Move Nathan Bedford Forrests's Body?

[cole256 17,039]

I'm not believing that a guy who was a grand wizard in the kkk advocates a black person getting educated or going to the same school as whites....don't care what anybody posts I'll be like raptor on this one and don't listen to anybody

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Maybe one of you morbid type people will know... what's left of this dude and his wife after being in the ground for 140 years?

I think you identified yourself as the "morbid" type by even considering it.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

I'm not believing that a guy who was a grand wizard in the kkk advocates a black person getting educated or going to the same school as whites....don't care what anybody posts I'll be like raptor on this one and don't listen to anybody

It was in the PBS article on him. Apparently his views evolved later in life after he left the KKK and disbanded his branch of it. He advocated for black students to be admitted to law school.

His is a complicated life. The Ft. Pillow massacre is something I have not heard that he ever expressed regret for though.

[Mims44 1,864]

Maybe one of you morbid type people will know... what's left of this dude and his wife after being in the ground for 140 years?

I think you identified yourself as the "morbid" type by even considering it.

I guess I should have posted my thinking on it.... isn't it old enough to just kinda forget about it? I mean if nothing is left to identify the corpse as that particular person, why bother?

This also stems from trying to understand why they wanna dig up this dude and his wife in the first place.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I remember growing up in Tennessee. I remember thinking how less racist people in Tennessee were when I would go to Alabama to visit my grandparents. However, I remember some restaurants, proudly displaying a portrait of Gen. Forrest behind their cash registers as a not so subtle way of saying, "some people are not welcome here". Gen. Forrest may have changed his views late in life but, his legacy, what he symbolizes did not change.

[cole256 17,039]

What part of tn? Cuz if you hit up the Lawrenceburg, Pulaski, Columbia, Dickson Savannah area if it gets worse than that....damn

[homersapien 11,352]

While we are at it, let's take care of any issues up North. Let's put this puppy to bed once and for all......shared "sacrifice", if you will.

http://slavenorth.com/

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. The chart at the bottom shows the actual end of slavery in those northern states ranging from 1777 to 1865 (New Jersey). The next closest was 1848 (Connecticut), 13 years before the Civil War began. And they gave it up on their own - they didn't have to be invaded and forced to give it up.

Sin is sin....you can't just turn a blind eye to what happened with one group in relation to another. Just as I posted yesterday about the forgotten Irish slave trade....people just like to selectively attack one group or another these days based on what happened a generation or more ago instead of focusing on the future.

So, if we are going to continue down this road.....let's get it all out of the way in a fair and equitable manner. Whitewash it all!

Has anyone denied the history of slavery in the North or in 18th century England?

I don't see what this has to do with the Confederacy.

It reminds me of the arguments about Lincoln not citing slavery as his reason to conduct war against the Confederacy. So what? That has nothing to do with why the Confederate states seceded, which was slavery.

None of this history absolves the reason and cause of the CSA.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

What part of tn? Cuz if you hit up the Lawrenceburg, Pulaski, Columbia, Dickson Savannah area if it gets worse than that....damn

I did not say there was no racism. Only that, it was not as bad as what I observed in AL. The "n word" was used openly, unabashedly at that time in Birmingham, even at church. People in Tennessee may not have actually been "less racist" but, they seemed more reluctant to advertise it.

[cole256 17,039]

Ok. I was more talking about right now today

[autigeremt 6,569]

While we are at it, let's take care of any issues up North. Let's put this puppy to bed once and for all......shared "sacrifice", if you will.

http://slavenorth.com/

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. The chart at the bottom shows the actual end of slavery in those northern states ranging from 1777 to 1865 (New Jersey). The next closest was 1848 (Connecticut), 13 years before the Civil War began. And they gave it up on their own - they didn't have to be invaded and forced to give it up.

Sin is sin....you can't just turn a blind eye to what happened with one group in relation to another. Just as I posted yesterday about the forgotten Irish slave trade....people just like to selectively attack one group or another these days based on what happened a generation or more ago instead of focusing on the future.

