Rep. Poe Quotes Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard On House Floor
Rep. Poe Quotes Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard On House Floor
Yesterday on the House floor, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) argued that the United States needs to immediately authorize funds for the war in Iraq. “Congress needs to quit talking about supporting the troops and put money where our mouths seem to be,” said Poe.
To make his case, he quoted “successful Confederate general” Nathan Bedford Forrest, but left out the fact that Forrest was also one of the original Grand Wizards of the Ku Klux Klan. Watch it:
Poe’s spokeswoman tried to justify the reference to Forrest, stating, that it “was used in an historical context comparing the request to Congress for support of the Confederate troops to the request that is being made today by our Generals in Iraq.” (Roll Call adds that it’s actually a misquote of Forrest as well.)
So remember, it’s perfectly fine to quote KKK Grand Wizards to make your argument, as long as it’s in a “historical context.”
Carpetbagger Report and Jane Hamsher have more.
Transcript:
POE: Mr. Speaker, does anybody realize there’s a war going out there in the desert sands of Iraq and the rough mountains of Afghanistan? Apparently not or Congress would be taking care of our troops. Mr. Speaker, the troops will be out of funds to carry the fight to the enemy by the end of June. So where’s the money? Spending money is what Congress does. Why hasn’t this body provided the funds for our troops and equipment and more personnel?
This is an emergency. Delay will put our troops at risk. We should authorize the funds now. Send equipment now. And if needed send more troops. The American people expect our military to do their duty. Well the American people expect us to do ours as well. Congress needs to quit talking about supporting the troops and put money where our mouths seem to be. Nathan Bedford Forrest, successful Confederate general, said it best about winning and victory and the means to do so. He said, “Git thar fustest with the mostest.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Speaking of leaving out facts. Why hasn’t TP posted the audio from Zawahiri where he agrees with Harry Reid on the war in Iraq?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:20 amVery telling that he would know about such a quote. I think this PERFECTLY demonstrates his BIGOTTED and RACIST positions on life.
But, hey, the people of Texas (in his district) elected him anyway, so what does that say about them?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:22 amI think that there is a good chance he didn’t even know that Forrest was one of the founders of the kkk. He thought he was being clever, but in reality, he was and is a stupid shit.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:22 amIn the first place, quoting a general from the losing side of a civil war just drips with irony when you’re talking about Iraqi war funding.
Secondly, doesn’t anyone know how to use ‘the google’ and do a little fact checking before you start using KKK Grand Wizards on the floor of the House?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:23 amRacistPublicans
May 8th, 2007 at 10:23 amWhat! He quoted Sen. Byrd!
ROTFL
May 8th, 2007 at 10:23 amNathan Bedford Forrest, successful Confederate general, said it best about winning and victory and the means to do so. He said, “Git thar fustest with the mostest.â€
Stupid man, using a stupid quote, to make a stupid point.
Amurka, hell yeah!!
**eyes rolling**
May 8th, 2007 at 10:24 amI think his quoting of Forrest is even more vulgar since Forrest was a traitor to our country. Why are the Republicans quoting traitors to support their immoral position?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:26 amBrilliant. As we surge forward (or something), an elected representative quotes a losing general, who was also wrong, evil, and dead.
And I believe the Iraqis were there the fustest with the mostest.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:26 amAs I recall from the Burns Civil War series, not only did Forrest go on to be a leader in the KKK, he was a butcher of blacks as a Confederate general. If Poe wants to fondly recall the words of a guy who basically committed genocide, I guess that speaks to his values.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:27 amIs this site going to start a thread any time someone quotes Sen. Robert KKK Byrd?
ROTFL
May 8th, 2007 at 10:27 amFunding troops and supporting troops are 2 very different things.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:28 amI wonder if anyone had the balls to get up and call him on quoting a Klansman? Would have been a great opportunity to rip Poe a new one.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:32 amMaybe he should have quoted Zawahiri, then the left would have been overjoyed.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:32 am“Maybe he should have quoted Zawahiri, then the left would have been overjoyed.
Comment by Patrick1″
equating zawahiri and rep. poe? sounds fine to me.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:34 amWhen I read the headline - I first thought Rep. Poe might have been quoting former KKK adherent, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). In historical context, of course…..
May 8th, 2007 at 10:35 amWas that a Rebel Yell?
This guy’s no Billy Idol, but he’s certainly a loser.
Maybe he could quote the Alamo, which had the same outcome we’re seeing in Iraq…certain death.
Ted Poe. Sounds a lot like tadpole, eh?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:36 amIf he becomes a Senator, would he then be a Frog? I see the connection now; either way he’s still going to CROAK!
#14
I recall a post about that a few days ago, perhaps it was on Media Matters. Zawahiri also said that the ’surge’ was a great opportunity to kill more American soldiers.
Do you support the death of the best Americans for your failed war? I would hope not.
I’ll try to get that source for you #14, but I doubt it’ll do any good.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:37 amAre our little trolls upset this morning because nobody is paying attention to them? CrappyGuy and Patsy0 have essentially posted the same blather twice respectively within 4 and 12 minutes. Poor babies!
May 8th, 2007 at 10:37 amAh, happy guy and patrick desperately trying to change the subject - you clowns are always good for a laugh. Either one of you care to comment on subject of the thread?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:37 amPatrick1trickpony, doesn’t Zawahiri want the US to be bogged down in Iraq? It was Osama bin Laden’s plan on 9/11 to provoke a global war. It worked for him with the Soviets in Afghanistan and he was looking for a repeat. al-Qaeda were gleeful when Bush made the boneheaded decision to cut & run from the battle in Tora Bora and invade Iraq instead. Why is Bush doing al-Qaeda’s bidding?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:37 amToo bad Forrest never said that quote - - even Wikipedia is smarter than Poe. Personally, I think quoting a traitorous, loosing general is very appropriate for the republican party. However, they don’t get the irony. Oops, irony is a “cerebral” concept that “deciders” don’t understand.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:38 amYep that’s sticking it to the defeatocrats. People said the confederates were bound to lose to and … uhm well uhm they managed to find a political solution anyway.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:39 am“Stupid is as stupid does.” Oh, wait, wrong Forrest.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:39 amI wouldn’t expect anything else from a “Southern Republican”.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:40 am“Why is Bush doing al-Qaeda’s bidding?
Comment by david — May 8, 2007″
don’t forget about how bush pulled the troops out of saudi arabia, as per o.b.l.’s request.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:41 amI thought this was always the Republicans biggest gripe about Democrats. When you can’t fix it they like to throw a bunch of money at it.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:42 amMore bad news for the left. As if the French election disaster wasn’t enough.
