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.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
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 to Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association, a civil rights group whose members were former slaves and a precursor to the NAACP. Although his speech was short, he expressed the opinion that blacks had the right to vote for any candidates they wanted and that the role of blacks should be elevated. He ended the speech by kissing the cheek of one of the daughters of one of the Pole-Bearer members.[1][2]“
May 8th, 2007 at 2:15 pmresponse to 148.
I think we can all agreee that we all hurt from the country being divided in a time of war. However, a whitewashing of the history of the kkk really doesn’t seem a genuine place to start to heal the rift. sure, the nature of the kkk “evolved,” but where it started, where it went, and where it is now sure ain’t anything to be proud of. Neither is Mr Forrest’s legacy. Neither is wherever you might be going with this line of thought.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:19 pmwho cares anyways?
May 8th, 2007 at 2:20 pmHA…he not only quoted the founder of the KKK but he quoted a General from the losing side in a war.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:22 pmThe KKK had nothing to do with racism back then. Learn history please you race baiting morons.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:26 pmI stand by my original point: the confederacy was the worst thing that ever happened to our country and anyone defending it should be ashamed of himself — that is if he sees himself as a patriotic American.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:29 pmAmazing. A poster refers to us as “race baiting morons” as he defends the KKK.
We live in interesting times.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:31 pmI think we can leave the name-calling at the door everybody. Let’s have a civil conversation instead of going all “O’Reilly” on everyone we disagree with.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:31 pmin all seriousness- (and please excuse the comment hijack) what the hell is with the need to defend the origins of the kkk? ever ask yourself that question?
May 8th, 2007 at 2:32 pmYou’re right, the KKK wasn’t about racism back then … only about white supremacy.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:33 pm#157
Thats the beauty of opinions, we can all have a different one. Besides, I haven’t seen anyone actually “defending” the confederacy insomuch as understanding the historical context.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:35 pmNB Forrest was not a “traitorâ€. Lincoln was and is the traitor to the Constitution. The South was fighting to uphold that document agaisnt all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. The South lost the war and with their defeat we lost our Constitution.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:35 pmwow, just… wow.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:37 pmWell, we could ask about the juxtaposition of the modern roles of the Democratic and Republican parties and their platforms since 1860, that would be a starting point to discussing the changing voice of an institution and its members.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:37 pmthe other thing to add is that i don’t secretly wish the south had won the war. far from it. but i do realize we lost something as a country because of it – next time you live in a state that has a referendum that is effectively nullified by the federal government, you might, also.
the thing that gets me about this debate is the implication here is that all southerners at the time were racists, traitors and are worthy of scorn (and some people here are implying that about current southerners).
simply not the case, unfair, and vastly oversimplifies a very complex situation that had been building since before our forefathers added the three-fifths clause into the constitution.
so sure, the first shots were fired by the south at charleston. but the secession and events that led up to it didn’t happen overnight.
so i’ll repeat: 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 hereâ€.
it’s a natural tendency of humans to want to defend their homes. that’s neither traitorous nor dishonorable.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:39 pm#157
There it is, #163 is actually defending the confederacy. In 2007 I wouldn’t go that far, but he makes a valid point the United States as it exists today (good and bad) would probably not exist if the civil war hadn’t occurred.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:40 pm#163 Jim West
Um…. The South didn’t care about the constitution … if it did, it would not have seceded. The actions Lincoln took were only in response to the secession and aggression of the Confederacy.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:41 pmAlso, the South didn’t give a damn about states rights. They did all they could to force the North to be complicit in slavery, hence the Fugitive Slave Law. The South only seceded because the Whigs, a party that had been split, were destroyed and replaced by the Republicans who were willing to represent the views of the North rather than giving in to the demands of the South. The south seceded because they lost control of the federal government, they couldn’t stand being rejected by our democratic system.
The point is really that Think progress is being so childish as well as illogical in even posting such a piece.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:43 pmIt’s critique of the General does not relate to the issue the represenative spoke on. The General in question was a damn good General. That is why he was cited, not for his diet, or 10 million other things.
The misquote allegation is also petty, since the quote was manufactured in 1919, and does seem to be reasonably expressive of the General’s tactics.
Think Progress critique and many commenters here are the equivalent of dismissing Matin Luther King’s work because he was an adulterer!
Jim West: “NB Forrest was not a “traitorâ€. Lincoln was and is the traitor to the Constitution.”
There you go folks.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:45 pm“The South” in all it’s glory. If you want to know why a lot of people from the South make me sick, Jim West spells it out perfectly.
well, bluedog, i’m not ashamed of myself for trying to present an accurate view of most southerners’ involvement in the civil war. only 2% of southerners were slave owners. most of the rest just wanted the northern armies off their land.
i choose not to try and defend either the confederacy itself or the southern aristrocracy, but to define an entire group of people as treasonous based on where they lived at a certain point in history is prejudiced in and of itself.
that, i find ironic.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:45 pmSo many comments, so little time…
“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.”
But it’s an uncomfortable point, isn’t it? You support a known Klansman because he’s a Democrat, yet chastise a Republican as a racist for merely quoting one. A little disingenious, isn’t it? He apologized, so I guess it’s all okay now. Imus apologized, too, so would it be okay for him to go back to work now? Or not?
“Congress funded the troops, and Bush made the CHOICE too VETO those funds!”
A choice because Congress attempted to overstep their authority and legislate themselves a seat at the Pentagon. If those you favor in Congress wants to bring the boys home, then let them have the balls to do it and just stop funding them. Otherwise, authorize the funds. As it stands, too many are gutless cowards that want to “support the troops” as long as they can claim credit for success, or pass the buck for defeat. As it stands, they don’t have the votes to totally block funding, and they know it, or else they would have.
“Anyone who has read Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War ”
True, having the mostest doesn’t assure victory. However, I wouldn’t bet the farm on “We Are Sparta” as a primary offensive strategy, either. The forces they are against are essentially brainwashed and extremely willing to die for their cause, a concept many Westerners really don’t understand. You can’t negotiate with someone who’s willing to die on the chance he can kill you and your family.
And the people that are most vocal about getting the US out of Iraq (i.e. Iran, Al Quaeda, et. al.) share one important fact – they are not Iraqi’s. They are not speaking on Iraq’s best interests, but their own.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:47 pm#168
if the South didn’t give a damn about state’s rights, pleae explain how a man born in South Carolina in 1831 and went on to become a Confederate general, was NAMED States Rights Gist? He was born thirty years before the civil war and was named for states rights….coincidence?
May 8th, 2007 at 2:50 pmMy ancestors fought in the Confederacy, I was born in the South, grew up in the North, attended a Southern University and I reside in the South. Having exprerienced and studied both “worlds” I get very upset when Northerners assume moral superiority over Southerners because of slavery and the Civil War and I get very upset when Southerners wrap themselves in a bullshit whitewashed mythology about their history. Mr Poe’s reference to Forrest is not helpful in uniting the country. This kind of coded reference is not any different than the kind of racial politics that george “Macaca” Allen engaged in before he got caught being a little too blunt on Youtube. And this argument is a testiment to the passions he has riled up in an attempted diversion to the serious issues facing our people and president.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:52 pmjob: “And the people that are most vocal about getting the US out of Iraq (i.e. Iran, Al Quaeda, et. al.) share one important fact – they are not Iraqi’s. They are not speaking on Iraq’s best interests, but their own.”
