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

[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.

[The Sisko]

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...

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

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.

It's fantastic entertainment.

[Teller]

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

[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.

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.

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.

[The Sisko]

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 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.