Spring in Iran was marked by the outbreak of protests nationwide by virtually every sector of Iranian society, beginning with demonstrations and strikes by tens of thousands of workers in March. By April and May, the level of discontent had escalated dramatically as tens of thousands of workers kept their pledge to turn out en masse.
More than one hundred thousand staged a rally in Tehran on May Day, making it one of the largest protests in Iran in the past two decades. Chanting “death to oppressors” and “freedom is our inalienable right,” they displayed their burning desire for change.
They were joined by tens of thousands of teachers who staged strikes in Tehran and the four corners of the country on May 2.
Women also took to the streets to protest the sweeping nationwide crackdown under the pretext of “mal-veiling.” University students in Tehran and elsewhere also held rallies and demonstrations to vent their anger at the regime’s repressive policies.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:45 amWhen I read the headline - I first thought Rep. Poe might have been quoting former KKK adherent, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). In historical context, of course…..
Comment by vile venus —
No, you didn’t really think that; you simply jumped at an excuse to slam a Democrat, and it’s not as if you haven’t used the same reference to Senator Byrd a number of times already. You are so lacking in originality; it’s about time you get some new talking points, dearie.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:46 amHere in Texas, Poe had a reputation for being a bit of a racists. Glad to see he’s still just as big a horse turd in D.C..
May 8th, 2007 at 10:47 amWhy do Trolls support losers?
Because you can’t whine if you’re not losing!
May 8th, 2007 at 10:47 amSuccessful Confederate General. Now that’s a relative statement. Just how successful was the losing side?
I agree with Patrick1. We should have the entire Zawahiri message posted. Including how he favors Bush’s current brain dead tactics.
What the hell is a fustest?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:47 amForrest WAS an original member of the KKK, but he and several of the other original members took out an add in a newspaper renouncing all ties to the KKK when it became an instrument of violence towards blacks. The original purpose was as a political movement, but it was hijacked by another idealogy. Forrest WAS a slaveowner and slave trader, but he renounced all those activities and urged Southerners to make peace with the Union and for everyone to live in harmony after the war. To villify Forrest without all the facts, and without the perspective of historical context, does a disservice to other men of equal ignominy, like Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:47 amal queda wants us in Iraq. Deny it all you want, trolls, but the right is wrong.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:47 amThe facts never got in the way of right wing hipocracy.
Why do Reid and Zawahiri agree on what U.S. Policy against Islamo Fascism should be?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:48 amsomebody’s cuttin’ n pastin’ and not using quotes. and posting off-topic. again.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:48 amIs this site going to start a thread any time someone quotes Sen. Robert KKK Byrd?
ROTFL
Comment by Happy Guy
It’s okay if you were a klansman, you just can’t quote one.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:49 amComments by Patsy0
Do you actually have anything to say about the actual subject of this thread?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:49 amYou just did your “duty” and it came out of your mouth and fell on the floor.
Shameful man with no conscience.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:51 am#28. patrickun
Sounds like a plan!
May 8th, 2007 at 10:52 amSee you at the demonstration!
you know that’s plagiarism, THEFT, if you will, when the source for a writing is not cited, don’t you, p1? … shame on you…
May 8th, 2007 at 10:52 amhttp://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/3388/153/
Sen. Robert KKK Byrd?
Stupid leftist hypocrites.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:53 amyes, there’s a lot to this. notwithstanding that it’s a stupid thing to misquote a general from the losing side of a war (and the idiocy of quoting the founder of the kkk), this is one of those cases where the whole story isn’t being told by thinkprogress…
southerners view general forrest as a war hero. in fact middle tennessee state university has a building named after him (forrest hall, the subject of never-ending ‘rename it’ controversy).
on interstate 65 just south of nashville there is a large statue of general forrest surrounded by confederate flags. every time i see it i wonder how in the hell that was allowed to happen, but there it is.
finally, and probably most important to the context of this story, the kkk of general forrest was anti-northerner, not anti-black. in 1869 general forrest ordered the kkk to disband and disavowed their violence, saying it was “being perverted from its original honorable and patriotic purposes, becoming injurious instead of subservient to the public peace.”
most kkk groups in other parts of the country ignored the order and continued to function. forrest distanced himself from the kkk.
so although it’s not a good idea to be quoting anyone associated with the kkk because of what it’s become, a little historical context shows that general forrest really didn’t have anything to do with the kkk we know today.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:53 amHey Patrick1, before you start throwing those stones…
More bad news for the right. As if BUSH’s FAILED WAR wasn’t enough, or GONZALES-GATE, or FOLEY-GATE…you get the picture…
WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!
Worst job creation record since Hoover Administration. A growing economy should be good news for those seeking jobs. But over the course of President Bush’s term in office, his Administration has the worst overall job creation record since Herbert Hoover more than 70 years ago.
Overall non-farm payroll employment has increased by just 5.2 million since President Bush took office in January 2001 compared with 22.7 million during the Clinton presidency. Overall employment growth has averaged just 70,000 per month under President Bush - much lower than the approximately 150,000 jobs needed each month to keep up with population growth. It was not uncommon to see monthly job gains of 300,000 and even 400,000 during economic expansions under previous Administrations.
Private sector job creation has been especially poor during the Bush presidency, with an average annual job growth rate of only 0.5 percent per year since 2001. Just 3.8 million private sector jobs have been created during the Bush presidency, compared with over 20 million private sector jobs during the Clinton presidency.
The manufacturing sector, often the source of jobs with good pay and benefits, has lost three million jobs since the start of the Bush Administration. Nearly half of the jobs created since 2001 were part-time and freelance positions without benefits. This slow pace of private sector job creation is particularly troubling given that we are so far into the economic recovery.
APPROVAL RATING 28% and falling…
Give it up dumb*ss!
May 8th, 2007 at 10:53 amSure. The subject is silly and shows not a little desperation.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:53 amcomment by michael
Hey, Mikey, since you frequently boast of your “superior” private high school education, why don’t you answer my question, originally posed over two months ago and repeated a number of times since, about what luminaries, if any, were produced by your high school?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:54 amWhen a dumb ass republican can’t come up with something stupid to say themselves, they go out and steal someone elses
redneck one liner to repeat.
With that in mind I have a Think Progress flashback.
Do you remember “Git’er done!”