Evidently you’ve chosen to ignore EVERY SINGLE POLL CONDUCTED IN IRAQ over the last year which shows that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us out of the country.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:56 pmYet again another insipid statement from an insipid congressman. I guess if Mr. Poe were alive during that fateful Civil War era, we know which side he would have been on. Incredible that we are still fighting that war nearly 150 years later! In reality the southern so called “cause” was treason as it really did want to dissolve the Union. Sometimes I wonder what it would have been like if the south had indeed seceded. Perhaps the other states which did not join the Confederacy would have had the albatross of racist interposition and nullification not hung around their necks. Perhaps progressive politics which advances the plight of mankind, separates church from state could have ruled the day and Union would not be mired in the muck of moronic backward policies which we all have to pay for in either blood or treasure. Maybe there would even have been a cure for Parkinsons.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:02 pmresponse to 176: interesting to me that you find it so incredible that the Civil War is still being fought and then go on to impugn all southerners and imagine the US without the south as not mired in “moronic, backward policies.”
I might actually take to heart your commendable desire to see our nation’s blood and treasure spent on more worthy causes than war, such as solving deadly diseases, if you weren’t so ready to engage in the mutual slander and the drop of a single reference from a Texas Congressman and a few comments on a blog.
come on, it takes two to dance. that is why Poe even bothers to bring this stuff up.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:12 pmnatalie, i think john at 174 sums it up best.
i have a similar background, and i also despise northerners that act morally superior, and the lumping of all southerners into a class of regionally inbred, ignorant and racist people. it is prejudice in another flavor.
moreso, i despise the perpetual southern grasp for a lost cause and a flawed identity. enough with the confederate flags and romanticized musings about the old south. the civil war for the south was about rich whites convincing dirt poor whites that they should fight to maintain the aristocracy under the code words “the southern way of life”.
back on thread, it remains to be seen whether this poe character actually knew he was quoting a former leader of the kkk, and furthermore, whether he knew the entire context of the colorful mr. forrest’s life. but it was a pretty stupid thing to do.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:16 pmdid anybody mention that the funding is there. Bush vetoed it! fn retard
May 8th, 2007 at 3:17 pm“I think we can leave the name-calling at the door everybody. Let’s have a civil conversation instead of going all “O’Reilly†on everyone we disagree with.”
Comment by monkeyboy — May 8, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Good luck with that one on this site.
“Think Progress critique and many commenters here are the equivalent of dismissing Matin Luther King’s work because he was an adulterer!”
Comment by Rex — May 8, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Exactly.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:17 pm# 168
May 8th, 2007 at 3:17 pmLincoln and his Federal Army were the agressors. The Southern states simply wanted to be left alone and there was plenty of precedent and logic for secession. A concept that is making a gradual comeback by the way. The War killed many secessionists but not the idea. Nullification isn’t dead either as we see polities proclaiming sanctuary zones and ignoring federal drug laws. These are exactly the same concepts the South was fighting for. Now, when push comes to shove the Feds have the upper hand and if they really wanted to come down on these polities they can. I don’t agree with Newson declaring a sanctuary city but I support his viewpoint as reflecting the people he serves. The war was about a people wanting self determination and it is unfortunate that the North prevented them from their just desire to be a free and independent nation.
That is sad. Funny thing is Lincoln committed genocide as well, just look at what he ordered done to American Indians.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:19 pmfrom wikipedia
“Nathaniel Bedford Forrest (July 13, 1821 – October 29, 1877) was a Confederate army general. He is often associated as the founder of the Ku Klux Klan; however, he actually was not. He was a member of the organization in its early stages, but left after it became racist and he even tried to abolish the Ku Klux Klan.”
Most other accounts agree. I looked him up knowing the klan klaim to be somewhat murky. It’s a good article..
May 8th, 2007 at 3:23 pm#182
You do realize that Forrest was cleared of all wrong doing at Fort Pillow and publically repudiated the KKK, right?
Your comments about Lincoln are not far off although I don;t think he ordered a genocide. Does anyone wonder anymore why the Indians fought alongside the Confederates?
May 8th, 2007 at 3:27 pmThis guy is a bozo.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:28 pmApparently Congressman Poe only cares about the opinions of his own constituents. Try and email him, you get this:
I am very interested in hearing your views on issues of importance to you. Due to the large volume of US Mail, email and faxes I receive, I am only able to accept messages from 2nd district residents of Texas. Congressional courtesy dictates that Representatives be given the opportunity to assist their own constituents.
Doesn’t he realize the only reason we need that funding to save our poor troops is because his Administration put them there? What a D&*K
May 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pmMr Poe’s reference to Forrest is not helpful in uniting the country.[...]
And this argument is a testiment to the passions he has riled up in an attempted diversion to the serious issues facing our people and president.
Comment by John — May 8, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
(f*ck THIS president, witless puppet)
but the rest of your comment – WELL SAID!
i am in south central illinois (aka, the southern edge of central illinois)…
i pains me enough to avoid saying “southern illinois”…
anyhoo, the citizens here will no more claim to be “yankees” than they would denounce the actions of the “hill rods” and “yahoos” in the mix…
and yet take advantage of geography, mostly…
as 30 miles north is a community college (that my town passed up 35 years ago because of “fear of hippies”), and a major state university is just 70 miles – a majority of the students are from chicagoland & burbs…
it’s no surprise that the degrees of stupidity and bigotry lessen with
each mile north… and i could not live any further south… tried that for
6 months in nashville area… but that was long ago…
i’m quite sure that all civil relations have been set backat least 30 years
these past 10… and i could see it all coming… most could, really…
how did this happen?
it’s like the hate mongering personalities (we all know who)
May 8th, 2007 at 3:49 pmhave been giving the idjits permission to be stoopid…
and the idjits enjoy the approval (and agreement)…
all part of the plan, i fear…
…
“Evidently you’ve chosen to ignore EVERY SINGLE POLL CONDUCTED IN IRAQ over the last year which shows that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us out of the country.”
The government of Iraq doesn’t want us to leave yet. That’s a critical point. If you phrase the poll right, I want the US out of Iraq, too. But doing so now, or too soon, would be disasterous.
There are too many external forces (i.e. Iran) trying to destablize Iraq, encourage sectarian violence, and overthrow the government. I’m sure Ahmadinejad would be very pleased if we left, since it would open the door for their control over Iraq. Or possibly outright invasion. We’ve already have demonstrated we’re not dedicated enough to stick it out in a war with only 3000+ casualties without internal bickering, where they have many more than that who would happily strap bombs to their chests and become heros to family, country, and Allah.
