, merely severing a contract that their states freely entered into.

As to Fort Pillow, there werent unarmed prisoners, there were union troops and confederate troops both under a flag of truce that was granted for 20 minutes. Forrest attacked right at the end of the 2o minutes. I still firmly believe that he did so in order to massacre the freed slaves that fought for the union side, and stand by that.

[Madison Redskin]

Ya'll do know that NBF already has parks, schools, roads on military bases and other things named after him.

Yes. That doesn't change the fact that this proposal is ridiculously dumb and perpetuating certain stereotypes about Mississippians sense of history, views on race relations, etc.


History is judging him harshly because what is socially acceptable has changed.

No, history is judging him harshly because he directed the slaughter of unarmed black union soldiers. Killing unarmed soldiers was not acceptable then.

[Prosperity]

So were lots of people back then. All members certainly weren't terrorists, even though they were all horrible racists.

Robert Byrd wasnt a Terrorist was he?

maybe committing war crimes during the civil war doesn't automatically make you a terrorist

maybe being a member of a terrorist organization doesn't automatically make you a terrorist

but both? Yeah, it's a safe bet

[SnyderShrugged]

maybe committing war crimes during the civil war doesn't automatically make you a terrorist

maybe being a member of a terrorist organization doesn't automatically make you a terrorist

but both? Yeah, it's a safe bet

I disagree, but I also understand how many would feel the same way. Any act of war in the civil war is not terrorism but just an act of war, even if it is a deplorable, and dishonorable act, it still isnt terrorism. I'd also strongly disagree that mere membership of an organization that has had a history of horrible acts qualifies one for being a terrorist.

For some reason you arent answering the Robert Bird question. Under your logic, he would be a terrorist by being a member of the Klan in his past. Is he one truly? I'll leave each individual to decide that. For me, A person actually has to be known to conduct a terrorist act to be a terrorist.

[Box76]

Yes. That doesn't change the fact that this proposal is ridiculously dumb and perpetuating certain stereotypes about Mississippians sense of history, views on race relations, etc.



No, history is judging him harshly because he directed the slaughter of unarmed black union soldiers. Killing unarmed soldiers was not acceptable then.

News Flash....Tennessee has tons more monuments, cemetaries, etc regarding NBF than Mississippi ever had. Memphis, TN which has a majority of blacks and a black mayor (at the time) blocked the move to rename the NBF cemetary there. Why is that I wonder? Well they know the history of the man not some narrow minded 'he killed some blacks' nonsense. He killed whites just the same-----Its called WAR. Im sure you could justify slaughtering innocent white southerners cause they deserved it , huh?


In this point in time he didnt have to go out and do this....but he did. He also testified to Congress on the inner workings of the Klan...didnt have to do that either. He made mistakes earlier in life......when your country and way of life are dissolving crazy things are bound to happen.


In 1875, Forrest demonstrated that his personal sentiments on the issue of race now differed from that of the Klan, when he was invited to give a speech before an organization of black Southerners advocating racial reconciliation, called the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association. At this, his last public appearance, he made what the New York Times described as a "friendly speech"[7] during which, when offered a bouquet of flowers by a black woman, he accepted them as a token of reconciliation between the races and espoused a radically progressive (for the time) agenda of equality and harmony between black and white Americans.[44]






I see nobody brought up the fact he renounced his KKK membership in public...that took a lot of courage in those days.

[SnyderShrugged]

I didnt know that about him Box, thanks for adding it to the conversation! (I still think overall he was an awful man though, but I will always stand by my point that he wasnt a terrorist)

[Henry]

actually, Lincoln technically would have saved the most lives by allowing the states to peacefully secede as they had planned. Everyone, even many of the Nothern Pols, were taken by surprise at Lincoln going the military route. Many also believed that even after states seceded, that eventually they would have come back into the fold once they came to grips with a viable plan to end slavery. But its all hindsight now and no one can really know how it could have gone differently

Actually, the Confederacy technically would have saved the most lives by accepting the results of a presidential election and not seceding. Technically they would have saved lives by not committing an act of war on the northern states. Technically the founding fathers would have saved lives by outlawing slavery in the constitution ...

Let's try not to twist history so that we can heap the blame on Lincoln. Lots of things could have happened that could have prevented the Civil War.

And, uh, nobody this side of Thomas DiLorenzo would think there was a chance in hell of the south rejoining the union at a later date. The likelihood of that happening is about the same as the chance we will rejoin the British Empire at a later date. No, what you would have had would have been two very large and not all that friendly nations butting up against each other with a vast expanse of western territory to fight over. It's not that hard to do the math from there.


And many share your interpretation, especially supporters of the Northern side at the time. Though just as many, maybe even more, had the understanding that the States formed the union therefore could end it as well. It;s not outlandish to understand this perspective given the relatively closer proximity in time to the American Revolution, where many folks were quite skittish of a central national government to begin with.

Recall, that ALL of the Northern leaders each determined that it wasnt Treason. There were no treason trials for Generals of the confederacy because most did not believe secession was treason, merely severing a contract that their states freely entered into.

Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason and imprisoned for several years. Eventually the charges were dropped and he was released. I think the country was more interested in healing than punishing, and I think that was the right thing. Once the war was lost, many Confederate generals, Forrest included, told their troops not to continue to resist ... to work towards re-uniting with the north, and to then charge them with treason would have been a mistake. After the war, the important thing was re-forming the union.

But the fact that they weren't punished for being traitors doesn't change the fact that that's what they were.

[SnyderShrugged]

Actually, the Confederacy technically would have saved the most lives by accepting the results of a presidential election and not seceding. Technically they would have saved lives by not committing an act of war on the northern states. Technically the founding fathers would have saved lives by outlawing slavery in the constitution ...

Let's try not to twist history so that we can heap the blame on Lincoln. Lots of things could have happened that could have prevented the Civil War.


Thats not twisting history at all. Most back then were very surprised that it went the war route. Its fairly common knowledge. Though to your point, I can see the extension that you made regarding secession to begin with as another valid point.

And, uh, nobody this side of Thomas DiLorenzo would think there was a chance in hell of the south rejoining the union at a later date. The likelihood of that happening is about the same as the chance we will rejoin the British Empire at a later date. No, what you would have had would have been two very large and not all that friendly nations butting up against each other with a vast expanse of western territory to fight over. It's not that hard to do the math from there.

No, its nothing like rejoining the British empire. The states share culture, borders and economies. It's a silly assertion at best to claim it would be impossible to consider a rejoining in later years.



Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason and imprisoned for several years. Eventually the charges were dropped and he was released. I think the country was more interested in healing than punishing, and I think that was the right thing. Once the war was lost, many Confederate generals, Forrest included, told their troops not to continue to resist ... to work towards re-uniting with the north, and to then charge them with treason would have been a mistake. After the war, the important thing was re-forming the union.

But the fact that they weren't punished for being traitors doesn't change the fact that that's what they were

umm yes, it pretty much does mean that they werent. Not sure how you could claim otherwise.


.

[twa]

That last line (henry's) explains the continued use of the War of Northern Aggression.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Things are still the same as they were back then, the Northerners think they are so much smarter than the South.

It was a ****ing war for christsakes...get over it, **** happens. Calling the Confederacy a terrorist organization? :wtf: x 10000.

[GhostofSparta]

And, uh, nobody this side of Thomas DiLorenzo would think there was a chance in hell of the south rejoining the union at a later date. The likelihood of that happening is about the same as the chance we will rejoin the British Empire at a later date. No, what you would have had would have been two very large and not all that friendly nations butting up against each other with a vast expanse of western territory to fight over. It's not that hard to do the math from there.


In the last couple of years, I read the entire Timeline-191 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_191) series by Harry Turtledove. The series starts with Lee's subordinates not losing Special Order 191, the info that the Union used to track Lee to Sharpsburg and force the battle of Antietam. The Confederacy wins the Civil War in 1862, and the USA and CSA end up fighting 3 major wars between 1865 and 1945. I view this as a much more likely scenario than peaceful reconcilation by a long shot (rather than some Cold War style of "peaceful" co-existance).