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 02/ 15/ the-get-er-done-defense-of-escalation/
May 8th, 2007 at 10:54 amPatrick in a pointy headed white robe
May 8th, 2007 at 10:54 amOh come one now. An innocent little quote of N B Forrest on the congressional floor. Where is the outrage that countless streets, avenues, buildings, schools, etc. are named after people like Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee et. al.. I mean, these guys were traitors, but they are venerated as if the Civil War (we are still calling it a Civil War, aren’t we?) never happened, or as if it were some honorable exercise in civil protest. Puh-leeze!
May 8th, 2007 at 10:54 am#28: In what way are protests against Iran’s right-wing authoritarian regime “bad news for the left”? And what does this have to do with Poe’s quoting a notorious racist like Forrest?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:55 amand monkeyboy stole my thunder. i guess i just get to provide more context.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:55 amMore bad news for the left. As if the French election disaster wasn’t enough.
#
Comment by Patrick1 — May 8, 2007 @ 10:45 am
#
Thank you Patrick, that quote made my day! The French Conservative party has been in power for the last twelve years, and you think this latest election is going to change something? Bill Clinton is considered an extreme conservative by the French! So do you support Sarkozy’s statement that America should lead the fight on global warming? Note to you, Sarkozy is an environmentalist!
May 8th, 2007 at 10:55 amSuccessful Confederate General. Now that’s a relative statement. Just how successful was the losing side?
Very successful. Note that the north would not have won if not for western generals coming to their aid. Without them, the North was nothing more than scab mercs and copperheads. Read Bruce Canton’s A Stillness at Appomattox
May 8th, 2007 at 10:56 amPatrick1…
Sometimes, just sometimes…THINKING before TYPING would be beneficial for your symptoms of misinformative statements, while supporting an IDIOT, THIEF, and FAILURE…
Damn, your standards are low…
May 8th, 2007 at 10:56 amwhy does patrickarmyofone hate democracy?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:57 amI knew I’d be back in that thar news if I hung around long enough…
Got your white sheet, Mr Poe? Yee hah, let’s ride!
May 8th, 2007 at 10:57 amHe must have one of them there nice library books!
May 8th, 2007 at 10:58 amWhat a nut.
Yes, inaccurate quote, but might also be an inaccurate post too. The portrayal of Nathaniel Forrest as a racist may not be quite right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest
Also, the real quote is “to git thar fust with the most men”.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:00 amBomment by #32 - hellinabucket:
Successful Confederate General. Now that’s a relative statement. Just how successful was the losing side?
You can’t besmirch the capability of the generals simply for being on the losing side. The ability of the generals is not always enough to overcome significant material advantages. Rommel was on the losing side but was a masterful tank commander, Robert E. Lee was probably the greatest general ever produced by the U.S., but he was also on the losing end. Even Napoleon had his Waterloo.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:00 ammore…
so, the point is, nathan beford forrest wasn’t a sheet-wearing, cross-burning, black-lynching kkk member. please get the facts straight.
oh, and bush is an idiot.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:01 amPhuck you Poe!
May 8th, 2007 at 11:01 amWhy oh why does anyone support/celebrate the Confederacy and Confederates? They were all a bunch of traitors to our country! This leaves one to question whether or not those who celebrate the Confederacy are also traitors, does it not?
May 8th, 2007 at 11:01 amI’m confused by Patrick1trickpony’s comments on Iran’s May Day celebrations. Why is this bad news for the Left? These protests were by union workers, socialists, students, and feminists. It was a wonderful display of solidarity. Of course, 1trickpony forgets that the Shah was overthrown by a coalition of Muslim clerics AND Labour. The clerics then took the dominant position, but the country still has a very strong and radical left wing. And gosh, ain’t it surprising that this so-called tyrant, Ahmadinejad, actually allowed all these protests to happen. I guess he’s not as black as 1trickpony paints him.
And bringing this back to the thread’s topic, it’s all about being black, isn’t it? This war is about suppressing people with darker skins. Just as the whole illegal immigration thing is about prejudice against Hispanics. I was reading the arguments about why Hispanic immigrants were evil and took jobs away from White Trash. It was straight out of old KKK literature.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:02 amPatrick1,
Hey Bubba, wha’zup? Goddamn KKKarl won’t pay me my overtime for posting on the weekend, says that I am not disguising the distributed points well enough. Tell you what, just between you and me, if that fat pus-gut piece of shit doesn’t come up with better talking points, I am not going to sit here for hours on end trying to do battle with those guys at TP. You think it’s easy carrying water for the biggest bunch of liars ever? Even KKKarl says Bush is a pathetic loser. And we are supposed to match wits with the liberals on TP? They kick our ass, day in and day out. I am seriously tempted to get my job at Micky D’s back.
Come on KKKarl, how about some substance once in a while? That pudgy pig just recycles the same old shit. Clinton! Everyone knew Sadam had WMD! If we quit now they will follow us home! And my personal favorite, Defeatocrats!
BTW, thanks for that video of the pig humping Bush. They really do have curly pricks don’t they? I thought that was a legend. Bush has that silly ass smile on his face, even though you know it had to hurt. That boar was slamming his ass! I would like to send that one to that idiot Darryl who shows up on every thread that has to do with someone taking it in the shitter. That guy has some wires touching.
What name are you using now after Patrick1 gets worn out? Back to Firehead again? KKKarl says he can only afford three of us and we just have to post with multiple monikers, but I get confused sometimes. Who am I today? Am I MA, VV, Jake???
Hang in there dude.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:02 am“successful Confederate general”
huh?
May 8th, 2007 at 11:03 amheh, yes i love that america’s rightwingers are in such rejoice over so-called “conservative” winning in france. france’s “conservatives” are to the left of most of america’s liberals.
rightwing nutjobs acting like they like france now. what hypocritical jackasses. it’s like them fawning over fred thompson even though he’s a hollywood type (although really a lobbyist for almost two decades).
May 8th, 2007 at 11:05 amWomen also took to the streets to protest the sweeping nationwide crackdown under the pretext of “mal-veiling.†University students in Tehran and elsewhere also held rallies and demonstrations to vent their anger at the regime’s repressive policies.
Comment by Patrick1 — May 8, 2007 @ 10:45 am
Why is this bad news for the left?
May 8th, 2007 at 11:05 amIt was sarcasm monkeyboy but I agree, there have been many great generals in history that ended up on the losing side.
