South Carolina, tear down that flag!

[Rare Truth]

I'm beginning to believe what I said originally when I questioned if you could read. Please tell everyone what Nathan Bedford Forrest II or III has to do with whether or not the original Nathan Bedford Forest who's statue is in Memphis was the originator or even a member of the KKK?

Me thinks you are too quick to condemn someone before you know what you're talking about. Rare Truth indeed!

Historians have concluded he was. The people who were there too - "real Confederates, and real klansmen, had no doubt whatsoever that Forrest was one of them."

Also, too:
Nathan Bedford Forrest Joins the Klan


<snip>
"Rose’ account not only made clear Forrest’s role in the Klan, but defended that organization’s reputation on the basis of his involvement, and credits to him what she sees as the group’s success:

His high standing as a Confederate officer, his devotion to his country, his noble principles and sacred honor pledged to protect the South, puts at naught forever any false statements as to the purposes of the Klan, and challenges any stigma or misrepresentations as to the character of its members, for they were in the main Confederate soldiers, and Forrest was its great leader, and under his leadership and with the loyalty of the members, the Mission of the Ku Klux Klan, or Invisible Empire, was successfully accomplished.[8]
​

Rose’s source on Forrest’s involvement with the Klan is unimpeachable: former Major James R. Crowe (right), one of the original six founders of the Klan at Pulaski, Tennessee. In her booklet, she reprints a letter Crowe wrote her, describing the Klan’s desire to elevate Forrest to the senior leadership:

The younger generation will never fully realize the risk we ran, and the sacrifices we made to free our beloved Southland from the hated rule of the “Carpetbagger,” the worse negro [sic.] and the home Yankee. Thank God, our work was rewarded by complete success. After the order grew to large numbers, we found it was necessary to have someone of large experience to command. We chose General N. B. Forrest, who had joined our number. He was made a member and took the oath in the Room No. 10 of the Maxwell House at Nashville, Tennessee, in the fall of 1866, nearly a year after we organized at Pulaski. The oath was administered to him by Captain John W. Morton, afterwards Secretary of State, Nashville, Tennessee.[9]
​

 

[Giordano]

Without further research I'm not at all sure that it has ever been proven that Forrest was the originator or even a member of the Klan. I know he's been accused of that, but I was not aware it had ever been proven. I will pursue that historical item and see what I can determine.

The Klan began in response to the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) organization of Union Veterans. That organization was merely a group of veterans who got together and mostly told war stories. They were a philanthropic organization, as well. I'm not at all sure why anyone believed they were a threat to anyone.

http://www.suvcw.org/?page_id=167

It was very similar to the Sons of Confederate Veterans organizations that exist today. They are a philanthropic and historical organization many of whom are also reenactors at those Historical Events. They perpetrate no harm to anyone at all and do not tolerate those who do. Yes, they do use the Battle Flag as a symbol of heritage, not hate and oppose those who do use it as a racist symbol...

You do realize that the citation you provided is for the Grand Army of the Republic, and doesn't even mention the KKK. Further, the statement that the KKK began in "response" to the GAR is meaningless, and your post going on to focus on the telling of old war stories and the philanthropic activities of the GAR has no relevance to the KKK. Did anyone bring up the GAR in this thread at all, let alone a "threat?" As far as I can tell, the GAR doesn't even use the Confederate flag as a symbol, so I am not certain how it relates to this thread at all.

Why would the average person interpret your mash-up of the two organizations, and ambiguous use of pronouns, as anything but an attempt to make the KKK look better? Again, if that was not your intention, then you failed in communicating your intention, and instead posted something easily read as a rationalization of the clan.

 

[paulhutch]

Good effort to continue to distort the reason for what I said and what I intended to imply by those comments. Why do you assume I was addressing the Bible or the Cemeteries of my ancestors. I wasn't.

You were'nt very clear then when you said in you apologetic for slavery:

In fact, in my genealogical research I've found many Bible Records where the detailed birth and death records of slaves were kept in the same family Bible that the rest of the family was kept in. In many of those families some slaves stayed even after the Emancipation Proclamation kicked in. Many of those are buried in the same Cemetery as their former owners families were. It was a different time with different attitudes yet many judge it in view of present attitudes.

If you were researching other peoples families you should have said so, as I and I suspect most people, assume the phrase " in my genealogical research" means researching your family.

 

[Reheat]

Reheat,

I just read several more of your posts that appear to several people here (including myself) to be arguments that slavery and the KKK were not really as bad as people think. Yet when challenged, you have denied that was your intent, and that we others must have problems in reading skills. I'll accept that you never intended to defend these institutions and organizations, but humbly suggest that this mis-communication only confirms my proposal that, in the absence of us being able to read your mind (the impossibility of which you have emphasized), it is the communicator's (your) responsibility to use the correct words (and symbols) to accurately communicate your thoughts. So far I am willing to conclude that you haven't done so.

