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

[Henry]

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).

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.

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.

[NavyDave]

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

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.

[Dan T.]

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

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? 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. )

[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.

[NavyDave]

:rotflmao:

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

Yeah its so funny that a racist was in a position of power in congress to legislate his racist ways and people tried to downplay him being in the KKK by saying it was youthful indiscretion (age 30 he was still saying the KKK is needed more than ever) while when he was nearly 47 he was part of the 83 day filibuster against the Civil Rights act of 1964.

He may not have killed anyone while he was a member of the KKK but can you say that about the scores of people he recruited to join?

Yeah and if I could compress then post the video clips some of the compassionate democrats saying Justice Thomas (probably more due to idealogy, yeah thats it) sent back to the fields or should be strung up with his wife I bet that would be hilarious too.

oops found a part of it

[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.