If Congress thinks the will of the people is to pull out now, then why don’t they withdraw funding? That power they have. Even when it came to a vote of that, they couldn’t do it.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:00 pmmr poe is playing a game. he believes that your responses will be beneficial to himself whether you attack or support him. if you overstep in attacking him, you rally his constituents, if you support him, well great too.
what does this all do for the situation in Iraq? My opinion is not a whole heck of a lot of good. it reduces the argument to meaningless terms and lets us escape the bleak reality and series of bad choices that we face there in Iraq for yet another day (unless you or a loved one are stationed there, that is).
Don’t engage in this guy’s game. It isn’t new, it isn’t clever, and it isn’t helping. If you have something to say, something to do on behalf of the war effort, direct your positive energies to helping the troops in whatever way you see fit.
stop feeding the beast by giving attention to idiots like this.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:01 pmI just wanted to point out that the initial founders of the Ku Klux Klan went inactive and actually gave up their membership in response to the very insane tactics being employed by their “brothers” around the country subsequent to the Klans becoming active. In fact the quoted person in question was as anti-KKK as he was pro-KKK by the end of his life. Knowledge is power, ignorance is funny.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:10 pmOh Lord…Jake and I agree on something. Will wonders never cease?
May 8th, 2007 at 4:15 pma suggested topic of discussion to best serve all American’s debate in this time of war: a cost/benefit analysis of the timetables in the Congressional War Funding Bill that the President has so strenuously objected to and recognized as his primary cause for a veto.
I know where I stand and would be happy to follow with some comments w/o name calling, if we could all stop playing Poe’s irresponsible game.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:23 pmMr. Finish,
The question that you and all of your troll buddies conveniently ignore in your twisted logic is “How long do we keep this up?” Bush says that timetables are bad and thus won’t answer the question. The average American does not want an open-ended war with no end in site. Can’t you see that it’s been four years, we’ve added more troops and added more troops and the situation is only getting WORSE?!?!
You also talk about how horrible it would be for another country like Iran to have influence within Iraq. Do you realize how frickin’ hypocritical that is given that we’ve got over 100,000 soldiers inside their country? So, our outside influence is ok but Iran’s isn’t? Why is that? The average Iraqi can identify with the average Iranian more than they can with an abusive US soldier that doesn’t even speak their language.
BTW, I’m sure the thousands of parents of the children that died in the war would be glad to know the number is so ‘low’. That is one of the most disrespectful comments I’ve ever heard one of you trolls make!
May 8th, 2007 at 5:12 pmLee 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.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:24 pmLonsome: “the civil war for the south was about rich whites convincing dirt poor whites that they should fight to maintain the aristocracy under the code words “the southern way of lifeâ€.
Yes!
May 8th, 2007 at 5:27 pmA Congressional committee in 1871 cleared Forest of all wrong doing at Fort Pillow, and found that he was not a member of the KKK, but was instrumental in its abolishment.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:31 pmHere is some food for thought, this idea was put forward in a good book about the subject, cannot remember the title or author off the top of my head.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:32 pmAnyway, the reason poor whites fought was because the Southern ideal, what you were shooting for, was to own slaves. Owning slaves was a sign of wealth, and everyone wanted to own a slave in order to show that they were someone. Poor whites, even though they may have never been able to afford a slave, still believed that if they could just get enough money, they could buy a slave and thus become a member of a privileged class.
Bill Clinton
May 8th, 2007 at 5:46 pm#193
You need to read a history book or two on the Civil War and Robert E. Lee.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:54 pmWhy does it seem like Lee is being denigrated as a general because of the side he fought on?
If Lee had accepted the offer to lead the Union Forces he would very likely have been elected President of the United States after the war (like Grant) if he wanted to run. Of course, if he had accepted, the war wouldn’t have lasted as long as it did either since the South would have been without its most able commander.
#196
May 8th, 2007 at 6:00 pmIf that was the “Southern Ideal” then why did Northerners join the Confederates and Southerners join the Union? That “theory” is unadulterated rubbish. Yes, the reason soldiers have enlisted in the armed forces since 2003 is the hope that they might get an oil well.
Perhaps its more along the lines of national (state) pride, duty, honor, believing in one’s rights, or just the desire for action and glory. I doubt the hundreds of thousands who fought for the confederates all harbored the desire to someday “get that slave so I can move into the upper crust”….
Since this is the threshold, will you be retracting and disavowing this post any time soon?
May 8th, 2007 at 6:36 pmOh, come on, folks. “Get there first with the most men” is a classic military quote. I can think Napoleon was a murderous tyrannical egomaniacal crapweasel and still consider “toujours l’audace” sound military advice. Reading Rommel’s book on armored warfare didn’t make Patton a Nazi. Etc., etc.
This is typically leftist, though: Everything is political.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:12 pmYeah, well, Forrest was a loyal Democrat at the time, and the Klan was the Democratic Party’s military arm in driving out the Republicans’ Reconstruction troops and re-establishing white control in the South.
Which was eventually successful. Forrest’s strategy for getting rid of the Union armies in the South was remarkably similar to al-Qaeda’s strategy in Iraq: make the public back home give it up as a hopeless cause.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:12 pmWithout a ‘West Point education’, Forrest was the most successful General in the American Civil war. Out numbered often three and Four to one, Forrest would still gain a victory. He was NOT the leader of the KKK. (He was cleared of that by a Congressional Committee). True most Republicans are racists, but Forrest simplified militarty tactics, ‘getting there (with the most men) FIRST, most always meant you’d win the battle. Finally, the U.S. needs to get OUT of IRAQ. The Shiittes, Sunnis, Shias and Kurds have been killing each other since before the Romans, before the Greeks, and before the Egyptians.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:17 pmHere is more proof about the intelligence differences between Democrats and Republicans. Very hard to dispute.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:18 pmThere are plenty of intellectually shallow comments about NBF. He is not someone I admire but he was a brilliant military commander and on that point what he has to say about military matter means something. The same way I would pay attention to what Shockley says about semiconductors and ignore his racial theories.
Did you know this (from Wikipedia):
On July 5, 1875, Forrest became the first white man to speak to Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association, a civil rights group whose members were former slaves and a precursor to the NAACP. Although his speech was short, he expressed the opinion that blacks had the right to vote for any candidates they wanted and that the role of blacks should be elevated. He ended the speech by kissing the cheek of one of the daughters of one of the Pole-Bearer members.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:18 pmMore proof that Bush supporters are smarter than Kerry supporters, in the last election.
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/06/a_take_on_the_l.html
May 8th, 2007 at 7:20 pmWell, since Jefferson owned slaves, I guess we can dispense with all that civil liberty nonsense too. Gee, what a racist.
Are liberals really this stupid?
May 8th, 2007 at 7:23 pmConfederate General Bedford Forrest was one of the greatest Generals of the War for Southern Independence.
Confederate General Robert E. Lee was asked towards to end of the war whom he considered one of his greatest commanders…..he replied…..’a man that I have never met….Bedford Forrest.’