Quite obviously I was referring to the GAR as a philanthropic organization not the KKK. I realize the Clan was the subject in the preceding sentence with the GAR as the object. It would be very simple to ask for clarification before making what amounts to stupid comments that I believe the KKK was or is a philanthropic organization. It really has little to do with misinterpretation, it is simply being a grammar nazi with a gotcha.

Although I do wonder when that same individual also confuses descendants of the subject person under discussion as opposed to the original subject.

 

[jimbob]

I'm beginning to believe what I said originally when I questioned if you could read. Please tell everyone what Nathan Bedford Forrest II or III has to do with whether or not the original Nathan Bedford Forest who's statue is in Memphis was the originator or even a member of the KKK?

Me thinks you are too quick to condemn someone before you know what you're talking about. Rare Truth indeed!

The wiki entry of the first Nathan Bedford Forrest has several sources that are pretty sure that the Original Nathan Bedford Forest was a Klan leader

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest#Ku_Klux_Klan_membership


Although he later distanced himself from the Klan.

 

[Giordano]

Honestly, in looking up Bedford Forrest and his role in the KKK in a number of history books, websites, and primary references, I can't think of many other well-accepted historical facts that are as thoroughly documented.

 

[NoahFence]

I can't read their minds and neither can you. It does not symbolize white supremacy to me at all. I fully realize it has been hijacked by people who do.

The confederate flag being proudly displayed as a symbol of "heritage" - such as on the general lee from the Dukes of Hazard is actually the hijacked meaning of the flag.

The actual meaning of the flag is a symbol of racism, hatred and rank stupidity.

 

[NoahFence]

You keep posting that photo of the statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest. I suppose you know there is a movement in Memphis to remove his and his wife's grave from where they have been buried for about 150 years. I wonder how they'll get around the State and Federal Laws protecting grave sites? Do you realize what could happen if their graves are disturbed? Also, what might happen if that statue is defaced or destroyed?

Moving them from that grave would be pretty silly. Best to just dig a 6' or so hole in the ground, put a port-a-jon on top of it and **** on them. Charge admission. Blacks can use it for free.

 

[jimbob]

Interesting thing I didn't know about Nathan Bedford Forrest

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/general-nathan-bedford-fo_b_7734444.html

Summary: He renounced the Klan. His last act as leader of the Klan was to order it disbanded. He changed a lot of his racist beliefs before he died.

Another hero with feet of clay.

ETA: not getting at anyone in this thread - just the racists who do lionise him

 

[paulhutch]

You do realize that the citation you provided is for the Grand Army of the Republic, and doesn't even mention the KKK. Further, the statement that the KKK began in "response" to the GAR is meaningless, and your post going on to focus on the telling of old war stories and the philanthropic activities of the GAR has no relevance to the KKK. Did anyone bring up the GAR in this thread at all, let alone a "threat?" As far as I can tell, the GAR doesn't even use the Confederate flag as a symbol, so I am not certain how it relates to this thread at all.

Why would the average person interpret your mash-up of the two organizations, and ambiguous use of pronouns, as anything but an attempt to make the KKK look better? Again, if that was not your intention, then you failed in communicating your intention, and instead posted something easily read as a rationalization of the clan.

The Grand Army of the Republic was the fraternal organization for Union Soldiers not Confederates. Ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Army_of_the_Republic

So yeah his reference better not mention the KKK, it was not popular in the Northern States in the 19th century especially among the veterans who fought against the Confederacy.

 

[Rare Truth]

Quite obviously I was referring to the GAR as a philanthropic organization not the KKK.
...

Maybe in your mind.

Not to most of us.

 

[Giordano]

Quite obviously I was referring to the GAR as a philanthropic organization not the KKK. I realize the Clan was the subject in the preceding sentence with the GAR as the object. It would be very simple to ask for clarification before making what amounts to stupid comments that I believe the KKK was or is a philanthropic organization. It really has little to do with misinterpretation, it is simply being a grammar nazi with a gotcha.

Although I do wonder when that same individual also confuses descendants of the subject person under discussion as opposed to the original subject.

Sorry, I am less and less willing to accept this explanation because I don't see any reason for you to conflate the two in the manner you did. As you concede, you used the KKK as the "subject" and then continued with the GAR as the "object of your post" but this makes no sense except to use one as justification of the other. This is especially true given that the GAR was not previously a topic in this thread.