As for Forrest, he was a brilliant military man who never lost a battle, but he was a horrible human being. Made his fortune in the slave trade, founded the Klan and was its first leader. I can understand the south honoring his military legacy the same way they do Lee and Jackson, but that legacy still include the massacre at Ft. Pillow. If Sherman is to blame for every atrocity his soldiers committed, then Forrest gets the blame for Ft. Pillow. You can't have it both ways.

[SnyderShrugged]

In the last couple of years, I read the entire Timeline-191 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_191) series by Harry Turtledove. The series starts with Lee's subordinates not losing Special Order 191, the info that the Union used to track Lee to Sharpsburg and force the battle of Antietam. The Confederacy wins the Civil War in 1862, and the USA and CSA end up fighting 3 major wars between 1865 and 1945. I view this as a much more likely scenario than peaceful reconcilation by a long shot (rather than some Cold War style of "peaceful" co-existance).

As for Forrest, he was a brilliant military man who never lost a battle, but he was a horrible human being. Made his fortune in the slave trade, founded the Klan and was its first leader. I can understand the south honoring his military legacy the same way they do Lee and Jackson, but that legacy still include the massacre at Ft. Pillow. If Sherman is to blame for every atrocity his soldiers committed, then Forrest gets the blame for Ft. Pillow. You can't have it both ways.

That was one of the most fun series I have ever read. Really well researched yet takes the "what if" theme to long and logical extensions.

But it is fiction in the end, I still am firm that its silly to think peaceful reconciliation in the future was possible.

[GhostofSparta]

That was one of the most fun series I have ever read. Really well researched yet takes the "what if" theme to long and logical extensions.

But it is fiction in the end, I still am firm that its silly to think peaceful reconciliation in the future was possible.

Did you also read "Guns of the South"? It stands on its own apart from the series, but still a fun read.

[SnyderShrugged]

Did you also read "Guns of the South"? It stands on its own apart from the series, but still a fun read.

sure did! I've read almost all his books. love them

[Henry]

No, its nothing like rejoining the British empire. The states share culture, borders and economies. It's a silly assertion at best to claim it would be impossible to consider a rejoining in later years.

You know the huge irony of this particular argument?

This is exactly what Lincoln wanted. He wanted slavery to end, but he didn't think it was politically realistic to force the south to abolish slavery. His stated plan was to stop the spread of slavery into the territories and let the institution die a natural death in the states where it already existed.

And this still wasn't good enough for the south. They seceded anyway. In fact, South Carolina specifically mentions Lincoln's belief that "slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction" as one of the causes of their secession. 'Ultimate extinction', not immediate. Not abolition. Why would they do that if it was so likely that things would have ended up with one nation with a slow, peaceful end to slavery, which was exactly what Lincoln campaigned on in the first place?




That last line (henry's) explains the continued use of the War of Northern Aggression.

That's hilarious. The only reason any of this ever gets brought up is because the south clings to this tragic part of our past as some sort of noble enterprise. I'm not the one making license plates honoring Sherman or Sheridan. I'm not the one (seriously) declaring a Northern Heritage Month. I'm not the one insisting on parading Northern Army battle flags all over the place as a celebration of how great things were during the most brutal war ever waged on American soil.

Please, this divide continues to be nurtured by people that want to glorify the fact that one part of the United States of America no longer wanted to be part of the United States of America, primarily because it was afraid of losing it's slave-owning identity. I just respond when they get real vocal about it.

Fact is, rebels are traitors to their government. Luke Skywalker was a traitor to the Empire. The patriots were traitors to the crown. Doesn't make them all bad guys, but that's what they were. And yes, most northerners considered secessionists rebels, which would make them traitors to the US government. But I guess the word 'traitor' is not PC or something. So if it makes some of you all hot and bothered to use it I'll let it go.

---------- Post added February-12th-2011 at 03:41 PM ----------


Things are still the same as they were back then, the Northerners think they are so much smarter than the South.

It was a ****ing war for christsakes...get over it, **** happens. Calling the Confederacy a terrorist organization? :wtf: x 10000.

I think some people were calling the KKK a terrorist organization. I don't think anyone called the Confederacy that.

[Madison Redskin]

Please, this divide continues to be nurtured by people that want to glorify the fact that one part of the United States of America no longer wanted to be part of the United States of America, primarily because it was afraid of losing it's slave-owning identity.

The Confederacy didn't fight to defend slavery, it fought to preserve the states' rights to protect the the institution of slavery! There's a huge difference. ;)

[Henry]

In the last couple of years, I read the entire Timeline-191 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_191) series by Harry Turtledove. The series starts with Lee's subordinates not losing Special Order 191, the info that the Union used to track Lee to Sharpsburg and force the battle of Antietam. The Confederacy wins the Civil War in 1862, and the USA and CSA end up fighting 3 major wars between 1865 and 1945. I view this as a much more likely scenario than peaceful reconcilation by a long shot (rather than some Cold War style of "peaceful" co-existance).

That's a very cool idea. I'll have to check them out.

[SnyderShrugged]

That's a very cool idea. I'll have to check them out.

You will Love those books. Very well done.

[GhostofSparta]

That's a very cool idea. I'll have to check them out.

Yeah, just remember there are 11 books in all (Wiki does list them, which is helpful, and I'm sure Amazon or wherever will list them all too). I work as a substitute teacher, so I had plenty of time to get through all 11 books in about 9 months, you might work at a different pace if your job requires attention.

[luckydevil]

I understand, SS, caution in using the word terrorist. Frankly, it is overused. But if Nathan Bedford Forrest doesn't qualify, then who the hell does? He started an organization that reigned terror on black Americans ( real actual violence). While the kkk is no longer a terrorist organization, it once was . So, yes a lot of former members would qualify as a terrorist.

[SnyderShrugged]

I understand, SS, caution in using the word terrorist. Frankly, it is overused. But if Nathan Bedford Forrest doesn't qualify, then who the hell does? He started an organization that reigned terror on black Americans ( real actual violence). While the kkk is no longer a terrorist organization, it once was . So, yes a lot of former members would qualify as a terrorist.

well, he didnt really "start" it, but was an early leader. Again, unless there are specific terrorist acts that he is known to have done outside the war arena, he was a member of an organization that has had a terrible past of racial abuses and even terrorism. It still doesnt make the individual a terrorist



(I hope no one takers any of my posts as defending the man's character or anything else. He was an excellent military leader and I simply dont believe terrorist is an apt way to describe him. )

[RansomthePasserby]

Please, this divide continues to be nurtured by people that want to glorify the fact that one part of the United States of America no longer wanted to be part of the United States of America, primarily because it was afraid of losing it's slave-owning identity. I just respond when they get real vocal about it.

Exactly.

"The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

-Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

I'm sorry, but the people who say the Civil War wasn't fought over the Southern slave owning identity are just full of BS.

[GSF]

as I asked before, is Robert Byrd also a terrorist, since he also fits your logic? Are all KKK members former and present considered terrorists? I can understand how one may feel that they are BTW, I just take a more individualistic approach.[COLOR="Gold"]

yes, Byrd was a racist and a terrorist while he was a Klan member. I think the differences between Brd and Forrest are pretty obvious though. Byrd never lead any massacres. Forrest was responsible for 1 of the darkerst days in American history.

[Dan T.]

I don't see the big deal. Especially if he was a democrat and said he was sorry. :rolleyes:

Half the state of West Virginny is named after Robert Byrd who was a Grand poobah in the KKK, voted against legislation when not setting record in time delaying passage of civil rights (filibustering voting rights act) related bills and he still received love from the NAACP.

Heck liberals can and did get away with saying the wish Justice Thomas was strung up with his wife in 2011.

:rotflmao:

[Prosperity]

Things are still the same as they were back then, the Northerners think they are so much smarter than the South.

It was a ****ing war for christsakes...get over it, **** happens. Calling the Confederacy a terrorist organization? :wtf: x 10000.

talking about the KKK bro, get with the program

[DeanCollins]

I have several vehicles tagged in the Great State of Mississippi. Their antique vehicle tags are valid for eternity. Pay $35 once and drive forever. Too bad that they can't add "Antique" to one of the cool CW commemorative plates, It would look great on the '69 chevy van i just bought in Texas. Texarkana to be exact.

[SnyderShrugged]

yes, Byrd was a racist and a terrorist while he was a Klan member. I think the differences between Brd and Forrest are pretty obvious though. Byrd never lead any massacres. Forrest was responsible for 1 of the darkerst days in American history.