You Yankees and liberal Dumocrats who are miffed a at Rep. Poe for quoting Gen. Forrest….really need to get a grip.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:34 pmI guess ya’ll trolls feel at home on a KKK thread. Enjoy….
May 8th, 2007 at 7:37 pmSouthern dummy: “You Yankees and liberal Dumocrats who are miffed”
Dumb southern voters have a great deal to do with the state of our country today. Period. The current version of the Republican party would be nowhere without dumb southern voters. And, I still say that the confederacy was the worst thing that has ever happened to our country. It deserves nothing but derision and disgrace. The dumb southerners who still defend it are a disgrace as Americans.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:54 pmRobert Byrd has the strongest KKK resume of any current US politician. He is currently a Homocrat Senator, and was even Senate majority leader.
At the same time, the highest position that an African American has risen to in the US government was under George W. Bush. Both Colin Powell and Condi Rice have been Secretary of State – a position no racist Democrats would ever allow a black person to rise to.
Everyone knows that Democrats are the racist party.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:56 pmthis back and forth is as inane as the congressman’s comments. a discussion of Forrest belongs somewhere outside the debate over the ‘07 Iraq War Funding Bill. To believe otherwise is to be played the fool.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:06 pmComment by FinishThejob — May 8, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
Of course, Iran had absolutely no influence in Iraq before we invaded. Saddam and Iran were bitter enemies. So, in reality, Bush is responsible for creating an opening in Iraq for Iran. Not surprising this could happen, since Iraq and Iran are both predominately Shiite. Anyway, your rhetoric is idiotic scare-mongering, reminiscent of Bush’s scary talk in 2002-2003 about Iraq. Most serious foreign policy analysts say the chance that Iran would invade Iraq are practically zero. Iran has never invaded another country.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:25 pm211–Uh, yeah, I guess Barack Obama, the most serious African-American presidential candidate in America EVER and a Democrat, is just an illusion to you. You right-wingers need to get your talking points straight. The Democrats are either racist, or too subservient or pandering towards African Americans. They can’t be both.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:28 pm“The Democrats are either racist, or too subservient or pandering towards African Americans. They can’t be both.”
They (you) are racists. I have never said otherwise.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:32 pmSo much for the “think” in Think Progress.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:37 pmWow, your all extremists. Its about time moderates stand up to shut both the rights and the left and their holy then thou stupid arguments up. You paint all Pubs and all Dems with the same brush, relish in the uproar, and then complain when the two sides don’t work together. Your like a bunch of immature high school freshmen in my government classes. Starting stuff and blaming others all for the attention.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:42 pm#213
Explain something to me:
Why is an African American on the Supreme Court of Georgia honored as 1 of the 100 most influential blacks, while the African American on the Supreme Court of the United States is nowhere to be seen?
May 8th, 2007 at 8:53 pmComment by Democrats=Homocrats (aka LibSlayer, LiberalsHeartTerrorists, IHateLiberals, etc.) And how many more name changes?
May 8th, 2007 at 9:14 pmHomocrats, eh? I thought the G(reedy)O(ld)P(erverts) was the party of Rev. Ted, Mark Foley, Jim Kolbe, Ken Mehlman, White House whore Jeff Gannon, and so on.
#199 monkeyboy
Actually, it makes more sense when you apply it to the ‘rags to riches’ ideal of this country. Owning a slave was a symbol of wealth in the south, and everyone thought it was possible for them to move up the ladder and attain that achievement. It was not likely, same as the rag to riches myth is unlikely today, but they believed it was possible and they wanted to protect their ideal of a possible future for themselves.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:28 pmSo let me get this straight. A member of the Republican party (a party which was founded from out of the Whig party because it was ANTI slavery) is being critisized for quoting a Southern DEMOCRAT (a member of the pro-slavery party). The same party that has a formet active membership in the KKK. Man – you folks really have no shame…
May 8th, 2007 at 9:33 pmIf you look at political history, you will realize that Republican and Democratic ideology switched during the first half of the 20th century, and most remaining Dixiecrats finally left the party during the LBJ years. Strom Thurmond is a good example of many who left the Democratic party for the Republican party because the Democratic party had become the liberal party in favor of civil rights and equality for all, and the Republican party became the conservative reactionaries who typically have no problem with inequality.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:42 pmThe only thing that has been consistent in both parties has been the immigration issue. Republicans took on the anti-immigrant stance of the Know-Nothings while the Democrats have continually supported the rights of immigrants.
Why do “progressives” so often make themselves appear like idiots with no perspective?
May 8th, 2007 at 9:49 pmGeneral Forrest wasn’t a traitor. He was a patriot faced with difficult decisions and conflicting loyalties. (Though I’m not surprised you Leftards are unable to understand subtlety and conflicting loyalties.)
Everything is black and white to the Left.
And you Leftards are far too wise to bother to give the benefit of the doubt to men & women who were acting in the context of their times, if the mores of those times conflict with modern politically-correct sensibilities.
The irony here is that you Leftards, who don’t give a damn about the United States of America except to run it down, accuse Gen. Forrest of treason.
You Leftards aren’t worthy to clean Gen. Forrest’s boots.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:21 pmVery interesting – except the Congressional investigation of the KKK conducted in 1871 by the Radical Republicans concluded that Forrest did not found the Klan, did not lead the Klan, did not participate in the Klan and worked only to have it disband. This was a group that would have loved nothing better than to try, convict and hang Forrest but they had access to the evidence and the people in making their conclusion.
History is an amazing thing. It’s just too bad that this “publication” and the folks commenting have never bothered to become educated on the topic at all.
Incidentally, Congressional investigation at the same time also concluded that there was no “Ft. Pillow Massacre” but only isolated incidents along the riverbank which Forrest stopped as soon as he arrived. He took 39 United States Colored Troops (USCT) prisoner and forwarded them up the chain of command at the same time he transferred the 14 most seriously wounded USCT to the U.S. Steamer Silver Cloud because they could get better medical care on the steamer than he could provide.
Hardly the acts of someone committing a “massacre.”
For a real evaluation of Ft. Pillow try:
http://37thtexas.org/html/grandfab.html
For the speech Forrest made to the Jubilee of Pole Bearers, a Black political and social organization, in Memphis, TN, on July 4, 1875:
http://37thtexas.org/html/HistRef7.html
As for Ken Burns fantasy “history” of the Civil War I offer the following admonition he obviously never noted:
“The first law of the historian is that he shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice.” – Cicero (106-43 B.C.)
Your Obedient Servant,
Colonel Michael Kelley, CSA
Commanding, 37th Texas Cavalry (Terrell’s)
http://www.37thtexas.org
“We are a band of brothers!”