You appear to view this as something only a "grammar nazi" would find disturbing. I make grammatical errors all the time, and I am sometimes called on it. But this is not an issue of grammar, but of fundamental meaning. And if someone appears to make a linkage between two concepts or organizations as extensively as did your post, it is not a minor grammatical error. Why would anyone simply ask for clarification- it is not particularly ambiguous.

 

[NoahFence]

Of course, some of those people were racists, but not all of them were. That's my primary and only point to be made.

Lie. Flat-out lie.

 

[Giordano]

The Grand Army of the Republic was the fraternal organization for Union Soldiers not Confederates. Ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Army_of_the_Republic

So yeah his reference better not mention the KKK, it was not popular in the Northern States in the 19th century especially among the veterans who fought against the Confederacy.

Thanks- somehow I didn't even notice this. I presume that Reheat did not either, unless his point was that the KKK was organized "in response" (i.e. in opposition) to the GAR and their gentle war stories and philanthropic actions. Certainly the KKK didn't appear to favor philanthropic activities..

 

[NoahFence]

Without further research I'm not at all sure that it has ever been proven that Forrest was the originator or even a member of the Klan. I know he's been accused of that, but I was not aware it had ever been proven. I will pursue that historical item and see what I can determine.

The Klan began in response to the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) organization of Union Veterans. That organization was merely a group of veterans who got together and mostly told war stories. They were a philanthropic organization, as well. I'm not at all sure why anyone believed they were a threat to anyone.
http://www.suvcw.org/?page_id=167

It was very similar to the Sons of Confederate Veterans organizations that exist today. They are a philanthropic and historical organization many of whom are also reenactors at those Historical Events. They perpetrate no harm to anyone at all and do not tolerate those who do. Yes, they do use the Battle Flag as a symbol of heritage, not hate and oppose those who do use it as a racist symbol...

For many years I've read in the 9/11 forums all manner of asinine dismissals of realty. However, in all my years here, and pretty much on the internet as a whole I have yet to read anything as completely removed from reality as that which is highlighted, and pretty much the rest of the post.

There should be a medal.

 

[jimbob]

And it continues... There goes that broad brush again. Of course, I've seen some of the photos, obviously not all that haven't been posted here. Some of it was definitely racist and I condemn that. All of it wasn't, so I won't use that broad brush you and others like so much.

Of course, some of those people were racists, but not all of them were. That's my primary and only point to be made.

Regarding the War for Southern Independence comments. That is the most historically correct term in spite of your insistence to the contrary.

A Civil War is between factions of the same Country. The Southern States had seceded, so they were not a part of the same Country. They had declared their independence the same way the US did in the Revolutionary War. There was and is no Constitutional reason they couldn't separate. Consequently, Civil War is not a correct even tho' it is most frequently used.

I did not use the term War of Northern Aggression, you did. That is not a correct term either as the South fired the first shots against a US Military target and took some US prisoners, so technically the US was defending it's facilities and people, at least initially.

I keep pointing out again and again that the vast majority of the soldiers on both sides were not fighting for or against slavery no matter what you think or believe. That is also precisely why many folks don't see that flag as a racist symbol. The fact that it has been hijacked by deplorable racists elements that have nothing to do with what many people in the South feel seems to be totally lost in this entire discussion.

It's very telling that you think the Dukes of Hazard is about racism. That's a joke and it's on you and others who believe that. What's wrong with Dixie too? Do you think everything about the Southern part of the US is about racism?

I think I'll continue this discussion until I get bored. It's been very educational for me to see some of the venomous rhetoric being used about an entire portion of this Country and painting everyone who lives in it with the same broad brush. As I said earlier, I now have a better understanding of why many folks joined the Confederacy even tho' they had no slaves and didn't support the institution at all in any respects. Bye

I'm beginning to wonder if you can read?

I didn't say that the Dukes of Hazard was racist, I was very specific in what I said -I questioned whether it was clear of Civil War connotations:

As an aside - in this or a related thread someone mentioned the Dukes of Hazard. I am not sure that a car with that flag on its roof, that plays Dixie, and is named after the most famous Confederate general was entirely innocent of Civil War connotations.

Or here altered the quote nesting for accurate reflection of the exchange:

Today a bunch of those moron jaked up trucks were driving slowly around the 'black' streets, honking their horns and yelling 'white power!'

Yeah, it's not the flag of racists at all...

Gee, I didn't know there was a brush that board even made.

At 9/11 Memorial Services I guess you identify everyone there as a "truther" simply because they are there, right?

So the people driving slowly through 'black' neighborhoods with the Confederate flag and yelling, "White power!" weren't racists? What, were they performance artists?