Bryd was also never a General in a major war and led combat attacks. Yes, Fort Pillow was an awful thing to occur and led by an awful man who was a nasty racist filled with hate. Still not a terrorist.

So, I have got to say that I disagree on another point you made, Byrd isnt a terrorist and I really dont think you would find many that would agree with you that he is.

---------- Post added February-13th-2011 at 08:45 AM ----------


I have several vehicles tagged in the Great State of Mississippi. Their antique vehicle tags are valid for eternity. Pay $35 once and drive forever. Too bad that they can't add "Antique" to one of the cool CW commemorative plates, It would look great on the '69 chevy van i just bought in Texas. Texarkana to be exact.


oh thats cool, can you someday post a pic of the antique tag? I'd love to see one.

---------- Post added February-13th-2011 at 08:48 AM ----------


Exactly.

"The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

-Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

I'm sorry, but the people who say the Civil War wasn't fought over the Southern slave owning identity are just full of BS.


Yes, slavery, especially as an economic institution, was certainly one of the primary factors of the civil war. Not sure why you felt the need to reiterate that in this thread since no one has said otherwise.

[GSF]

I guess we may not have the same definition of terrorist SS. I'm just going off the literal definition which is someone that uses fear and violence to promote their agenda. The Klan definitely fits that definition so in my mind they were both terrorists when they were active members of the klan.

[SnyderShrugged]

I guess we may not have the same definition of terrorist SS. I'm just going off the literal definition which is someone that uses fear and violence to promote their agenda. The Klan definitely fits that definition so in my mind they were both terrorists when they were active members of the klan.


I would feel comfortable saying the Klan sponsored organized terrorism. I dont feel comfortable saying all Klan members through history are all terrorists. I feel very, very comfortable saying all Klan members are bad people though.

[RansomthePasserby]

Yes, slavery, especially as an economic institution, was certainly one of the primary factors of the civil war. Not sure why you felt the need to reiterate that in this thread since no one has said otherwise.

I just assume advocates of the South are generally trying to distance themselves from the slave culture, when it was one of the major contributors to the war. I guess it's a side affect of living in VA (I've even heard the argument that the slaves were "better off" under the care of their masters. As if the plantation owners were somehow doing them a favor. :rolleyes:)

[GSF]

I would feel comfortable saying the Klan sponsored organized terrorism. I dont feel comfortable saying all Klan members through history are all terrorists. I feel very, very comfortable saying all Klan members are bad people though.

Then what is your definition of a terrorist?

[GSF]

BTW, I'm not claiming that every person that was a member of the Klan was a terrorist as you ask SS. Forrest wasn't just any old member though. He was one of their original leaders.

[Destino]

That last line (henry's) explains the continued use of the War of Northern Aggression.

Yeah, it's hard to accept a a traitorous past. Just like people like to pretend the war wasn't about slavey. I mean who would want to fly the proud colors of the south if they're told the truth? That the war was brought by traitors to protect the institution of slavery. Ouch.

[SnyderShrugged]

Then what is your definition of a terrorist?

I probably fall into the Princeton definition the closest.

terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 07:11 AM ----------


Yeah, it's hard to accept a a traitorous past. Just like people like to pretend the war wasn't about slavey. I mean who would want to fly the proud colors of the south if they're told the truth? That the war was brought by traitors to protect the institution of slavery. Ouch.


It's also hard to accept the fact that the winner of any war gets the privilege of writing the history around it and with their bias.

Certainly Slavery was a big economic factor, among many economic and ideological factors of the civil war. There were many levels of racism in both the South and the North at the time. many Northerners who fought in the Civil War even lived in states where slavery was permitted. Heck, even the racist Lincoln wasn't exactly a big fan of the slaves. Otherwise, why would he have proposed kicking them out of the country after the war?

To attempt to wrap it into one reason is lazy and quite simplistic at best.

---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 07:12 AM ----------


BTW, I'm not claiming that every person that was a member of the Klan was a terrorist as you ask SS. Forrest wasn't just any old member though. He was one of their original leaders.

You did claim that every member was a terrorist, in this thread in fact.

[Henry]

Certainly Slavery was a big economic factor, among many economic and ideological factors of the civil war. There were many levels of racism in both the South and the North at the time. many Northerners who fought in the Civil War even lived in states where slavery was permitted. Heck, even the racist Lincoln wasn't exactly a big fan of the slaves. Otherwise, why would he have proposed kicking them out of the country after the war?

It's been stated many times on this board. The North fought to preserve the union. The South fought to preserve slavery. Slavery was not just a big economic factor with the south. It was a big cultural and political factor as well. In many northern cities blacks were treated just as poorly as slaves. Nobody is claiming the north was full of angels. But poor treatment of blacks was not as institutionalized, especially at the state or national level. There was no organized political effort to oppress blacks in the north to such a degree. There was in the south, and it was so strong that southern states were willing to leave the United States to keep it going.

Again, this is not about glorifying everything the north did. It's questioning why there is a need to glorify what the south did.

And calling Lincoln a racist based on his support of resettlement is a little weak. Lincoln explored many options with regards to emancipation and what to do with former slaves after emancipation. Voluntary resettlement was one he supported because he thought was politically viable. Because he wanted to allay the fears of northerners who thought emancipation would cause a mass migration of blacks to the north. Because it was a middle-ground with slave owners who also supported repatriation. But given the expense, the lack of volunteers and the disasters that fell upon those former slaves that did agree to resettlement, the idea was abandoned. So it was with Lincoln once he realized he could emancipate the slaves in the Confederacy as a wartime policy rather than having to wait for a constitutional amendment, as he had to do with the states still in the union.

Contrary to what modern-day libertarians claim, Lincoln was not a dictator. He was a politician in a democratic republic, and many of his actions were balanced by what was realistic given the political climate at any given time. If you have to ask why he at one time supported re-settlement, I suggest further reading on the subject.

[zoony]

If only the South had been as smart as the forward thinking enlightened ones in California and the Northeast. Cordon off a section of your city and put all the black people in it. Let them rot with no economic prospects.

Then, point the finger at the south and call them racist. Nobody will pay attention to what you're doing.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

If only the South had been as smart as the forward thinking enlightened ones in California and the Northeast. Cordon off a section of your city and put all the black people in it. Let them rot with no economic prospects.

Then, point the finger at the south and call them racist. Nobody will pay attention to what you're doing.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor
Go ahead and cheat a friend
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

[Henry]

Again, this is not about glorifying everything the north did. It's questioning why there is a need to glorify what the south did.

[Larry]

deleted post.

[twa]

Yeah, it's hard to accept a a traitorous past. Just like people like to pretend the war wasn't about slavey. I mean who would want to fly the proud colors of the south if they're told the truth? That the war was brought by traitors to protect the institution of slavery. Ouch.

The War of Northern Aggression brought by those that subverted the rule of law and call traitor those that objected? :)

[Burgold]

You did claim that every member was a terrorist, in this thread in fact.

Frankly, I think every member IS a terrorist. Now, you can leave the organization and redeem yourself and renounce being a terrorist, but if you are in a group that sponsors and engages in terrorist activities and you support them. Well, then you are a terrorist. The people who build the bombs are as much terrorists as the people wear them. The people who pay for the bombs are as much terrorists as the people who build them. The people who encourage, cheer, and motivate their fellows to do these acts are terrorists. Their silence doesn't shield them. Their action and inaction condemns them.

[Yusuf06]

If only the South had been as smart as the forward thinking enlightened ones in California and the Northeast. Cordon off a section of your city and put all the black people in it. Let them rot with no economic prospects.

Then, point the finger at the south and call them racist. Nobody will pay attention to what you're doing.
I get your point but please explain how that's different from the Jim Crow South? Oh I know, Southerners left Blacks to rot in segregated neighborhoods but they were kind enough to allow Blacks to do agricultural work or occasionally be a White person's janitor or maid.


At ninety years old, Horace Harned is deeply proud of Mississippi and of his heritage in the white, plantation aristocracy. When he looks over his meadows and woods, Harned sees a landscape where slaves were well treated and were fortunate.