“. . . . political correctness has replaced witch trials and communist hearings as the preferred way to torment our fellow countrymen.” “Ghost Riders,” Sharyn McCrumb, 2004, Signet, pp. 9
May 8th, 2007 at 10:26 pmDear Far Left Moonbats,
If this is the best ya got—ya need to pack up and go home.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:36 pmDear Lefty Moonbats,
If this is the best ya got—ya need to pack up and go home.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:37 pmLooks like we hit a bit of a soft spot by pointing out the treachery of the rights confederate heros.
Tell me, should we give the benefit of the doubt to men and women who were members of and/or openly supported the programs of the Nazis who were only acting in the context of their times?
And you are so up on protecting your country against those trying to tear it down, did not the Confederates, Gen Forrest included, do all that was in their power to tear apart our beloved United States of America?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:40 pmFirst of all, all of you crying racism — please comment on Al Sharpton’s bigotted comments on Mormonism.
What’s that I hear? Crickets chirping?
Secondly, Nathan Bedford Forrest was a founder of the KKK, but comparing him to a modern virulent racist Grand Wizard — like Robert Byrd, for example — is unfair. The KKK at the time was founded, first and foremost, to protect Southerns from a rapacious occupying army.
Nathan Bedford Forrest was an honorable man. Unlike all of you.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:59 pmPoe did something I never thought possible. He makes Bush look intelligent.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:19 pmIraqVet, generalizations is what put more than a thousand muslims and arab people in solitary confinement for over 6 months with no evidence, no trial, no lawyer, and no federal protection. Are you for that kind of world?
May 8th, 2007 at 11:22 pmSeveral points of historical accuracy might help in this discussion, although I fear it has now descended too deeply into personal vitrol. Nonetheless:
May 8th, 2007 at 11:23 pm1. The southern states did not wish to overthrow the government of the United States but rather to withdraw from that union. The U.S. would have continued to exist albeit dimished in number. The rationale was that since the union was voluntary, membership was not compulsory. Lee’s “invasion” of northern territory was intended not to occupy or conquer but to relieve military pressure on Richmond by threatening Washington.
2. New England states have threaten to succeed several times under the same understanding.
3. To support this understanding it is vital to note that although Jefferson Davis and Robert Lee were imprisoned after the war, they were NEVER tried for treason as would have been the case if they were, as several have insisted, traitors to the U.S. Government, nor tried for war crimes.
4.The question of the legality of succession was not settled in the courts but rather the Southern states were compelled by force of arms to remain in the Union.
5. The issue of being on the eventual losing side cannot diminish the reputation of Southern generals and other officers. Many had virtually unequaled records of victory in the face of overwhelming odds. Lee against Burnside or Pope or McCellan, for example, and Forrest or Jackson against any Union leader on the field of battle.
6. The contention that poor Southern soldiers fought so they could own slaves is not even worth a response. One has only to read much of the surviving private correspondence to refute that. For that matter, much of the correespondence of Union soldiers reveals the same racists views that were prevalent at the time that many commenters in this thread decry.
7. The United States at that time was not the same “beloved” country of which is spoken today (see comment 227 by Shard). Most allegiences were to the perceived homeland of the state in which an individual lived. Thus Lee’s allegience was to his home in Virginia. The Union as we know it today was a much later manifestation. Lee’s feelings of sorrow and grief over divided loyalties are well documented.
Muslims should never be placed in solitary confinement. They should be put in graves.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:36 pmLegally, every single confederate could have been hung for treason. It was due to the benevolence of the Union, and their want to heal the nation that these men were not tried for their crimes. Just because they were not tried for treason, does not mean they were not guilty of it.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:39 pmAnd truly its more of pointing out that they were not as good as history makes them out to be than diminishing their ‘abilities’ due to their loss of the war.
And I placed the idea of the culture of slave owning, in which the poor even if it was impossible believed they could rise to participate in, as an intriguing and serious possibility. It has been discussed in several academic works, and since academic historians seem to acknowledge the possibility, it should not be pushed aside as irrelevant.
Forrest didn’t even say that quote. It was made up by the New York times in 1917.
Also, he wasn’t a racist and was known to sympathize with the black civil rights movement, then in its infancy. The KKK originally started as a group of white southerners attempting to resist the republican carpet baggers from the North. In later years the KKK began targeting blacks and their original intent became perverted. Forrest vocally opposed the changing of values of the KKK and left the organization.
So, nice knee jerk reaction here. You should probably do a bit of research for context the next time you want to write something needlessly inflammatory and stupidly irrelevant.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:45 pmThank you, Mr Nix, for your history lesson (#231), which agrees with what I am most familiar about the Civil War.
I am very disappointed that the “masters student in history,” Mr Shard, shows so little regard for history. Secession from a voluntary union of states was an open question through 1865, a question which the northern victory settled forever. To call the Confederates “traitors” is to ignore that Virginia, among other states, reserved the right to secede when it ratified the Constitution.
The real problem with Poe’s remark is that it is bound to ignite indignation among those who look at everything through the lens of race, region, and “Republican” politics while failing to focus on the metaphor. Bedford’s apocryphal statement is part of American military and historical lore, nothing more. Like others have pointed out, you might dislike Rommel’s or Napoleon’s politics, but you would be stupid to ignore their opinions on military matters. Don’t discard the message solely because you dislike the messenger.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:19 amGOP Sen George Allen —> Macaca
GOP Rep Poe —> Gen Forrest
Rush Limbaugh —> Magic Negro Song
GW Bush —> Confederate flag apologist
Democratic Senator Robert Byrd –> Apologized for KKK Kleagle role
May 9th, 2007 at 12:51 am–> 85 rating by NNACP
–> Requested additional $10M for MLK
Memorial
I am glad to see this erudite discussion of the American Civil War. The essential element of that war was whether the United States would show the fortitude to perservere until the war was won, the union preserved and the slaves freed.
Perhaps somebody would like to quote from George McClellan, the Peace Democrat candidate for president in 1864 about how the war was not worth the sacrifice and how we should just make the best deal we could and then just give up.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:40 amSo remember, it’s perfectly fine to quote KKK Grand Wizards to make your argument, as long as it’s in a “historical context.
Of course it is.
Just like it’s okay to quote George Washington on every topic other than how great it is to own niggers, it’s more than okay to quote an acclaimed military strategist on military strategy.
This doesn’t amount to endorsement or support of the KKK or its policies any more than quoting Washington amounts to endorsing the enslavement of blacks.
You know this. That’s why a story about a quote doesn’t feature that quote. Why you talk about “context” repeatedly but try to brush this off with sarcasm rather than testing that context.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:01 amExcept it wasn’t a quote about race or the klan. It was a well known military quote.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:37 amSo yes, it is very telling whether someone would or wouldn’t know that, isn’t it “IraqVet”.
Y’all are gettin’ pretty desperate, ain’t ya? Good. Very good.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:55 amSo remember, it’s perfectly fine to quote KKK Grand Wizards to make your argument, as long as it’s in a “historical context.â€
Of course it’s okay.
In the same way that it’s okay to quote George Washington on every topic other than how great it is to own subhuman blacks as slaves, it’s okay to quote an acclaimed miltary commander on military tactics, regardless of the fact he was a klan founder.