Maybe successful wasn’t the best adjective to describe the Grand Wizard.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:06 am#59 monkeyboy
Lee wasn’t as great as he is made out to be. The only reason he came off so well is because he was on defense for most of the war. The moment he went on offense (Gettysburg) he made the same mistake his opponents did and made a direct assault. Grant on the other hand realized early on what tactics were needed to win the war, and that is why he was so effective. Of course, if Grant had not been put in command, it would have been likely that the Generals would have continued to use the same old outdated napoleonic tactics and lost.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:07 amComment by Ashen Shard:
Why oh why does anyone support/celebrate the Confederacy and Confederates? They were all a bunch of traitors to our country! This leaves one to question whether or not those who celebrate the Confederacy are also traitors, does it not?
Uh, no….it’s historical context. I’m a history buff and can appreciate that the world we live in today is not the world of 1840-1860. People had different ideas about the identity of the country. It was more of a organization of independent states, with the federal government basically there to facilitate trade, etc. The civil war MADE the U.S. what it is today. Do you consider George Washington a traitor to his country, or a man who fought for independence?
May 8th, 2007 at 11:07 amIt’s not bad news for the “left”, it’s bad news for the right…..
May 8th, 2007 at 11:08 amOne less target for the conflict capitalist chainee/bush regime.
Forrest Gump was named after Nathan Bedford if anyone cares.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:09 amactually confederate generals had a much greater rate of success than their northern counterparts in the civil war. the north just had a much better economy and industrial base. and a larger army. and having lincoln didn’t hurt. but most northern generals, excluding grant and sherman, were not very successful at all.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:09 amI see that Patrick-dumber-than-a-rock is back in action. I don’t know whether Zawahiri agrees with Reid or not about the war. True of not it doesn’t make Reid wrong, however. But in Patrick’s illogical mind this conclusion somehow constitutes critical thinking. This is Bush thinking at its finest: purely oppositional. Patrick, have you ever considered the possibility that Zawahiri is exploiting this very weakness in Bush’s thinking?
May 8th, 2007 at 11:10 amPoe is a dork! He doesn’t even make sense. I don’t care if Forrest started the KKK and then backed away from the KKK or not. Poe should never have used that name on the House floor. But then Republicans can say and do as they please in Congress. They take the lead from Cheney who even cusses out those that disagree with him.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:13 am72. Successful is a relative term. George Washington was not very successful as a General but his service to our country was instrumental in our country’s early success.
The top tier military minds of the day during the civil war were on the South but for all their ability they were not successful in acheiving their goal.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:16 amWomen also took to the streets to protest the sweeping nationwide crackdown under the pretext of “mal-veiling.†University students in Tehran and elsewhere also held rallies and demonstrations to vent their anger at the regime’s repressive policies.
Comment by Patrick1 — May 8, 2007 @ 10:45 am
Why is this bad news for the left?
Comment by Shane
I doubt if Patsy0 knows or can explain that. It’s just that he wasn’t getting any attention with his thrice-made Harry Reid comments, you see.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:16 amRep. Poe has a pre-1865 mind set.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:16 amnot that i don’t think poe is an idiot, but the basic premise of this post is wrong because the same lack of research done by poe has also not been done by thinkprogress here. and it’s being done merely to score a cheap political point.
the implication is that poe is quoting a racist. well historical context shows that he’s not. so while overall it’s still a dumb thing to do, thinkprogress is furthering a non-truth to score a political point. it’s disingenuous and plays to ignorance rather than truth.
please stick to facts and at least provide complete historical context, tp. when you don’t, you’re no better than the rightwingers you oppose.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:19 amdip your own millions Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) and help then you twat …… Is this guy for real
Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) LAST STAND
May 8th, 2007 at 11:21 am#69 monkeyboy
I’m a history masters student, so I’ve read a few books on the issue of the Confederacy. The image of the Confederacy we have today was created after the Civil War, mainly by the former Confederates trying to recast themselves as patriots rather than traitors. By law then, and by law now, they all committed an act of treason against the United States of America by attacking our country.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:21 amWashington, along with all the other American rebels, were traitors to the British Empire. But you cannot equate the Confederacy to them since at that point we were only colonies enslaved, if you will, to a British government that refused to give us representation as full citizens of the Empire. The confederates seceded because the North was not going to be bullied by them anymore. The Confederacy tried to legitimate itself by casting itself as the true heir to the ideals of the Revolution, forget the fact that they wished to preserve an immoral institution.
#68 Comment by Ashen Shard
Lee was an Engineer and his fortifications and understanding of defensive structures did earn him many accolades. But he was also a brilliant tactician and more importantly, a leader of men. Being a truly great general is more than maneuvers and victories. Grant threw multitudes of men to slaughter against Lee’s defenses because he knew he could win a war of attrition. That doesn’t make him a great general, just a victorious one.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:26 amThe ability of the generals is not always enough to overcome significant material advantages. Rommel was on the losing side but was a masterful tank commander, Robert E. Lee was probably the greatest general ever produced by the U.S., but he was also on the losing end. Even Napoleon had his Waterloo.
Comment by monkeyboy
Notice how he sidesteps one of america’s truly great generals to make his mistaken point?
Rommel was defeated by Patton, was he not? I think in an evenly matched battle, Patton would have beaten Lee, in short order.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:33 am#80 Comment by Ashen Shard
I’m a history masters student, so I’ve read a few books on the issue of the Confederacy. The image of the Confederacy we have today was created after the Civil War, mainly by the former Confederates trying to recast themselves as patriots rather than traitors. By law then, and by law now, they all committed an act of treason against the United States of America by attacking our country.
As a history student, you should understand that history is written by the winners, mythology by the losers, and the truth lies somewhere in between.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:34 amI don’t know if I’d call Forrest ’successful’, but it is true that the losing side can have great generals. Lee is widely considered one of the best generals in history. His tactics are why it took the north a number of years to finally mount successful advances into the south despite huge economic advantages.
This is from a liberal who was never anything close to a confederate sympathizer.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:35 amlet them keep it up. These ignorant Rethugs are the gift that doesn’t stop givin’
They will lose in 2008, they will lose always…..
May 8th, 2007 at 11:35 am#81 monkeyboy
Lee only became seen as the great general in the South because he was the only one actually winning battles. In the West and in the South, the Confederacy met defeat after defeat. McClellan was a leader of men, they all loved him, but like Lee he was stuck in using Napoleonic tactics.
Actually, rather than continuing to argue, I have a few book recommendations for you.
South vs. the South by William Freehling. He discusses a bit on Grants early use of the tactics that would win the war, and also a bit on why Lee actually became a Hero of the South.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:36 amGhosts of the Confederacy by Gaines M. Foster. In part looks at the mythology developed around the Confederacy. Both very good reads.