Racists use that flag for their racism, and it is a logically and historically an appropriate symbol of that kind of racism. That's in no way a broad brush. I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

You did not post a photograph and I missed the part about those jerks driving thru black neighborhoods shouting racist slogans.

 

[Giordano]

The last actions of Bedford Forrest may symbolize a long-overdue rethink of his life (i.e. Amazing Grace), or only a practical political decision. I don't know, although I would be curious if those creating his monuments were intending to honor his early or later life. I have my own suspicions.

More generally, I don't have problems honoring with monuments people who had complicated ideals and lives (who doesn't?). I don't advocate removing Thomas Jefferson's monument from DC because he kept slaves, or question the Noble prize for Martin L. King Jr because of his less than perfect commitment to his marriage. These people should be honored, but expressly for the good things they did, but not for the bad. Given this place in history and culture, I can use MLK JR as a great symbol for the struggle for human liberty, but not such a great symbol for monogamy.

I have much more problem of honoring someone whose main or sole historical contribution was to defend slavery. especially when the monument expressly honors this bad thing. In some cases where the location is not a monument (which is inherently meant as an honor) but rather a historical site (Robert E. Lee's house) then I believe it should be preserved and shown, but with the historically accurate story provided to the visitors. German V2s are justifiably displayed at the Smithsonian, but both the good (one of the first full sized rockets) and the bad (killed thousands in London and other cities and built by slave labor) are presented.

 

[Reheat]

You were'nt very clear then when you said in you apologetic for slavery:

It was not an apology nor a justification for slavery at all and I think you know that. It was simply to counter that ALL people in the South were evil, which had been the primary theme of most comments to that point. Meadmaker was the only other poster who had been attempting to convey the point that ALL people in the South by the war were NOT evil slave holders. Slavery was LEGAL in all states in the US up to a point when the abolition movement began in earnest. It had become entrenched in much of the economy of the South and was not so easily eliminated in a short period of time. Not all people in the South owned slaves, of course, many were subsistence farmers. However, the rhetoric was such in the 1850's and after that everyone was painted with a broad brush and became more and more offended by that. It evolved into a States Rights issue that many people in the South did not view as related to slavery at all. (I'm sure someone, perhaps many, will continue to argue that it was related to the preservation of slavery and that's all.) The problem is that many in the south did not hold that view at all. Therein was the problem that eventually led to a devastating war. Escalating rhetoric on both sides lead to more and more escalation eventually with neither side willing to compromise.

The same thing has happened here on this Forum over and over again. It's a good thing that this Forum is an obscure site on the Internet and what is said here is of little consequence in reality. I don't believe any form of slavery is in danger of ever returning, nor are there many who even desire that. There are racial bigot on all sides and they will likely exist for many more generations. The main point now is that the national rhetoric is building and people on all sides are getting offended. As I've said previously what concerns me most is that if Memorials, Monuments, Statues, and burial sites are defaced it will get bloody rapidly. It won't then be a silly flag issue any more.

I do hope that's clear, but if it's not I'll be glad to clarify if it's a sincere request. I'm bored with this, so I won't stay long. I have other things to do...

 

[Reheat]

For many years I've read in the 9/11 forums all manner of asinine dismissals of realty. However, in all my years here, and pretty much on the internet as a whole I have yet to read anything as completely removed from reality as that which is highlighted, and pretty much the rest of the post.

There should be a medal.

And you deserve a Medal for distortion and misinterpretation. Quite obviously, I was referring to the GAR as a philanthropic organization NOT the KKK. The link I posted explained it, as well. You obviously didn't bother to read it, but knee jerked instead.

 

[paulhutch]

It was not an apology nor a justification for slavery at all and I think you know that.

No, I know that your plain clear language attempted to minimize the evil of slavery, therefore you were attempting to minimize the horror and absolute evil of slavery. This is the definition of an apologetic for slavery. If you want to now clearly state that all slavery was evil and horrible and should never have happened and that you just couldn't write that statement in a coherent way before, then I'll accept that you didn't mean to write a slavery apologetic. Until then I must take your words at face value which are an apologetic for slavery.

It was simply to counter that ALL people in the South were evil, which had been the primary theme of most comments to that point. Meadmaker was the only other poster who had been attempting to convey the point that ALL people in the South by the war were NOT evil slave holders. Slavery was LEGAL in all states in the US up to a point when the abolition movement began in earnest.

An absolute falsehood as has been pointed out numerous times already in this thread. Vermont made slavery illegal in 1777, Massachusetts outlawed slavery in 1780 and by 1790 all the New England States had outlawed slavery. This was all well before the US abolitionist movement began in earnest.