Are all people quoting George Washington about other topics endorsing ownership and enslavement of blacks in the same way ? Of course not.
You know this. That’s why you talk about context repeatedly but dismiss it with sarcasm instead of providing any. Why in a story about a quote, what that quote was isn’t even mentioned.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:58 amOnce again, for all of you people who continue to parrot the same incorrect “history:”
An 1871 Congressional investigation of the KKK by the Radical Republicans concluded that Forrest did not found the Klan, did not lead the Klan, did not participate in the Klan and worked only to have it disband.
Is there something there that is too complex for your limited perceptions?
Now…why were Davis, Lee and other spared charges and trials for treason? It had NOTHING to do with any “benevolance of the Union” – it had to do with the fact that the Federal government could find no lawyer who thought they could win the case. Davis formally requested twice, in writing, that he be tried for treason because he knew that he would prevail and that the Federal government would condemn itself.
– “Constitutional Problems under Lincoln,” James G. Randall, 1951, Urbana: University of Illinois Press
I will be happy to offer an itemized list of Lincoln’s crimes against the Constitution if anyone out there would like it.
As for “the fortitude to perservere until the war was won, the union preserved and the slaves freed” this continues the tired old fable that the war was fought over slavery with the gallant, free North fighting against the evil all-slave South. Now that that lie has been listed let us deal with the facts of history.
The 1860 U.S. Census showed that there were just shy of a quarter-million Free Blacks and Free People of Color in what would become the Confederate States, more than in the future Union states. Of the Free Blacks and Free People of Color in the South more than 25,000 were themselves slaveowners.
The status of Blacks in the South was different from your stereotyped, Ken Burns garbage suppositions:
– “The African-American Soldier: From Crispus Attucks to Colin Powell” by Lt. Col [Ret.] Michael Lee Lanning, Birch Lane Press (June 1997)
Incidentally, the first all-Black regiment of the War was the 1st Louisiana Native Guard, CSA, from New Orleans.
What about the issue of slavery? Lincoln tried to permanently preserve slavery with his support of the Corwin Amendment in 1861 when he was President-Elect. He sent letters to the state Governors urging their support and five of those letters still exist.
– Submitted to the Senate by Corwin and supported by President-Elect Lincoln as the proposed 13th Amendment to the Constitution as voted on by that body on February 28th, 1861. The Senate voted 39 to 5 to approve this section passed by the House 133-65 on March 2, 1861. Two State legislatures ratified it: Ohio on May 13, 1861; and followed by Maryland on January 10, 1862. Illinois bungled its ratification by holding a convention.
Interestingly, the Southern states – which could have returned to the Union and helped ratify permanent Constitutional protection of slavery – did not leap to the task to protect slavery. Nor did they accept Lincoln’s December, 1862, offer of gradual compensated abolition with slavery lasting until 1900.
If the South was really fighting to preserve slavery why not take steps which could have preserved slavery without war? The answer is simple – it was not about slavery or even states’ rights – it was about money.
– Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860
~ New Orleans Daily Crescent, January 21, 1861
– Pamphlet No 14. “The Preservation of the Union A National Economic Necessity,” The Loyal Publication Society, printed in New York, May 1863, by Wm. C. Bryant & Co. Printers.
Now let us consider that the Union – which was, in this left-wing fantasy world – was supposedly fighting to end slavery while there were slave states in the Union throughout the war and AFTER the war ended. Slavery ended in the Confederacy in April, 1865, but continued as a legal institution in Delaware and Kentucky – Union states – until December, 1865, some eight months later.
Understand? The United States of America – NOT the Confederate States of America – was the last slave nation in North America.
Want to talk about Lincoln’s character and the conduct of the Union? The only person tried or convicted of “war crimes” during the Civil War was a Union Colonel named Turchin. He was tried by Union Court Martial for ordering his troops to savage Athens, Alabama. Turchin and one of his regimental commanders, Col. Gazlay, were found guilty and dismissed from the Army.
Within a few days of the court martial, President Lincoln reinstated Turchin and promoted him to the rank of Brigadier General. A few months later Lincoln would make a similar promotion. In November Lincoln promoted Col. John McNeil, one of the senior officers responsible for the October 1862 Palmyra Massacre in Missouri, to Brigadier General.
So much for Lincoln’s “morality.”
What about the kind and compassionate Union military and their treatment of captive and wounded Confederate soldiers?
– “The Siege of Blakeley and the Campaign of Mobile,” by Roger B. Hansen & Norman A. Nicolson, 1995, Nall Printing co., Mobile AL, with an introduction by Mary Y. Grice, Executive Director, Historic Blakeley Foundation.
And for you lovers of the truly grusome:
– Letter of Pvt. James Morrison, Co. E, 149th N. Y. V. I.
I note with amusement that the folks leaning left who post here never seem to back up their postings with something called FACT. Note that their posts are filled with opinion and conjecture and lack the substance of any sort of historical research.
Perhaps Irish-born Confederate Major General Patrick Cleburne both explained the purpose of the war and predicted why the left-wnigers keep repeating old lies when he wrote his January, 1864, letter which proposed the mass emancipation and enlistment of Black Southerners into the Confederate Army:
It should be a greater insult to quote Lincoln than to quote Forrest.
Your Obedient Servant,
Colonel Michael Kelley, CSA
Commanding, 37th Texas Cavalry (Terrell’s)
http://www.37thtexas.org
“We are a band of brothers!”
“I came here as a friend…let us stand together. Although we differ in color, we should not differ in sentiment.” – LT Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, CSA, Memphis Daily Avalanche, July 6, 1875
May 9th, 2007 at 9:05 amPoe is criticized by one and all for using a century old quote.
By the same token, Big DICK Durbin insults the sons and daughters, of Americans, who have chosen to serve in the military. Durbin was not criticized by fellow Democrats and the media.
I may not agree with what you say but I will defend, to death, your right to say it!
What has happened to my country in the last 50 years.?
May 9th, 2007 at 9:28 amIt is simply a historical fact that Nathan Bedford Forrest was a successful Confederate general. Military academies in this country teach about his successful tactics and leadership in the Civil War, which were all the more remarkable because General Forrest had no formal military training.
That he was later in the Ku Klux Klan (and then quit because he found it too violent) is utterly tangential to the argument. The argument Rep. Poe was making was about military strategy, not morality, and it happens to be true.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:58 amSo this guy quotes some racist a-hole.
Where are the people complaining about Senator Robert Bird (current US Senator from Virginia) about him being a former MEMBER of th KKK.
From wikipedia: He participated in the KKK for a period of time during World War II, holding the titles “Kleagle”, which indicated a Klan recruiter, and “Exalted Cyclops”.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:10 pmRep. Poe seems to forget that Congress did authorize the funds for the troops. The President veto the bill. Now who is at fault if the troops are underfunded?
May 9th, 2007 at 12:59 pmIt seems to me the President has a control problem and a problem with the Constitution because Congress job is also to over see this what is going on and they have relinquished this job for far to long.
