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

[thebluefood]

Sherman Nuclear Bomb

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

[RansomthePasserby]

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.

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 ***.

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? 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 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 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? 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.