So, if we are going to continue down this road.....let's get it all out of the way in a fair and equitable manner. Whitewash it all!

Has anyone denied the history of slavery in the North or in 18th century England?

I don't see what this has to do with the Confederacy.

It reminds me of the arguments about Lincoln not citing abolition as his primary reason to conduct war against the Confederacy. That has nothing to do with why the Confederate states seceded.

None of this history absolves the reason and cause of the CSA.

The US getting it right all of a sudden doesn't absolve its actions either. Nor the British.

[quietfan 233]

The US getting it right all of a sudden doesn't absolve its actions either. Nor the British.

You are certainly correct. Doing right now doesn't absolve anyone of their responsibility for past actions. But then, I haven't seen anyone trying to absolve the North or Great Britain for their past sins in regard to slavery.

[homersapien 11,352]

While we are at it, let's take care of any issues up North. Let's put this puppy to bed once and for all......shared "sacrifice", if you will.

http://slavenorth.com/

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. The chart at the bottom shows the actual end of slavery in those northern states ranging from 1777 to 1865 (New Jersey). The next closest was 1848 (Connecticut), 13 years before the Civil War began. And they gave it up on their own - they didn't have to be invaded and forced to give it up.

Sin is sin....you can't just turn a blind eye to what happened with one group in relation to another. Just as I posted yesterday about the forgotten Irish slave trade....people just like to selectively attack one group or another these days based on what happened a generation or more ago instead of focusing on the future.

So, if we are going to continue down this road.....let's get it all out of the way in a fair and equitable manner. Whitewash it all!

Has anyone denied the history of slavery in the North or in 18th century England?

I don't see what this has to do with the Confederacy.

It reminds me of the arguments about Lincoln not citing abolition as his primary reason to conduct war against the Confederacy. That has nothing to do with why the Confederate states seceded.

None of this history absolves the reason and cause of the CSA.

The US getting it right all of a sudden doesn't absolve its actions either. Nor the British.

No it doesn't. I agree completely.

In fact, IMO, the whole idea of American exceptionalism is a myth, much less the myth of "Southern heritage" (as defined by lost cause revisionists).

[TitanTiger 20,469]

The US getting it right all of a sudden doesn't absolve its actions either. Nor the British.

Well, while it may not "absolve" them, it kinda does make a big difference when they own up to it and correct it as opposed to only giving up the practice because they were decimated by war.

Think of it this way: If a person in a marriage cheated on their spouse, under which scenario do you think there is more likely to be reconciliation and at least an attempt by the wronged party to repair the marriage?

#1 The person who cheated feels remorse for their sin, ends the affair or the sleeping around, repents and at some point in the future confesses the infidelity to their spouse. None of these decisions came because they were caught or close to being caught.

#2 The person who cheated feels zero remorse and is still having the affair or sleeping around when they are found out by their spouse and are threatened with everything from having their ass kicked to losing everything they own. The cheater then stops the adultery.

Your take on this as if the second scenario and the first are equivalent in the most important ways just doesn't hold water. There is a big difference in someone realizing their wrong, ceasing to continue doing it and taking steps to make amends with no coercion vs fighting to the death to keep getting to commit your sin and only giving it up because you are backed into a corner.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Titan....If a man goes thru years of a sinful life but has an experience that leads him to accept Jesus Christ and becomes a Christ should he still be remembered in the end a as a sinner for most of his life?

[AUDub 11,131]

Titan....nice try, no cigar.

There should be some kind of rule for telling someone they're wrong without explaining why.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

Titan....nice try, no cigar.

Smoking it now. Cigars aplenty.

Might help in the future if you actually engage your brain to form a cogent response rather than stamping your foot and shouting "no!"

[TitanTiger 20,469]

Titan....nice try, no cigar.

There should be some kind of rule for telling someone they're wrong without explaining why.

Yeah, but that means thinking and who the hell wants to chance that?

[cole256 17,039]

Titan....nice try, no cigar.

There should be some kind of rule for telling someone they're wrong without explaining why.

We're back on the same page. Some rule against smilies too

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

See my edited post.