So he quoted a confederate general, so what? Do any of you actually know what he was trying to SAY?
How about concentrating on his point (or lack of point) instead of who he’s quoting.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:02 pmWhi is it that everyone who is whining about the lack of attacks on Byrd (who has long since apologized and renounced any affiliation with the KKK) never once mentions Strom Thurmond who was not only a proud racist, but ran for President on segregationist platform and fathered an illegitimate child with a black servant?
Now, on to the mis-quoting of Forrest, racist or not (he obviously was, since he chose to buy slaves), he was a TRAITOR to the United States. Not a traitor as the right now chooses to define the word (i.e. anybody who doesn’t bow down and kiss the feet of the Pretzeldent), but as the Constitution defines it (a citizen who levies war against the United States)
It shows the depths to which the Republican Party has fallen that they need to quote Traitors to support their position.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:29 pmBlueDog & Ashen & others:
RE: Southerners
You may want to read the book Born Fighting by Sen. James Webb (D) if you want to learn a thing or two about southeners, during the Civil War or now.
That is if you you actually give a shit. If you just want to be an ignorant asshole, by all means, don’t.
May 9th, 2007 at 3:10 pmGawd man. Either you are ignorant, and haven’t read the Constitution, or you are dishonest, and are leaving some pretty important things out.
So which is it Eric? Are you ignorant or a liar?
May 9th, 2007 at 3:26 pmFolks, you are gonna have to stop getting your history from TV shows and wikipedia.
The historical fact is that Nathan Bedford Forrest’s alleged involvement with the Ku Klux Klan was thoroughly investigated by a Congressional committee in 1871. Their conclusion, after conducting their investigation, was that Forrest’s only involvement with the KKK was in his efforts to have it disband. They concluded he did not found it, he did not lead it and he did not participate in its activities. A Congressional committee populated with Radical Republicans (they were the liberals back then, remember Lincoln?) concluded that.
Also the so-called “Fort Pillow Massacre” was thoroughly debunked about 130 years ago. Many of the “facts” in Ken Burns Civil War are not facts at all, just his opinion.
May 9th, 2007 at 4:07 pmDoes this mean that no one can ever quote Democratic Senator Robert Byrd–since he was a “Kleagle” and “Exalted Cyclops” in the West Virginia KKK?
May 10th, 2007 at 7:26 amDear Folks:
Who financed both sides of the civil war? Brits did. The southern states would not have seceded had they not known they would receive financing from London.
Now, in 1863, there was a move among British financiers to have England intervene to protect their legitimate interests. London was considering it.
Bismarck heard about it, and sent a whole slew of Prussian military officer – observers – who were quick to join, train and lead the tired Union Armies.
McClellan, tired of the bloodshed, ran against Lincoln on the premise of accepting the secession. He was financed by London financiers.
On the other hand, a crazy Karl Marx had heard about it, and wrote
flaming appeals to all the German Americans and German Canadians who had been pacifists and Fouriest “utopian socialists”. Entire communities of German-Canadian enlisted in the Union Armies following the call of Karl Marx. My great grandfather hendrick Doering was one of them.
The Prussians came down via Railroad, and then marched from Atlanta to the sea, breaking the back of the “antebellum south”. After the war, most of them returned to canada in the area around Kitchener.
The point is, when all those German Canadians enlisted in droves following the appeal of Marx, British financiers and London military knew that they could lose Canada if they entered the civil war on the side of the south.
The plan was dropped very quickly.
Marx helped to win the U.S. civil war.
Back to funding. As a vet, I know how iraq is depleating the manpower of an all volunteer army, is lowering first term enlistments, lowering re-enlistments and extension of officer commissions. Moral is way down.
Forseeable. Now, Democrats can put a nasty double bind on Mr. Bush.
The double bind goes like this – either set a clear timetable for withdrawel from the Iraq fiasco or re-instate the draft to beef up the military and relieve volunteer troops.
As for Iraq. Let us take another perspective. When Franco fought against the Republican Government of Spain during the Spanish civil war, he was aided by the fascist governments of Germany and Italy.
Two Uncles of mine, following the example of my great grandfather, sailed
for France and filtered into Spain via France to fight francoS fascists alongside the republican troops.
They later served in the U.S. Army and Navy respectively during W.W.II.
The LESSON FOR US from that Spanish Civil War…… Just like my uncles fourght for the Republicans, it is perhaps conceivable that Moslems from all over the Moslem world will fight us, just as they filtered in to fight the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Al Qaida was really a “blow back” from that period. We are the best recruiter for radical Islam just as Breschnev and Co.were the best recruiter for the same in the 80s.
Not an easy quandry we face. I suggest congress tacking on a double bind – on all future Iraq funding bills submitted by the president.
Either set a clear and close timetable for withdrawel, or support our volunteer troops by re-instating the draft.
That puts the burden on the Bushitees. Knowing the middle east, I am in favour of strategic redeployment, and calling an international conference of all of Iraq’s neighbours – Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi-Arabia, Syria, and Iran, to iron out agreements between themselves for ending the civil – religious strife in Iraq,emphasing the Koran’s stress on “Greater Djihad” over
“Lesser Djihad”.
All the Best – Use your brains. Old Fashioned Lincoln Liberal.
May 10th, 2007 at 8:42 ama lot of thought and emotion have gone into this discussion. a lot of dirt slung form both sides as well. the that he seems to have inspired a “discussion about seem to include who is a better student of American History and whether the right or the left is more open minded.
to be honest, who gives a shit? nice to quibble on some blog, but in reality, aren’t the issues that he is supposedly speaking to no less important than the issue a war and our future course of action, the national security of the country, the lives of our soldiers and the lives of the people of Iraq, the possibility of a wider or recurring conflict?
I find his reference to Forrest disingenuous for the very reason that we are all here discussing things of no consequence to the bigger picture, things that we can all go on calling each other names about for the next 150 years without really helping our efforts in Iraq. You think as a politician he isn’t using this to his benefit. Shameful. American soldiers are dieing at over 100 per month. Let’s focus, not distract and bicker. You want to make a difference, quit pointing out how misinformed the other side is. Do something for a soldier or his family who have sacrificed for this country. Maybe start making some sacrifices ofyour own that could matter.
Sorry for the anger of my tone. I just get mad that we are tearing eachother to shreads over theoretical bs rather than focusing on a harsh and important reality.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:45 pmsorry for the type-o’s of the above post. here s the corrected version:
Poe seems to have inspired only a “discussion” regarding who is a better student of American History and whether the right or the left is more open minded. a lot of thought and emotion have gone into this discussion. a lot of dirt slung form both sides. to be honest, who gives a shit?
nice to quibble on some blog, but in reality, aren’t the issues that he is supposedly speaking to no less important: war and our future course of action, the national security of the country, the lives of our soldiers and the lives of the people of Iraq, the possibility of a wider or recurring conflict?