Harned: Most of the black citizens of this country owe a debt of gratitude to the southern planter for bringing them here. Otherwise they'd be in South America or in Africa.

What Horace Harned says today is what many white people in Mississippi believed about African Americans half a century ago. Harned was a prominent state lawmaker back then and he fought the federal government to preserve segregation. Harned still believes southern blacks were content with their lot before Yankees stirred up trouble.

Harned: we looked on them more or less as children. And they were part of our home. When I grew up we always had blacks in the house to cook and clean up and that sort of thing. It wasn't any friction between the blacks and the whites until the civil rights movement came along.
Full article... (http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/mississippi/transcript.html)


As for Forrest, I'd gladly piss on his grave (among other things) if I ever get the chance. Former staunch segregationists like George Wallace or even former KKK members like Byrd can reform their legacy through changing their stance and "making good". However once one moves up to the level of being a mass murderer like Forrest, that option is off the table in my book. Thus Forrest deserves to be lumped in with other war criminals like Slobodan Milosevic, Chemical Ali, Charles Taylor, etc. His status as a founder of the KKK is debatable. However if he did participate in the Klan's typical violent activities of that time period, he deserves to be remembered as a terrorist as well.

IMO rememberances like the proposed license plate as well as the broader attempt to rewrite the history of the confederacy are aimed at people who think along the lines of Horace Harned. If you as an individual want to consider people like Forrest to be your kind of "hero" that's your business. Just don't try to pawn that kind of crap off on a whole state.

[SnyderShrugged]

It's been stated many times on this board. The North fought to preserve the union. The South fought to preserve slavery. Slavery was not just a big economic factor with the south. It was a big cultural and political factor as well. In many northern cities blacks were treated just as poorly as slaves. Nobody is claiming the north was full of angels. But poor treatment of blacks was not as institutionalized, especially at the state or national level. There was no organized political effort to oppress blacks in the north to such a degree. There was in the south, and it was so strong that southern states were willing to leave the United States to keep it going.

Again, this is not about glorifying everything the north did. It's questioning why there is a need to glorify what the south did.

And calling Lincoln a racist based on his support of resettlement is a little weak. Lincoln explored many options with regards to emancipation and what to do with former slaves after emancipation. Voluntary resettlement was one he supported because he thought was politically viable. Because he wanted to allay the fears of northerners who thought emancipation would cause a mass migration of blacks to the north. Because it was a middle-ground with slave owners who also supported repatriation. But given the expense, the lack of volunteers and the disasters that fell upon those former slaves that did agree to resettlement, the idea was abandoned. So it was with Lincoln once he realized he could emancipate the slaves in the Confederacy as a wartime policy rather than having to wait for a constitutional amendment, as he had to do with the states still in the union.

Contrary to what modern-day libertarians claim, Lincoln was not a dictator. He was a politician in a democratic republic, and many of his actions were balanced by what was realistic given the political climate at any given time. If you have to ask why he at one time supported re-settlement, I suggest further reading on the subject.


Not calling Lincoln anything, except that he too, was very racist (see Lincoln/Douglas debates and numerous comments from him for proof) I dont have to ask anything at all about his beliefs, he expressed them publically a great deal He was racist in many ways

Also not glorifying anything at all that either the North or the South did.

---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 11:01 AM ----------


Frankly, I think every member IS a terrorist. Now, you can leave the organization and redeem yourself and renounce being a terrorist, but if you are in a group that sponsors and engages in terrorist activities and you support them. Well, then you are a terrorist. The people who build the bombs are as much terrorists as the people wear them. The people who pay for the bombs are as much terrorists as the people who build them. The people who encourage, cheer, and motivate their fellows to do these acts are terrorists. Their silence doesn't shield them. Their action and inaction condemns them.

I can accept your opinion, yet disagree. Taking the Muslim brotherhood and Hamas examples. I think that their organizations either one time or currently espouse terrorism as a tactic and some members follow-through (or did in the past).

I wouldn't use that fact as rationale that ALL of their members are also terrorists as a result. Its simply not true.

One major skill our nation has fallen from is recognizing the individual as a distinct and separate entity from a group.

Its this wrapping everyone into tidy groups that creates more racism, nationalism and all the other bad isms these days imho

[GSF]

I probably fall into the Princeton definition the closest.

terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear[COLOR="Gold"]






You did claim that every member was a terrorist, in this thread in fact.

Our definitions are essentially the same, and both describe the KKK very well. And please go back and re-read my posts, as I did not say every KKK member was a terrorist. I said did say that both Byrd and Forrest were while they were active members of the KKK. I'm sure there are members of the KKK that have never actively planned or participated in the KKK's terrorist activities. Those people wouldn't be terrorsits in my mind, they would be people that supported terrorism.

Either way, by the definition you posted, there's really no denying that Forrest was a terrorist for some period of time while he was a Klan leader.

[SnyderShrugged]

Our definitions are essentially the same, and both describe the KKK very well. And please go back and re-read my posts, as I did not say every KKK member was a terrorist. I said did say that both Byrd and Forrest were while they were active members of the KKK. I'm sure there are members of the KKK that have never actively planned or participated in the KKK's terrorist activities. Those people wouldn't be terrorsits in my mind, they would be people that supported terrorism.

Either way, by the definition you posted, there's really no denying that Forrest was a terrorist for some period of time while he was a Klan leader.

what violent acts do we know he was involved in as the Klan leader? specifically

[Predicto]

Watching apologists spin and nuance and parse and dance around the basic reality of the Confederacy and slavery never gets old, really. Just when I think that I have seen every rhetorical device, every deflection, every subtle softening, every equivocation, every passive aggressive ploy, every trick possible - well, someone comes up with a new one. You guys are better than ex-President Clinton - depends on what "is" is. :ols:

It's fantastic entertainment.

[Teller]

I actually put some effort into thinking of a way to defend this, and even I can't. :ols:

[zoony]

I get your point but please explain how that's different from the Jim Crow South? Oh I know, Southerners left Blacks to rot in segregated neighborhoods but they were kind enough to allow Blacks to do agricultural work or occasionally be a White person's janitor or maid.


My point is that the treatment of blacks in this country has been shameful nationwide. Minor pet peeve of mine that these discussions always end up with everyone pointing their finger at the south.

[SnyderShrugged]

Watching apologists spin and nuance and parse and dance around the basic reality of the Confederacy and slavery never gets old, really. Just when I think that I have seen every rhetorical device, every deflection, every subtle softening, every equivocation, every passive aggressive ploy, every trick possible - well, someone comes up with a new one. You guys are better than ex-President Clinton - depends on what "is" is. :ols:

It's fantastic entertainment.

where is that occurring in this thread?

---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 01:32 PM ----------


I actually put some effort into thinking of a way to defend this, and even I can't. :ols:

Is anyone defending it?

[artmonkforHOF]

I just want to point this out if no one has already.

Indiana- won't name a federal building Harry Baals in fear of becoming the butt of late night tv jokes, in fact they won't even let Harry Baals name be on list of potential names

Mississippi- a founder of the Klan, leader of a rebel army and mass murder still has his name being considered on a list of commemorative license plates.

I guess the people of Mississippi just don't care what the rest of the world thinks, which is good in a sense, but not good in this instance. I guess they do not care even if a Mississippi driver with one of those plates travel to another state.

[Yusuf06]

My point is that the treatment of blacks in this country has been shameful nationwide. Minor pet peeve of mine that these discussions always end up with everyone pointing their finger at the south.
I agree. I don't think anyone would say the northern/western U.S. were perfect, or in some cases even good. However, anyone that has read anything about the great migration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)#Causes) would understand why the south was always the target. It was because the southern states were the worst offenders.

I was raised in the south and have lived below the Mason-Dixon line all my life (so far). I have what I characterize as a love-hate relationship with the south. Like you, unfair characterizations of the south and southerners bother me. However I also dislike the whitewashing and/or revision of history....not that I'm in any way accusing you personally of doing so.

[Larry]

Hey, could be worse.

They could be passing laws demanding Obama's birth certificate.

I mean, which would you rather have on your license plate? A Confederate general, war criminal, and KKK founder, or the words "The Birther State"?