#3 why do you believe that?
May 8th, 2007 at 11:37 am#10 Ft Pillow LA Forrest slaughtered 200 wounded black soldiers and their unarmed caregivers who had to be left behind when American troops were forced to withdraw.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:40 am#83 monkeyboy
Actually, what is interesting about the Civil War, is that the popular history has been predominantly written by the losers. This was more, I think, due to the benevolent treatment of the south by the Union. The victors had every right to put all the major players in the Confederacy to death for treason. Not only did they not do that, but they allowed them to eventually take part in government, which is was unfortunate since that led directly to Jim Crow.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:40 am#82 barfly
Sidestep!?! I was talking about losing generals, which Patton was not. Also, I prefaced my comment with the fact that you can’t always overcome material advantages. Germany was saddled with huge fuel problems and an insane leader. Patton was one of the greatest generals of all time and he had the enigma codebreakers on his side to provide Rommel’s movements. Material advantages barfly, a crucial asset that can’t be denied.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:41 amAlso, are you talking Patton’s mechanized battalions against Lee’s footsoldiers and horse calvary? Then of course Lee would be decimated, but tactical mind versus tactical mind? I wouldn’t be as sure of your prediction.
Patrick1, stop being so narcissistic! Bragging ’bout your IQ in your handle is just- rude.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:41 amYour all mising a BIGGER point! Congress DID fund the troops! Bush VETOED the funding! Don’t let another biggoted liar re-write history by getting you so angry about his being a biggot that you forget what really happened with the funds for the troops! BUSH VETOED THE FUNDS, not congress!
May 8th, 2007 at 11:42 am#68 - Lee’s strength was that he DID take the offensive against the north. Lee managed to keep the northern army focused on their actions and left them largely incapable of making any advances towards the south.
Gettysburg is well north of the Mason-Dixon line. I agree that the attack on Gettysburg was an overconfident blunder. If he would’ve backed off he could’ve ravaged much of Pennsylvania with little opposition. All the while the north was becoming very upset with this war that wasn’t winning at all.
Despite how it is portrayed, Gettysburg was little more than a DEFENSIVE stop to a very effective OFFENSIVE campaign of the South.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:44 amI thought sure the punchline to this post was going to be Sen. Robert Byrd.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:44 amGrant threw multitudes of men to slaughter against Lee’s defenses because he knew he could win a war of attrition. That doesn’t make him a great general, just a victorious one.
Comment by monkeyboy — May 8, 2007 @ 11:26 am
Sounds like what Iraq is doing to the U.S.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:47 am#86 Ashen Shard
Lee was considered a great general before the Civil War. He excelled in the Mexican War and was seen as rising star in the military. He was even offered the command of the Northern Armies before Virginia seceded from the Union and he resigned his U.S. commission. Its not a skewed Southern perspective that makes Lee great, its historical fact. West Point still refers to Lee as one of the greatest tacticians in military history.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:48 amMcclellan was loved by his men, and he loved them, but he was not a great general because he would not commit to movements against an inferior force. Lee said that you must be willing to destroy the thing you hold most dear, your men. Like Sherman said, war truly is Hell.
#94
May 8th, 2007 at 11:50 amJeez! The trolls here this morning are really lacking in originality! Yet another comment about something in the past long ago renounced by Senator Byrd! How many more can we expect?
96 - McLellan was truly pathetic. He did nothing. I understand about the horrors of war. But if you’re going to win a military fight then you have to be willing to fight. McLellan was NOT willing to fight. That was what let Lee free to do things like go attack Pennsylvania and take the war NORTH.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:54 amPoe couldn’t even get the quote right. Forest might have been a classical racist, but he was not backwater boob. The correct quote is “Get their first with the most men”.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:55 am#96 monkeyboy
he wasn’t a general before the Civil War, the highest rank he reached was colonel.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:55 amThe statue to Forrest in Memphis, picketed each year by African American leaders, is dedicated to the military genius of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest raised his own money and went to battle himself with men he paid and armed. Perhaps this Congressman should follow Forrest’s example and head off to Iraq with a bunch of his pals, arm them, and work to effect change in that pesky little splendid war he claims to support. Forrest quit the KKK when it got too violent, and his military genius is beyond dispute, even though he was a slave trader.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:56 amDemocrat Robert Byrd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd) started his political career in the KKK. He is now the longest-serving senator in American history.
Among his accomplishments:
May 8th, 2007 at 11:59 am- Elected KKK Exalted Cyclops
- KKK Kleagle
- Filibuster of 1964 Civil Rights Act
- Refusal to serve in the integrated armed forces
- Admonished youth against the KKK because it would “inhibit your operations in the political arena”
Your missing the point! Poe is saying congress hasn’t funded the troops, but that is not true! Congress DID fund the troops, but BUSH VETOED the funds! Don’t get so wrapped up in the words of a biggot that you forget the point of the whole conversation. He is making the false claim that congress didn’t fund the troops, and he is just trying too make you forget what really happened with the funds!
May 8th, 2007 at 12:00 pm#100 Ashen Shard
May 8th, 2007 at 12:03 pmYeah, I remembered that right after I posted that comment. I felt like horse’s behind. He was however offered a commanding role in the federal armies, which would have included a General’s rank.
Here’s Poe’s number. Give him a call and tell him what you think…
DC Phone: 202-225-6565
May 8th, 2007 at 12:10 pmDennis, nobody is missing the point. Poe is trying to get Congress tp “play ball” and roll over for Bush by allocating funds without setting a time table for troop withdrawal.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:10 pmGeez, the level of ignorance of military history being displayed here is breathtaking. TAPPERS should be very careful about drawing analogies with military history they don’t understand.
For example, arguing that Lee screwed up “the moment he was on offence” at Gettysburg is, quite frankly, stupid.
Lee was a master of offensive maneuver.
He chased the Federals all the way to Yorktown by flanking and hammering them again and again during the peninsular campaign of 1862 - his first major series of engagements as the commander of the ANV.
And Gettysburg was not his first offensive setback. Look at Malvern Hill - where Lee attacked federal fortifications and was repulsed, probably more decisively than he was at Gettysburg. (Yes, Lee did pierce the Federal line at Gettysburg. Meade just had enough tactical reserves to plug the gap, where Lee could not reinforce the breach over a mile of open ground. Lee should have anticipated this, yes.)