I find his reference to Forrest disingenuous because it is of no consequence or relation to the bigger picture, yet he must have known that it would inspire such passions things that we can all go on calling each other names about for the next 150 years without really helping our efforts in Iraq. You think as a politician he isn’t using this to his benefit. Shameful. American soldiers are dieing at over 100 per month and his comments lend to distraction and bickering.
You want to be right about something and make a difference, try doing something for a soldier or his family who have sacrificed for this country. Maybe start making some sacrifices of your own that could matter.
Sorry for the anger of my tone. I just get mad that we are tearing eachother to shreads over theoretical bs rather than focusing on a harsh and important reality.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:25 pmThe uproar to Rep. Poe’s quoting an Confederate general is just silly. This is why the so called “Progressives” can’t be taken seriously. Just because he quoted Forrest dosen’t make him a racist. If he were to quote Erwin Rommel in the same context would that make him a Nazi? If he were to have quoted Ho Chi Mihn or Marshall Zhukov would that make him a communist? How about quoting Sun Tzu, would he then be Chinese?
May 10th, 2007 at 3:02 pm+1 on 253
May 10th, 2007 at 4:56 pmif was quoting marx or ho chi mihn or lennin or whatever, in your mind, would you be thinking leftist commie ______________ (fill in the blank)?
So when a a Confederate General with strong KKK ties to the origins of the KKK (however you want to characterize the organization at it’s beginnings) is invoked, how the heck do you think Most people are going to take it? Do most people have a detailed education about the details of the Reconstruction era in the US? Why does Poe make this comment. Is it meant to somehow play to the better half of our instincts and somehow unite us in a time of war?
it was not a helpful to anyone but mr poe, who can rally his constituents against the malicious attacks of outsiders and solidify his tenuous base in what are very difficult times for someone supporting president Bush’s direction in Iraq. let’s not try and be more clever by half, because fact is it ain’t so clever at all. most of the nation is sick of distraction and would like to see someone take responsibility to enact change for the better. if that is what mr poe thinks the surge is accomplishing ad that it should be given time to work, than good for him, leave the distractions out of it. if he is so sure, leave the distractions out of it. if you are so sure, quit arguing about a figure from 150 years ago and broad terms like liberal or progressive that have had so many meanings attached to them that they no longer carry any.
May 10th, 2007 at 7:04 pmBluedog:
“Southern dummy: “You Yankees and liberal Dumocrats who are miffedâ€
Dumb southern voters have a great deal to do with the state of our country today. Period. The current version of the Republican party would be nowhere without dumb southern voters. And, I still say that the confederacy was the worst thing that has ever happened to our country. It deserves nothing but derision and disgrace. The dumb southerners who still defend it are a disgrace as Americans.”
Yes I still defend the Southern Confederacy and will until my last day on earth.
And if you don’t like it….you can kiss my royal Southern Scottish ass!!
May 11th, 2007 at 9:07 amUm… Did I miss something???
Jesuschristonabicycle!
Can’t a guy turn off the TV, or stop Blogging, long enough to go to work, without some idiot ( Liberal Minion of W.A.C.K.I.E., or Conservative, extreme, RightWinger, take yer pick! ), sticking his/her foot in mouth, or head up behind???
It’s 1 am, I’m going to bed! ;-D
May 13th, 2007 at 3:58 amfrom wikipedia:
“Nathaniel Bedford Forrest (July 13, 1821–October 29, 1877) was a Confederate Army general during the American Civil War. Perhaps the most highly regarded cavalry and partisan (guerrilla) leader in the war, Forrest is regarded by many military historians as that conflict’s most innovative and successful general. His tactics of mobile warfare are still studied by modern soldiers. Forrest is also one of the war’s most controversial figures, and he has been accused of war crimes at the Battle of Fort Pillow for having led Confederate soldiers in a massacre of unarmed black Union troops.
After the war he gained infamy as an early member of the Ku Klux Klan. As the first Grand Wizard of the Klan, he used his popularity to help it grow.”
I fail to see how quoting someone who was a great military tactician on military tactics makes the quoter a racist just because the person he quotes just happened to be racist. Now, I hate Republicans as much as the next libertarian, but this is just rediculous! You all should be pointing out the fact that you cant wage a mobile war (the kind that Forrest waged) when you’re an occupying force.
May 14th, 2007 at 11:27 amBut I guess all this hate has more to do with the anti-Confederacy agenda implanted into all Americans via government-approved history text books than anything else.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING RACIST. AFRICAN AMERICANS SHOULD SHOW MORE APPRECIATION FOR THEIR DOMESTICATION…HELLO
May 25th, 2007 at 10:38 amAFRICA SUCKS MOST OF THEM WOULD BE LION FOOD IF WE HAD NOT
GIVEN THEM A FREE BOAT RIDE OUT OF THERE. EVERYTHING ELSE WE
BROUGHT FROM AFRICA IS KEPT IN THE ZOO… MAYBE THAT WAS OUR MISTAKE.
Fact 1) Poe is a Racist. I’ve witnessed his racism and bigotry first hand.
Fact 2) Poe is a liar, corrupt, and self-serving. Once again, not my opinion, I’ve witnessed him do all of the above and know others that have.
Fact 3) Not all Southerners know that quote or of that General. Knowing a quote from the founder of the KKK is like quoting Main Kampf, the source itself is so tainted that the quote is tainted. Th N-Word itself used to simply mean any ignorant person, the swastika used to be a sign of good luck and friendship(it can even be found in the old stonework of Synogogues and Temples), but once they were corrupted they ceased to be valid for those purposes, they became only the ugly things they are to this day.
Fact 4) Poe hides his crimes well, and has great PR people to cover his rear, which is why he’s in office, which is why there are so few mentions of all the manure he did in his courtroom, and is why this story has barely even been heard of outside the internet (which thankfully is too vast for him to gain even the sligthest control over or this discussion would already be erased from the net).
In the end, Poe, W., and the rest of the War Mongers will eventually be out of office and then more facts will start to appear to reveal all the little truths that they’ve kept hidden for so long.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:53 pmAmazing. Poe didn’t know nor care about the fact the General was a racist. We shouldn’t quote Washington, or any person who owned slaves. Slaves shouldn’t be quoted, because they rightfully hated their owners who PAID for them because it was legal. Hell what about the traders who traded the slaves. It boils down to watch what you quote because some one wants to quote you and and say you’re a racist. I’ll never pay reperations and the blacks have down a great deal to build America but Jesse Jackson is using his folk to get what he wants. MONEY. Just what does Jackson do for a living. NOTHING but live of his slaves backs. Wake up America and set yourself free.
By the way I think the KKK is the biggest joke and should go try to defeat the Iraqis and Palastinians.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:49 pmNathan B. Forrest was a true American Hero.
The KKK is one of the few organizations in America standing up for traditional white, Christian values.
WE NEED TO ELECT MORE GREAT MEN LIKE TED POE TO THE US CONGRESS AND TAKE BACK AMERICA!
June 28th, 2007 at 2:08 pm