[Henry]

Not calling Lincoln anything, except that he too, was very racist (see Lincoln/Douglas debates and numerous comments from him for proof) I dont have to ask anything at all about his beliefs, he expressed them publically a great deal He was racist in many ways

Well, you called Lincoln racist based on his support of resettlement. I disagreed with that.

Now you are shifting to calling him racist based on the Lincoln/Douglas debates. I disagree with that as well. Sure you can pull a few quotes out and say "See? He says he doesn't want to marry a black woman! HaHA!" but if you take those statements in context you can see he's actually addressing things Douglas said. Douglas, who most certainly preyed upon the racist fears of his constituents to attack Lincoln over and over, forcing Lincoln to repeatedly temper his rhetoric against slavery.

Was Lincoln as enlightened as a 21st century politician with regards to race? No. Was he an Angel sent from heaven to teach us to love and free the oppressed? No. He was a man. Very progressive and enlightened for his day, but not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. If you want to stick that in your cap as proof that the north has no business disapproving of the south's celebration of their particular place in 19th century history, well, so be it. But it's a pretty weak argument.

[luckydevil]

Was Lincoln as enlightened as a 21st century politician with regards to race? No. Was he an Angel sent from heaven to teach us to love and free the oppressed? No. He was a man. Very progressive and enlightened for his day, but not perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

Except for that whole civil liberties thing. Yeah, not so progressive. There is a reason why neocons love to cite him when justifying current civil liberty abuses.

[twa]

There is a reason why neocons love to cite him when justifying current civil liberty abuses.

Nothing like using their heroes against them.

[luckydevil]

Nothing like using their heroes against them.

Yup

[Burgold]

I can accept your opinion, yet disagree. Taking the Muslim brotherhood and Hamas examples. I think that their organizations either one time or currently espouse terrorism as a tactic and some members follow-through (or did in the past).

I wouldn't use that fact as rationale that ALL of their members are also terrorists as a result. Its simply not true.

One major skill our nation has fallen from is recognizing the individual as a distinct and separate entity from a group.

I think that's an interesting discent and somewhat true, but I also think that who we choose to voluntarily associate with and actively support does speak to our natures. It says something about both of us that we have joined a message board and even more that a majority of our posts are in the Tailgate section. That's not a comprehensive definition of all we are, but it gives some pretty useful clues.

When you join the KKK you do so knowingly. You are accepting their history, their beliefs, and their actions. There is no trickery here. No one in the 21st Century doesn't know what the KKK is. So, choosing to be a member, paying dues to support its causes, attending its rallies, etc. is a defining action. The KKK stands for something and when you stand with them then you stand for that too.

Hamas is a slightly different fish only because they have striven to provide economic relief and aid to the Palestinian people. So, you can understand a Palestinian siding with them on the one hand even if they find the terrorist side apalling. It's a little grayer. There may be some gray with the KKK as well, but I think it is much less. If you join the neo-nazis or the KKK or another White Supremicist group that does say something important about who you are and what you believe because clearly if your only issue was economics or whatever you could find any of number of groups without the hate groups baggage. To embrace, monetarily support, and espouse their beliefs does define you. Maybe that's not the whole of you... but it is an important piece of the pie.

[Destino]

The War of Northern Aggression brought by those that subverted the rule of law and call traitor those that objected? :)
How many Americans died because the south needed to defend a vile institution? Laws and perceptions change, luckily most people caught on the wrong side of history haven't been able to launch a war fighting the inevitable. Confederates were traitors and they got lucky in the fact that they were needed to calm their regions after the war because a firing squad would have been their fate otherwise. Even after they lost many of these traitors went on to terrorize innocent people after the fact.

They weren't good people and I'll take it one step further: they knew damn well that slavery was wrong in their own day and time. It benefited them however and they stood behind it for that reason. Too many people are willing to pretend that it was accepted and that it wasn't viewed as wrong then. It was. As the civil war approached the arguments against the slavery were well known and wide spread enough to result in half the states being free states. Was the north racist? Yup. They weren't so racist however that they supported slavery long after the majority of the world saw it for what it was.

[twa]

How many Americans died because the south needed to defend a vile institution? Laws and perceptions change, luckily most people caught on the wrong side of history haven't been able to launch a war fighting the inevitable.

How many died because the North earlier decided to profit off a vile institution?
Yeah **** changes,but bull**** never does

[luckydevil]

.

They weren't good people and I'll take it one step further: they knew damn well that slavery was wrong in their own day and time. It benefited them however and they stood behind it for that reason. Too many people are willing to pretend that it was accepted and that it wasn't viewed as wrong then. It was. As the civil war approached the arguments against the slavery were well known and wide spread enough to result in half the states being free states. Was the north racist? Yup. They weren't so racist however that they supported slavery long after the majority of the world saw it for what it was.

I just want to add, this applies with the founding father as well. Many of them knew slavery was wrong as well. It's why we shouldn't be so quick to worship them. In fact, had the British won, slavery would have ended a whole lot sooner.

---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 04:31 PM ----------


How many died because the North earlier decided to profit off a vile institution?
Yeah **** changes,but bull**** never does

This is really important to add. People really have no clue the role the North profited off the institution. Northern businesses kept slave trade alive and well.

[Destino]

How many died because the North earlier decided to profit off a vile institution?
Yeah **** changes,but bull**** never does
You're right bull**** never does. Here we are still pretending a war launched to stop the inevitable was justified because gosh darn it who was the federal government to decide blacks should be free?!

[Henry]

Except for that whole civil liberties thing. Yeah, not so progressive. There is a reason why neocons love to cite him when justifying current civil liberty abuses.

Both sides made harsh decisions during the war. Both sides declared martial law. Both sides suspended habeas corpus. Both sides did even worse to their own citizens in the name of national security. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, it was war, and wartime actions were taken. One to preserve the union, one to split it in two. I'm still siding with the former, sorry.


Nothing like using their heroes against them.


Yup

Not sure what the heck you're talking about here. I guess the urge to bask in the wonder and joy that was Confederate States of America compels some of you to attack Abraham Lincoln in order to justify your nostalgia, and there's, uh, nothing like it? Ok.

You'll have to do a lot better than this though.

[luckydevil]

Both sides made harsh decisions during the war. Both sides declared martial law. Both sides suspended habeas corpus. Both sides did even worse to their own citizens in the name of national security. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, it was war, and wartime actions were taken. One to preserve the union, one to split it in two. I'm still siding with the former, sorry.





Not sure what the heck you're talking about here. I guess the urge to bask in the wonder and joy that was Confederate States of America compels some of you to attack Abraham Lincoln in order to justify your nostalgia, and there's, uh, nothing like it? Ok.

You'll have to do a lot better than this though.

Henry, one can have the position that Lincoln sucked and be glad the union won. Oh and go screw yourself for suggesting I am basking in any sort of nostalgia. It is especially irritating when I just cautioned against founding father worship.

[Henry]

Henry, one can have the position that Lincoln sucked and be glad the union won. Oh and go screw yourself for suggesting I am basking in any sort of nostalgia. It is especially irritating when I just cautioned against founding father worship.

Well then what the hell was that comment about 'using our heroes against us' as if this is some sort of contest. Did you agree with twa or not? What are you 'using' my hero for, exactly? Sorry if I couldn't figure it out, but given the subject of this thread, which was the glorification of a controversial Confederate General, you'll have to forgive my apparent bad guess.

[luckydevil]

When then what the hell was that comment about 'using our heroes against us' as if this is some sort of contest. Did you agree with twa or not? What are you 'using' my hero for, exactly? Sorry if I couldn't figure it out, but given the subject of this thread, which was the glorification of a controversial Confederate General, you'll have to forgive my apparent bad guess.
i
Ok, I am sorry. It was a tad childish. I just find the worship of Lincoln in our culture incredibly unhealthy and harmful.
/
Did anyone glorify Nathaniel Bedford Forrest on this thread? Did I? I called the man a terrorist. In fact, on my top 3 worst Americans list in history, he is on it.

[Burgold]

It's pretty interesting how the scars of the Civil War seem still not to have healed in this country. I think this each time I read one of these threads.

[Henry]

i
Ok, I am sorry. It was a tad childish. I just find the worship of Lincoln in our culture incredibly unhealthy and harmful.
/
Did anyone glorify Nathaniel Bedford Forrest on this thread? Did I? I called the man a terrorist. In fact, on my top 3 worst Americans list in history, he is on it.