Lee crushed the Yankees by outmaneuvering him at 2nd Bull Run, and most famously at Chancellorsville - a battle still studied by officers today as the “Gold Standard” of offensive operations and the exploitation of interior lines in military history.
He kicked Grant’s ass at the Wilderness, in 1864. The only thing that saved Grant from being routed was the onset of darkness - and Grant’s indominable will. Grant lined up the Army the next day, and instead of marching back north, the orders came to march south, toward Richmond. The Army cheered. Not that today’s crop of congressional cowards would know much about that.
To say that Grant was an inept maneuver warrior is simply ignorant as well. Grant’s Vicksburg campaign was bold and brilliant. And he singlehandedly saved the army at Chattanooga through some very skilled maneuver against tough odds.
Forrest was probably the finest maneuver warrior this country has ever produced at the division level. Ever. He’s the undisputed king of cavalry operations in U.S. history. Nobody even comes close. His delay operations during the retrograde operation from Nashville in December/January 1864-65 is again still studied today as a model for analysis.
Even with Fort Pillow - which Forrest bears some responsibility for - Soldiers under his command also murdered a lot fewer people than Sheridan-the closest runner up in the cavalry officer derby.
Ashen Shard, your posts are writing checks your fund of information can’t cash.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:13 pm102. You are correct Dennis. Also keep in mind that it’s not a “war” and the term has been abused and missused to push an idea without the legal backing. The Iraq conflict is continuing because of the vague Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. It gives the president power to fight the shadowy Al Qiada but it doesn’t give benchmarks or real goals.
This is what has given the president the power to have supplemental spending for the last 5 years. It’s what has given him an unending enemy because there are no real parameters.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:15 pmI’m glad too see someone got it Lily, but if you read everyone elses comments, you will see they are all wrapped up in the biggoted commentary, and completely missing the point that both you, and I are seeing!
May 8th, 2007 at 12:16 pmmonkeyboy: “Forrest WAS a slaveowner and slave trader, but he renounced all those activities and urged Southerners to make peace with the Union and for everyone to live in harmony after the war. To villify Forrest without all the facts, and without the perspective of historical context, does a disservice to other men of equal ignominy, like Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln.”
OK, I’ve got at least two major problems with this apologist line of thinking:
1. You’re comparing a profound traitor to the United States to Jefferson, Washington and Lincoln.
2. You and your fellow conservatives post this kind of thing at the same time you make snarky comments about Robert Byrd, who publically apologized for his affiliation with the KKK decades ago. You simply can’t so easily defend an actual member of the confederacy, the most traitorous organization in our nation’s history, and a former grand wizard of the KKK, and then turn around and criticize Robert Byrd. That’s just crazy.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:21 pmAshen Shard: “Actually, what is interesting about the Civil War, is that the popular history has been predominantly written by the losers. This was more, I think, due to the benevolent treatment of the south by the Union. The victors had every right to put all the major players in the Confederacy to death for treason.”
Good point. IMO, they all should have been hung for treason. They terrorized our country like no terrorist group before or since. They killed more Americans than the Nazis and Japanese put together. It’s sickening to me that people idolize them. Disgusting. Al Qaeda couldn’t do as much damage to our country on their best day.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:28 pm#108 Bluedog49
Sir, I am by NO means a conservative. I bristle at the mention of it. I’m a liberal Democrat through and through, and member of the ACLU. I am proud of the fact that I can put things in perspective and understand historical contaxt of people’s actions.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:33 pmMy comment about Jefferson, & Washington was referencing the fact they both owned slaves, and the Licoln reference was to some of the quotes from him during the Lincoln-Douglas debates about blacks. The truth is not black & white, its almost always a shade of gray.
Where did I disparage Robert Byrd? That would go completely against what i have been saying. Where did I disparage anyone? I have simply pointed out that there is usually more to the story than what 99% of us have heard.
I can not believe how many of you are falling right into the trap Poe set! The only reason he made the biggoted comments he made were too fool you into forgeting the subject at hand, Iraq war funding! I guess he was right too think people are dumb enough too fall into the trap of arguing about the bigotry, and forgetting that the core of what he was saying was that the congress, and by that he was talking about the democrats in congress, have not funded the troops, but that is a blatent lie! Congress funded the troops, and Bush made the CHOICE too VETO those funds! We all know he is a bigot, but that is not the point! The point is his attempt too fool you into believeing democrats don’t care about the troops, and they won’t fund them, and that is just plain FALSE!
May 8th, 2007 at 12:34 pmThis is stupid and REACHING. I dislike the publicans as much as the next, but this is just lame.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:34 pmAnd, they tried to destroy our country for the most despicable and disgusting reason: they needed to defend a slave-based economy. Confederates are simply the worst thing that ever happened to our country. They are, to our country, as Nazis are to Germany - a disgrace which is extremely hard to live down.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:36 pmEasy Dennis. Everyone here who is not a right-wing troll understands that congress funded the troops and Bush vetoed the funding. We’ve discussed it until we’re blue in the face.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:38 pmmonkeyboy: “Where did I disparage anyone?”
I could argue that you disparage Jefferson, Washington and Lincoln by comparing them to a Grand Wizard, but I get your point.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:40 pmReally Bluedog, because that is what Poe was talking about, but of all the comments made, only 3 of us even mentioned it! Stop worrying about the Civil War, and start worrying about what’s going on in the present!
May 8th, 2007 at 12:50 pmwhoa there, bluedog, ease off the reins a bit. most “confederates” were not traitors or aristocrats (or even slave owners), but simple farmers and ranchers (many not even landowners) who were unhappy that the northern armies were attacking them.
when asked why they were fighting by northern soldiers, they were as likely to say, “because you’re down here.”
there was a political reality to the civil war, and there was a local and regional reality. most confederate soldiers didn’t understand the full reasons behind the war, but did understand that northern soldiers were attacking, burning crops and destroying property.
that’s normally what creates insurgencies. so just as you would defend your home from attackers, so did many of these dastardly confederates you disparage.
as has been mentioned previously, it’s not all black and white.
and the point about facts and historical context is large: we do not want to become anything like the right wing noise machine — i.e., get the talking points out, facts be damned.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:52 pmThe bottom line here is that repubs are still obstructing the will of the American people. Democrats are trying to fashion a legislative way to bring troops home. Repubs are fighting this.