And ironically my first two posts in this thread were about what a great general he was. :)

I don't think Lincoln needs to be worshipped, but I am wary of swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction too. Lately there's been this bizarre movement to paint him out to be some sort of tyrannical villain, and I think that's as ignorant and dangerous as worshipping him.

[luckydevil]

It's pretty interesting how the scars of the Civil War seem still not to have healed in this country. I think this each time I read one of these threads.

And here is the thing, some of us are not on any side.

[SnyderShrugged]

Well, you called Lincoln racist based on his support of resettlement. I disagreed with that.

Now you are shifting to calling him racist based on the Lincoln/Douglas debates. I disagree with that as well. Sure you can pull a few quotes out and say "See? He says he doesn't want to marry a black woman! HaHA!" but if you take those statements in context you can see he's actually addressing things Douglas said. Douglas, who most certainly preyed upon the racist fears of his constituents to attack Lincoln over and over, forcing Lincoln to repeatedly temper his rhetoric against slavery.

Was Lincoln as enlightened as a 21st century politician with regards to race? No. Was he an Angel sent from heaven to teach us to love and free the oppressed? No. He was a man. Very progressive and enlightened for his day, but not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. If you want to stick that in your cap as proof that the north has no business disapproving of the south's celebration of their particular place in 19th century history, well, so be it. But it's a pretty weak argument.

Not sure how an accurate argument on a very simple fact is considered "weak" but thats cool. More power to ya.

[Henry]

Not sure how an accurate argument on a very simple fact is considered "weak" but thats cool. More power to ya.

You brought up Lincoln's views on race in an attempt to mitigate the fact that states seceded to preserve the institution of slavery. In that context it's pretty weak.

[SnyderShrugged]

You brought up Lincoln's views on race in an attempt to mitigate the fact that states seceded to preserve the institution of slavery. In that context it's pretty weak.


When did I do that? I brought up Lincolns views on race to point out Lincolns views on race. I was pointing out that Race and slavery were part of the equation yet not all of it. In fact I specifically said that slavery was definitely one of the big economic and socail factors. (maybe you should read whats said rather than interpret whats not next time?) You seem to be reading between the lines in a text that isnt real.


fact is, Lincoln was a racists along with the vast majority of the nation at that time. It cant be debated, its fact.

[Henry]

When did I do that? I brought up Lincolns views on race to point out Lincolns views on race. I was pointing out that Race and slavery were part of the equation yet not all of it. In fact I specifically said that slavery was definitely one of the big economic and socail factors. (maybe you should read whats said rather than interpret whats not next time?) You seem to be reading between the lines in a text that isnt real.

I think I got what you were saying pretty loud and clear.


fact is, Lincoln was a racists along with the vast majority of the nation at that time. It cant be debated, its fact.

Fair enough. You can call Lincoln a racist and I'll call Confederate generals traitors, and we'll call it a day. :)

[SnyderShrugged]

I think I got what you were saying pretty loud and clear.



Fair enough. You can call Lincoln a racist and I'll call Confederate generals traitors, and we'll call it a day. :)


like I said before, whatever floats your boat (even when you are inaccurate)

[Larry]

Ok, I am sorry. It was a tad childish. I just find the worship of Lincoln in our culture incredibly unhealthy and harmful.

Yeah, all he did was to preserve the nation we live in today, against the gravest threat it has ever faced.

[Predicto]

When did I do that? I brought up Lincolns views on race to point out Lincolns views on race. I was pointing out that Race and slavery were part of the equation yet not all of it. In fact I specifically said that slavery was definitely one of the big economic and socail factors. (maybe you should read whats said rather than interpret whats not next time?) You seem to be reading between the lines in a text that isnt real.


fact is, Lincoln was a racists along with the vast majority of the nation at that time. It cant be debated, its fact.



But why emphasize this detail this conversation, unless you are attempting some sort of moral equalization? This converstation is about Nathan Forrest, the massacrer and early leader of the KKK. What possible point is there in trying to talk about Abraham Lincoln, except as a weak way to say "both sides were kinda bad ya know..." :whoknows:

Earlier onm you were saying : "I know you arent claiming that every single Confederate soldier that fought in the war for their own independence was a "terrorist". You are way too smart for that." Thing is, no one in the thread had said that. You just suggested that someone had. Frankly, it looks like another effort to deflect the subject, change the focus.

Then you talk about Robert Byrd, and then dig in your heels about the proper definition of "terrorist". I'm not sure that you even realize what you are doing in this thread. It's all deflection.

It's not compelling. It's no more compelling than getting all irate and saying "How many died because the North earlier decided to profit off a vile institution?" twa knows full well that th United States outlawed the importation of slaves on January 1, 1808. We are talking about a half century later, the 1860s, but if people are trying to deflect the discussion or pretend that both sides are equal, they throw stuff like that out there to muddy the waters.

If you really want to take it to the extreme, you can say: "the Northerners think they are so much smarter than the South." You see, that changes the entire discussion. The question then is no longer whether it is appropriate for a state to honor a murdering war criminal who headed the KKK - the question is how awful and obnoxious those awful NORTHERNERS are for even asking the question. How rude of them. How elitist! :ols:

Like I said, I've seen it all before. Heck, I said it all before myself, when I was born and raised in Virginia. At the core, it's pretty much a bunch of :pooh: but people will buy into it if they feel personally invested in what happened 150 years ago and think it reflects on them or their families or their state today. :whoknows:







but what about Woodrow Wilson??? Why aren't we talking about Woodrow Wilson? :silly:

[Larry]

I don't think Lincoln needs to be worshipped, but I am wary of swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction too. Lately there's been this bizarre movement to paint him out to be some sort of tyrannical villain, and I think that's as ignorant and dangerous as worshipping him.

I'll admit, IMO, Lincoln did more damage to the Constitution than any President we've ever had.

In fact, I have my own, personal, version of Godwin's Law: I think that sometimes, comparisons to Hitler are valid. That said, though, I believe that any person who points to the actions Lincoln took during the Civil War, or to the internment of the Japanese, to justify whatever he's justifying, is attempting to destroy the Constitution.

I tend to give Lincoln a pass for the things he did, because it worked.


Analogy: There was a movie, long ago. The Final Countdown. A freak storm transports the USS Nimitz back in time, to Dec 6th, 1941. The movie centers around the Captain trying to decide if he should intervene, to prevent Pearl Harbor from happening.

The ending in the movie, IMO, wimped out completely. The Captain decided to intervene and destroy the Japanese fleet, but before they could launch a single aircraft, the storm came back and put them back in the present.

Me, I would have come to a much different decision. I would have left things alone.

Not because I have some kind of religious belief that history is sacred and Captain Kirk mush never alter it. But because I'm happy with the world we have today.

Yep. I know. If I leave things alone, then a whole bunch of people are going to die in Pearl Harbor, in a few hours. If I leave things alone, a bunch of people are going to die in Hiroshima, too.

But "I know how the story ends". And I'm willing to live with it.

I feel kind of the same way about Lincoln's actions. They were horrible, but I know how it works out.

[luckydevil]

but what about Woodrow Wilson??? Why aren't we talking about Woodrow Wilson? :silly:

Don't get me started. Though that might be a boring thread. I would expect that to be a more bipartisan affair.

[Predicto]

Don't get me started. Though that might be a boring thread. I would expect that to be a more bipartisan affair.

Wilson was a jerk, no doubt.

But if you bring him up in a thread about Mississippi putting Nathan Bedford Forrest on their license plate - you have an agenda.

And that agenda is:

to talk about ANYTHING other than Mississippi putting Nathan Bedford Forrest on their license plate.

[luckydevil]

Yeah, all he did was to preserve the nation we live in today, against the gravest threat it has ever faced.

Jus ad bellum vs jus in bello, Larry. It's important to understand the difference.

[Larry]

Jus ad bellum vs jus in bello, Larry. It's important to understand the difference.

Too busy trying to impress people with your Latin to read my posts, huh?

[luckydevil]

Too busy trying to impress people with your Latin to read my posts, huh?

Jesus Christ, Larry. Whatever

I like you, so I am not going to take this down a bad road.

[Madison Redskin]

I'll admit, IMO, Lincoln did more damage to the Constitution than any President we've ever had.

I think FDR (i.e., the Court-packing, Japanese-interning 4 term President) might have done even more damage than Lincoln.

[twa]

Fair enough. You can call Lincoln a racist and I'll call Confederate generals traitors, and we'll call it a day. :)

Which was my point on using heroes against them
Tis a game we all play to justify what we want....NBF would be proud

[Henry]

Which was my point on using heroes against them
Tis a game we all play to justify what we want....NBF would be proud

You missed my point entirely. Try not to sprain something patting yourself on the back.

[HailGreen28]

For all Lincoln's faults, he was a Saint compared to Jeff Davis and the other scum that supported The Slave Power in our Civil War.

Thank God we had some people of moral character, on the right side of the war.

[skinfan13]

A yes, the legality claim.

And now the thread will really take off. :) Virginia v. West Virginia, read up on it. SCOTUS radically departed from Lincoln's view on secession.


Which, imo, ultimately saved lives.

lol, WUT?


I think FDR (i.e., the Court-packing, Japanese-interning 4 term President) might have done even more damage than Lincoln.
Wow, that's a pretty strong statement coming from you :)




I feel kind of the same way about Lincoln's actions. They were horrible, but I know how it works out. I sort of feel the same way. Being a Christian, I ultimately have to conclude that the United States remaining a single country had to be the will of God. The South clearly believed that God supported them in the conflict, and clearly God had other plans.

An independent Southern nation also poses some interesting options on future events: would there be future wars between the United States and the Confederate States? Most likely given the large common border, very possible territorial disputes, and radically different governmental ideologies (at the intellectual core at least). You also have to look at the 20th century and the United States role in it. Now, we could get into multiple-universe theories of time and the Butterfly Effect (the real one, not the movie) about how a world with a Confederate States of America may not have ultimately experienced a WWI or WWII or USSR, but still, there's no doubt that given that these things could have happened, most people would agree that the role the United States played in these events was a) positive in actual history and b) would have been radically diminished given a split and possibly warring North America.

All in all, while I still maintain that the North was in the wrong in many regards, and that I DESPISE Lincoln with every ounce of my being for what he did to the Constitution and our government, the conclusion ultimately turned out for the best.





Also, on the OT, **** Nathan Bedford Forrest. And this comes from a guy who is currently less than a mile from the graves of Robert E. Lee and General Jackson and idolizes both men. NBF was a man with no concept of honor or grace, a brutal, savage husk of a human being. (just like Sherman ;) )

[RansomthePasserby]

lol, WUT?


Think about it. Ultimately, the South didn't have a chance of winning. They didn't have the infrastructure or man power to overcome what the North could throw at them, so the longer the South resisted, the more lives would be lost. Sherman showed the Southern public they really had no chance of winning, and the longer they resisted, the more painful it would be, and most importantly, it was a lost cause. They may hate him for it, but it's the truth.

[skinfan13]

Think about it. Ultimately, the South didn't have a chance of winning. They didn't have the infrastructure or man power to overcome what the North could throw at them, so the longer the South resisted, the more lives would be lost. Sherman showed the Southern public they really had no chance of winning, and the longer they resisted, the more painful it would be, and most importantly, it was a lost cause. They may hate him for it, but it's the truth.

Actually, the South could have won easily if they had gone all Sherman on the North and had invaded Washington D.C. in 1861 or 1862 and killed the **** out of Lincoln. Jus' sayin.

[RansomthePasserby]

Actually, the South could have won easily if they had gone all Sherman on the North and had invaded Washington D.C. in 1861 or 1862 and killed the **** out of Lincoln. Jus' sayin.

Maybe. Or maybe it would have just made the war longer.

[skinfan13]

Maybe. Or maybe it would have just made the war longer. wait, what? I was being a little sarcastic by saying they should kill Lincoln. But seriously, Lee and Jeff Davis thought that capturing DC and imposing their will on the US government would completely delegitimatize the principles they were fighting for. The only reason the Army of Northern Virginia did not do just that is because they thought they were taking the moral high ground by fighting a war of attrition. That is precisely why it took so long for the Sharpsburg and Gettysburg campaigns to happen and why an invasion of the District of Columbia never took place from 1861-63. Although D.C. was ultimately the goal of the Gettysburg campaign, and despite the fact that after Gettysburg the South was incapable of invading D.C., Lee could have forced the will of the Confederate government at literal sword-point through an invasion on a number of occasions, but didn't because of chivalry, purity of cause, and so forth.

But had the South invaded D.C. in 1861 or 1862 they could have totally ended the war altogether. It's unlikely that the war would have been prolonged if the South captured D.C.

[Predicto]

wait, what? I was being a little sarcastic by saying they should kill Lincoln. But seriously, Lee and Jeff Davis thought that capturing DC and imposing their will on the US government would completely delegitimatize the principles they were fighting for. The only reason the Army of Northern Virginia did not do just that is because they thought they were taking the moral high ground by fighting a war of attrition. That is precisely why it took so long for the Sharpsburg and Gettysburg campaigns to happen and why an invasion of the District of Columbia never took place from 1861-63. Although D.C. was ultimately the goal of the Gettysburg campaign, and despite the fact that after Gettysburg the South was incapable of invading D.C., Lee could have forced the will of the Confederate government at literal sword-point through an invasion on a number of occasions, but didn't because of chivalry, purity of cause, and so forth.

But had the South invaded D.C. in 1861 or 1862 they could have totally ended the war altogether. It's unlikely that the war would have been prolonged if the South captured D.C.


I have no idea why you assume that. In 1862, DC was the seat of government, but it was also a relative backwater. It had 61 thousand people and virtually no outlying areas of industrial or military significance. All of the Northern industry and population centers were far away. New York was 20 times larger. The government isn't the handful of buildings that the Congress and President sit in, it is the actual people.

I guess you can assume that the North would fold its cards if DC was raided, but I don't know why that is a reasonable assumption. Our country didn't fold when the British overran DC in 1812. The government just left. :whoknows:

I think your assumptions may be clouded by your romanticization of the Southern leaders, but we've discussed that before.

[RansomthePasserby]

I guess you can assume that the North would fold its cards if DC was raided, but I don't know why that is a reasonable assumption. Our country didn't fold when the British overran DC in 1812. The government just left. :whoknows:

I think your assumptions may be clouded by your romanticization of the Southern leaders, but we've discussed that before.

Which I think is the real reason why the South didn't invade DC. They knew they had very little to gain by it, and most likely would have just angered those who were still sitting on the fence. The government (and most likely the majority of the population) would have just left for Philadelphia, and the war would have continued.

No matter how you draw it up, I really don't see the South winning in the end. The North had way too much man power and capital.

[Henry]

Which I think is the real reason why the South didn't invade DC. They knew they had very little to gain by it, and most likely would have just angered those who were still sitting on the fence. The government (and most likely the majority of the population) would have just left for Philadelphia, and the war would have continued.

No matter how you draw it up, I really don't see the South winning in the end. The North had way too much man power and capital.

And believe it or not, the Confederacy really couldn't have just waltzed up and taken DC. McClellan was a terrible choice for invading the south, but he was excellent at building his army and keeping them in a position to defend Washington. The big reason he didn't move on Richmond like Lincoln wanted him to was because he was afraid of Beauregard, Johnston or Lee (whomever was in charge at the time) crippling his army and then moving on DC. Mac was overly cautious, always assuming he was wildly outnumbered when the complete opposite was the case, so he always moved with a defensive contingency in mind. One only has to look at the Peninsula Campaign to see how impossible it was for Lee to cripple McCellan's army even while Mac was on the retreat. What's most important is that Davis and his generals knew this, and while they used the north's fears of their supposedly larger armies moving north to keep the federals at bay, they couldn't actually effectively invade. Anteitam and Gettysburg proved that.

I know people love to romanticize the southern leadership but I don't think they could have done more than they did. Not being outnumbered the way they always were.

[Prosperity]

Even if the South could have successfully invaded DC through some demonic miracle, all that means is that the North would have Shermanized more of the South than they did. All in all, the South got off pretty easy, at least compared to what could have happened.

[Henry]

Virginia v. West Virginia, read up on it. SCOTUS radically departed from Lincoln's view on secession.