21 Repub senators will be up for reelection next year as opposed to only 9 Dems. Current prognosticators see Dems picking up another 9 to 15 more seats in the House. If we’re lucky, after the next election, Repubs will have no power to obstruct legislation and no power to veto legislation. Then, in addition to getting out of Iraq, we get universal healthcare, stem cell funding, environmental protection, renewable energy legislation, more funding for education, windfall profits taxes, cheaper pharmaceuticals and a coherent foreign policy.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:56 pmEven a casual student of the American Civil War would acknowledge Forrest’s knack for guerrilla warfare. The future Grand Wizard’s abhorrent politics and criminal actions would speak for themselves, but further quoting one of history’s most zealous partisan butchers related to a protracted civil conflict is highly ironic.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:57 pmLonsome: “whoa there, bluedog, ease off the reins a bit. most “confederates†were not traitors or aristocrats (or even slave owners), but simple farmers and ranchers (many not even landowners) who were unhappy that the northern armies were attacking them.
when asked why they were fighting by northern soldiers, they were as likely to say, “because you’re down here.—
And, you even end your post with “facts be damned.”
May I suggest you reopen your history books — the south attacked the north. Not the other way around. Gettysburg was fought in Union territory. And, please. “Most confederates were not traitors or aristocrats???!!!”
Hey, most of the guys fighting in Iraq are not oil executives either. Does that mean to you that we’re not fighting for oil???
May 8th, 2007 at 1:01 pmwouldn’t supporting the troops mean bringing them home as opposed to insisting they stay in that deathtrap of a country?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:04 pmBluedog49:
{{{the south attacked the north. Not the other way around. Gettysburg was fought in Union territory.}}}
Gettysburg was two years into the war, dude.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:08 pmthe first shots of the civil war were fired in charleston harbor, south carolina. that’s the south. the first battle of the civil war was fought in manassas, virginia, bluedog. that’s southern territory. gettysburg was the first time the main confederate army strayed from confederate territory (and not until 1864, the fourth year of the war), and the reason was to draw the union armies away from richmond, the southern capital.
the point, which you obviously missed, is just as there is an insurgency in iraq that is being mostly fueled by our being over there, the majority of confederate soldiers were fighting the north because they were “down here”.
it’s a natural tendency of humans to want to defend their homes. that’s neither traitorous nor dishonorable.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:13 pmAgreed wholeheartedly with comments from raynman!
Don’t remind people of the losing cause.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:14 pmcorrection, gettysburg in 1863, the third year of the war. apologies to those who are paying attention.
methinks the delay in tp’s posting causes many of us to try and post faster than we can fact check.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:18 pmGet there firstest with the mostest? Anyone who has read Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” or “Book of the Five Rings” or even someone who has played Go would know that being first and having the most never guarantee victory, and many have fallen relying on this premise due to arrogance. We don’t need this crap in our cultural meme
May 8th, 2007 at 1:18 pmGuys, guys, the confederates ATTACKED fort Sumter. Before they attacked Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, they tried to break up the union by suceeding. The confederates started the war. What in the hell are you all talking about? They killed a bunch of American soldiers and then began a long attack on the north.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:20 pm“it’s a natural tendency of humans to want to defend their homes. that’s neither traitorous nor dishonorable.”
That’s a fairly broad apology. It justifies many actions which I don’t believe you’d be comfortable defending.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:22 pmAnd, are you confederate apologists suggesting that we should have let the South form its own country? Every legitimate historian who isn’t trying to apologize for the confederacy knows that if the confederacy would have been allowed to live, it would have eventually attacked the north anyway. The reason: the north would have undermined their slave economy by offering free haven to slaves.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:25 pmlonesomerobot,
The Confederates attacked us first. Ever hear of Fort Sumter? The only reason Union soldiers were down in the South was to end the war and preserve the Union. The South was the aggressor, not the Union. And if the people of the South had rejected the Confederacy rather than joining up with the Confederate army, then they would not have experienced the burning and the pillaging. The South brought the wrath of the Union army on itself by committing treason, being the aggressor, and starting the war. The Union army would not have been down in the South in the first place if they had not seceded.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:27 pmWas he talking about Robert Byrd?
“Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
May 8th, 2007 at 1:31 pmWhy is this guy saying MISTER speaker?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:32 pmlonesome: “the first shots of the civil war were fired in charleston harbor, south carolina. that’s the south. the first battle of the civil war was fought in manassas, virginia, bluedog. that’s southern territory.”
Number one, those “first shots” were fired by confederates. Number two, the first thing they did after taking Fort Sumter and slaughtering the Union troops was advance on Washington DC. Yes, this happened in Virginia, which was technically the south, but look at the map. They advanced north of DC during the very first year.
But, my larger question is always, where did you guys get the idea that the confederacy was something to be proud of, something to defend?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:33 pmSorry, your wrong on this one. I can’t stand Ted Poe and Forrest was a slave trading racist before the war, but there is substancial evidence that he started the Klan as a way of continuing the fight, not as a way to intimidate blacks. He left it when it lost its’ original purpose.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:34 pm#97
Ok, fine. Since renouncing has past makes it all better, I suggest that President Bush renounces the Iraq war in the year 2020 or so.
That should make you a supporter.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:34 pmyes, bluedog, their “long attack on the north” was fought almost entirely in the south. that’s an interesting analysis of the civil war you make there.
take this ironic quote from abe lincoln:
you act like the south just decided one day “we’re tired of the north” and started shooting at federal warships. the process leading up to secession was long and is well-documented, historically. the three-fifths rule in the constitution, the compromise of 1850, john brown’s raid in kansas. this was a slow and long-building animosity that was never attended to.
it’s not like one day the entire south decided to commit treason. you’re oversimplifying things vastly.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:40 pmm12: “Since renouncing has past makes it all better, I suggest that President Bush renounces the Iraq war in the year 2020 or so.”
Is he going to issue this apology from jail or from his “ranch” in Paraquay?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:42 pmRobert Byrd - Democrat, KKK Member
from Wikipedia:
Participation in the Ku Klux Klan
In 1942 24 year-old Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan, which he had seen holding parades in Matoaka, West Virginia, as a child. His father had also been a Klan member.[2] Byrd was unanimously elected to be the leader, known as the Exalted Cyclops, of his local chapter.[3]
May 8th, 2007 at 1:46 pm#136
Well, Byrd issued his apology from the US Senate. Perhaps Bush might as well.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:51 pmThey like to qoute Al Qeada and the KKK… and their leader (the greatest among them) is George Bush…
Talking about having mental problems….