I think Texas v. White was a little clearer on the subject.

We can pick and choose SCOTUS rulings that favor our opinion, but the constitutionality of secession was not a cut-and-dried issue.

[joe]

Once more, Arkansas and Alabama are sighing to themselves "Thank God for Mississippi."

Sad, but true.

[SnyderShrugged]

, but the constitutionality of secession was not a cut-and-dried issue.

Then why are you treating it as one?

[nonniey]

I think Texas v. White was a little clearer on the subject.

....... the constitutionality of secession was not a cut-and-dried issue.

Maybe not in 1860 but it became a cut-and-dried issue in 1865.

[Henry]

Then why are you treating it as one?

Please explain.


Er ... that's your interpretation. Mine is that the states had no clear right to secede, and therefore their attempt to do so could be considered treasonous. Had they won independence through force of arms, as the founding fathers did, it would have been a moot point.

[Madison Redskin]

Wow, that's a pretty strong statement coming from you :)

Although I am slightly left of center, I am not a partisan hack. I still have my principles and, although the left adores FDR, I have serious problems with a lot of things he did during his presidency.

[zoony]

All in all, the South got off pretty easy, at least compared to what could have happened.

Wow.

[Predicto]

Originally Posted by Prosperity
All in all, the South got off pretty easy, at least compared to what could have happened.



Wow.

I agree with him. :whoknows:

[Dan T.]

I agree with him. :whoknows:


And Lincoln has to get some credit for that, by setting a magnanimous tone in his second inaugural address - "with malice toward none and charity for all" . . ."to bind up the nation's wounds."

and for allowing generous terms for repatriation of Rebel soldiers.

[RansomthePasserby]

Even if the South could have successfully invaded DC through some demonic miracle, all that means is that the North would have Shermanized more of the South than they did. All in all, the South got off pretty easy, at least compared to what could have happened.

If the Civil War was fought over again and I were in charge of the North, I definitely would be more aggressive earlier on going after the South's resources. As Henry noted, the early Union commanders were way too cautious for their own good... I really think their timidity is largely responsible for the prolonged length of the war. Had they been more decisive, much of the bloodshed later on could have been avoided.


Wow.

Why wow? It's just true.

[joe]

If the Civil War was fought over again and I were in charge of the North, I definitely would be more aggressive earlier on going after the South's resources. As Henry noted, the early Union commanders were way too cautious for their own good... I really think their timidity is largely responsible for the prolonged length of the war. Had they been more decisive, much of the bloodshed later on could have been avoided.


Actually, the north was too aggressive early in the war. The result was first Manassas (or first Bull Run depending on your point of view). It was only after Mclellan took control and trained the Army of the Potomac to the point where they could actually compete, that they could have been more aggressive and won earlier. The problem was that, as has been said previously here, McLellan was not an aggressive commander and missed his chance at Antietam, despite having the Rebel battle plans. McLellan was a good fit to train the army, but not to comand it in combat (or perhaps as some have speculated, he really wanted a stalemate so he could take the presidency from Lincoln). In any event, early aggressivness on the part of the north almost led to disaster.

[twa]

. All in all, the South got off pretty easy, at least compared to what could have happened.

I agree.....but Lincoln knew the costs of being overly punitive would be continued insurrection which is very costly and bad for business.
Lincoln was very practical and had no wish to face guerrilla warfare,nor the effects of excesses on the territories.
Much better to be remembered as freeing the slaves and tolerant

[RansomthePasserby]

Actually, the north was too aggressive early in the war. The result was first Manassas (or first Bull Run depending on your point of view). It was only after Mclellan took control and trained the Army of the Potomac to the point where they could actually compete, that they could have been more aggressive and won earlier. The problem was that, as has been said previously here, McLellan was not an aggressive commander and missed his chance at Antietam, despite having the Rebel battle plans. McLellan was a good fit to train the army, but not to comand it in combat (or perhaps as some have speculated, he really wanted a stalemate so he could take the presidency from Lincoln). In any event, early aggressivness on the part of the north almost led to disaster.

True. Although, I don't know if I'd attribute the Union loss at First Manassas/Bull Run to aggressiveness so much as inexperience mixed with overconfidence. The Southern Generals (especially Jackson) completely out maneuvered and surprised an incompetent General Pope, who believed he had the Confederates trapped, when in fact, he had overlooked the majority of the Southern forces.

From what I understand, it was more of a tactical blunder than a strategic one.

http://www.historyanimated.com/ManassasTwoAnimation.html

[zoony]

I agree with him. :whoknows:


I think LA and California got off seriously easy after the Rodney King riots. Would have been much more deserving had the whole cesspool of corruption and racism (aka California) been burned completely to the ground. **** 'em, they had it coming.

.....

[twa]

It's not too late Zoony :ols:

[Predicto]

I think LA and California got off seriously easy after the Rodney King riots. Would have been much more deserving had the whole cesspool of corruption and racism (aka California) been burned completely to the ground. **** 'em, they had it coming.

.....

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/6609/minizoomn.jpg (http://img580.imageshack.us/i/minizoomn.jpg/)

Thanks Forrest. :)

[Prosperity]

I agree.....but Lincoln knew the costs of being overly punitive would be continued insurrection which is very costly and bad for business.
Lincoln was very practical and had no wish to face guerrilla warfare,nor the effects of excesses on the territories.
Much better to be remembered as freeing the slaves and tolerant

much better not to get shot... :ols:
though you're definitely right


I think LA and California got off seriously easy after the Rodney King riots. Would have been much more deserving had the whole cesspool of corruption and racism (aka California) been burned completely to the ground. **** 'em, they had it coming.

.....

Why u mad tho?
I didn't say the South was ****ty, I said that if the South invaded DC, Sherman's march would have been minor in comparison to what the North would have done in the end.

And yeah, LA and CA did get off pretty easy, pretty nice place all around I'd say (well maybe not LA)

[Henry]

I agree.....but Lincoln knew the costs of being overly punitive would be continued insurrection which is very costly and bad for business.
Lincoln was very practical and had no wish to face guerrilla warfare,nor the effects of excesses on the territories.
Much better to be remembered as freeing the slaves and tolerant

Probably why confederate leaders weren't found guilty of treason. :)

[twa]

Probably why confederate leaders weren't found guilty of treason. :)

The winners do write the rules...and the history

[RansomthePasserby]

The winners do write the rules...and the history

C'mon. The South has had their say and then some in Civil War history. Especially in the "romanticizing Confederate leaders" department.

[joe]

True. Although, I don't know if I'd attribute the Union loss at First Manassas/Bull Run to aggressiveness so much as inexperience mixed with overconfidence. The Southern Generals (especially Jackson) completely out maneuvered and surprised an incompetent General Pope, who believed he had the Confederates trapped, when in fact, he had overlooked the majority of the Southern forces.

From what I understand, it was more of a tactical blunder than a strategic one.

http://www.historyanimated.com/ManassasTwoAnimation.html


Really cool link of the battle. Thanks. But, you are speaking of second Manassas (or second Bull Run) not the first battle there. The first was the union army's march into Virginia and was between Generals McDowell and Johnston. It is where Jackson got his nickname. Here is a link, although not at cool as yours

http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/va005.htm

The Union Army went in unprepared for battle and were routed. After the battle, McDowell was relieved of command and McLellan put in charge to train them. And he did, some say he trained forever and had to be forced by Lincoln to attack. Some historians theorize that he never really wanted to attack and would have been more than happy to just sit.

[RansomthePasserby]

Really cool link of the battle. Thanks. But, you are speaking of second Manassas (or second Bull Run) not the first battle there. The first was the union army's march into Virginia and was between Generals McDowell and Johnston. It is where Jackson got his nickname. Here is a link, although not at cool as yours

http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/va005.htm

The Union Army went in unprepared for battle and were routed. After the battle, McDowell was relieved of command and McLellan put in charge to train them. And he did, some say he trained forever and had to be forced by Lincoln to attack. Some historians theorize that he never really wanted to attack and would have been more than happy to just sit.

Huh, I totally typed "1st Manassas Civil War" in google, and that's what came up. Weird. Of course, now I see the huge SECOND MANASSAS banner up top haha!

Thanks for the link. :)