May 8th, 2007 at 1:51 pmtriple Kool.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:51 pmComment by jamest
Still living in the past, eh, you senile old fart?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:52 pmBedford:
He was renowned for a terrifying temper that transformed him into something resembling a blood-engorged beast. He personally shot his own men if they tried to shirk a battle. He was given to duels and furious arguments, oversaw savage whippings of recalcitrant slaves, shaded the truth in his own behalf repeatedly, and once wrongly shot innocent “deserters.”
The severest of the criticism of Forrest — subjects studiously avoided by today’s neo-Confederate activists — centers on three indisputable facts:
* Forrest was a Memphis slave trader who acquired fabulous wealth before the war;
* He commanded the troops who carried out an 1864 massacre of mostly black prisoners; and
* He led violent resistance to Reconstruction as the first grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
As Hurst points out, friendly Forrest biographers have attempted to describe him as a kindly slave trader, a man who cared for his charges and always avoided separating families.
But a Civil War newspaper account described whippings in which four slaves held the victim stretched out in the air while Forrest personally administered the bullwhip. Women were allegedly stripped naked and whipped with a leather thong dipped in salt water.
Such accounts were later backed up by former slaves who described terrifying brutality and the break-up of their families.
Forrest despised blacks who fought for the Union, and was accused by one Union general of personally shooting a captured free mulatto who was a servant of a Federal officer. A Confederate cavalryman once recounted how Forrest “cussed [him] out” for failing to execute a captured black Union soldier.
But it was the slaughter of Union forces at Fort Pillow, Tenn., that was the most damning episode of all.
After surrounding the fort, Forrest demanded surrender from the 580 men within or, he said, “I cannot be responsible for the fate of your command.”
While this demand was being negotiated under the white flag, Forrest illegally improved his position, according to later Union allegations. In any event, the Union commander refused to surrender, and soon Forrest’s men were pouring over the ramparts.
“The slaughter was awful,” a Confederate sergeant later wrote his family. “I with several others tried to stop the butchery and at one time partially succeeded, but Gen. Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs, and the carnage continued.”
There were numerous similar accounts from Union soldiers, several of whom said they heard Confederate officers saying Forrest had ordered them to “kill the last God damn one of them…
…After the war, Forrest returned to Memphis. He quickly became associated with hard-line resistance to Reconstruction and, secretly, he became the first leader of the national Ku Klux Klan.
Although he repeatedly denied membership — even lying to Congress — Forrest in fact led the Klan through one of its most violent and successful periods, when robed terrorists succeeded in rolling back Reconstruction. He even told one newspaper reporter that while he was no member, he “intend[ed]” to kill radical Republicans. He added that he could raise 40,000 men in four days.
Forrest sympathizers have long claimed that he disbanded the Klan when it became violent. In fact, it had been extremely violent for years under Forrest, and was only disbanded when its work was essentially done — blacks and Republicans had been terrified into not voting — and when it came under intense criticism.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:59 pm>>The purpose of the Confederacy was to maintain the institution of slavery. It is something every freedom loving person should be ashamed of.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:01 pmA successful confederate general?
May 8th, 2007 at 2:02 pmThe Same schmucks, poor white losers, that fought for a slave raping aristocracy, their great great great grandchildren vote republican today.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:05 pmWow, I came across this from Digg. As someone that is neither Democrat nor Republican, it’s disheartening to see such hatred you guys have towards someone else of different political beliefs. Do you not realize the whole “red state/blue state” garbage is a)nonsense and b)dividing this country further?
And have you all forgotten that the KKK was started to oppose Reconstruction and that few Northerners, especially at the start of the war, were abolitionists? Most opposed the spread of slavery because they felt it may hurt them economically, not because of some moral high ground. It really seems like a lot of you have a rather broke understanding of history.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:05 pm“where did you guys get the idea that the confederacy was something to be proud of, something to defend?”
i think most of us with southern roots understand that the civil war was about more than slavery. first, full disclosure - my southern forbears were not slave owners nor were they aristocrats. pretty much just plain southern folk.
simple point in fact: today’s federal government steamrolls over states that pass laws that are relevant to people in that state. sure, slavery is a horrible example of the need for state’s rights, but medical marijuana is not, nor is assisted suicide. the federal government regularly harrassess, and often imprisons people with terminal illnesses because they choose to seek relief from their illnesses.
the south losing the civil war has led directly to a federal government that ignores the wishes of local referenda in favor of often draconian federal dictates. several states have passed laws allowing some form of medicinal marijuana use, and they have been told absolutely not by the federal government. oregon fought the government for years over its assisted suicide law.
my question is this: when the majority of people in a state pass a referendum, why does the federal government get to come in and say NO?
it goes back to the civil war.
personally, i believe the south could never have won the war. but if they had, the lack of southern heavy industry like the north possessed would have relegated it to a status not much unlike mexico has today - agriculture and cheap labor. the north would have eventually defeated the south economically, which would have led to some sort of reconciliation, albeit much later.
and who knows what that would’ve meant to the goliath that is today’s federal government.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:14 pm#148 MP
I do not think anyone here has stated that the North went into the war to free the slaves. In fact, a lot of the conversation has been focused on the fact that by seceding and attacking Union forces meant the Confederacy had committed an act of treason and that it is ironic that those calling others who do not support this president traitors are quoting, and even celebrate the treason of the Confederacy.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:14 pmYes, the KKK was formed to oppose Reconstruction, but they primarily opposed racial integration and participation in the political process. Their most heinous crimes of intimidation were committed against African Americans and those that supported equality.
Also, the reason the North became opposed to slavery was not because it would hurt them economically, but because the South attempted to coerce all Northerners into becoming a police force to return runaway slaves (fugitive slave law).
#144 Steve
Forrest was acquitted of any wrongdoing in the Fort Pillow battle following an investigation by Union General William T. Sherman.
Again, the “facts” of the case which you pasted above just may not be the historical truth of the matter, but rather hyperbole generated during a time of war to demonize the enemy. Much like the “facts” of Saddam’s ties to Al Quaida/9-11 which were bandied about in 2003.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:15 pmAre you people ignorant? ( Note: haven’t read all comments but one right above seems to have some knowledge)This is what Wikipedia says about him:
“Forrest, disagreeing with its increasingly violent tactics, ordered the Klan to disband, stating that it was “being perverted from its original honorable and patriotic purposes, becoming injurious instead of subservient to the public peace.” Many of its groups in other parts of the country ignored the order and continued to function. Subsequently, Forrest distanced himself from the KKK.”
Forrest was associated with the clan to control White carpetbaggers.
Here also: “On July 5, 1875, Forrest became the first white man to speak t