You guys are too quick pulling triggers.

[autigeremt 6,569]

The US getting it right all of a sudden doesn't absolve its actions either. Nor the British.

Well, while it may not "absolve" them, it kinda does make a big difference when they own up to it and correct it as opposed to only giving up the practice because they were decimated by war.

Think of it this way: If a person in a marriage cheated on their spouse, under which scenario do you think there is more likely to be reconciliation and at least an attempt by the wronged party to repair the marriage?

#1 The person who cheated feels remorse for their sin, ends the affair or the sleeping around, repents and at some point in the future confesses the infidelity to their spouse. None of these decisions came because they were caught or close to being caught.

#2 The person who cheated feels zero remorse and is still having the affair or sleeping around when they are found out by their spouse and are threatened with everything from having their ass kicked to losing everything they own. The cheater then stops the adultery.

Your take on this as if the second scenario and the first are equivalent in the most important ways just doesn't hold water. There is a big difference in someone realizing their wrong, ceasing to continue doing it and taking steps to make amends with no coercion vs fighting to the death to keep getting to commit your sin and only giving it up because you are backed into a corner.

MY TAKE is that the flag should never have been placed on top of the statehouse to begin with. BUT...."IF" we as a society can pick and choose whose "heritage' to go after for PC purposes we need to be fair and equitable. There's no sugarcoating it. The union allowed slavery for 77 years as a nation and the Europeans allowed it well before that....including thousands of white slaves.

This whole flag thing is about 1 thing and 1 thing only......PC. Nothing has changed with it coming down.....in fact it might have reopened some wounds in the process.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

MY TAKE is that the flag should never have been placed on top of the statehouse to begin with. BUT...."IF" we as a society can pick and choose whose "heritage' to go after for PC purposes we need to be fair and equitable. There's no sugarcoating it. The union allowed slavery for 77 years as a nation and the Europeans allowed it well before that....including thousands of white slaves.

And I'm trying to explain to you why that sort of simplistic distillation of the situations is a false equivalency. The South's legacy would be different too had they renounced and abolished slavery without resorting to war or even if they had gone to war and somehow won, if shortly thereafter they would have abolished slavery of their own accord. They did neither. The United States (minus the Confederacy) did. Great Britain did. Various other European countries did. That matters.

This whole flag thing is about 1 thing and 1 thing only......PC. Nothing has changed with it coming down.....in fact it might have reopened some wounds in the process.

Well, I disagree about that too. There are way to many people who have no love for PC anything that felt that thing needed to go to buy that it's "about 1 thing only."

[autigeremt 6,569]

MY TAKE is that the flag should never have been placed on top of the statehouse to begin with. BUT...."IF" we as a society can pick and choose whose "heritage' to go after for PC purposes we need to be fair and equitable. There's no sugarcoating it. The union allowed slavery for 77 years as a nation and the Europeans allowed it well before that....including thousands of white slaves.

And I'm trying to explain to you why that sort of simplistic distillation of the situations is a false equivalency. The South's legacy would be different too had they renounced and abolished slavery without resorting to war or even if they had gone to war and somehow won, if shortly thereafter they would have abolished slavery of their own accord. They did neither. The United States (minus the Confederacy) did. Great Britain did. Various other European countries did. That matters.

This whole flag thing is about 1 thing and 1 thing only......PC. Nothing has changed with it coming down.....in fact it might have reopened some wounds in the process.

Well, I disagree about that too. There are way to many people who have no love for PC anything that felt that thing needed to go to buy that it's "about 1 thing only."

The flag coming down has nothing to do with 9 souls lost at the hands of a hate monger. The flag is merely an opportunity made in the middle of a "crisis". I disagree on the notion that you can pick and choose on the issue. The United States and the people in this country should spend all their efforts on what is in front of us and not what is behind us. Instead we live in the past and act as if the future is going to be put on hold while we do it.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

The flag coming down has nothing to do with 9 souls lost at the hands of a hate monger. The flag is merely an opportunity made in the middle of a "crisis". I disagree on the notion that you can pick and choose on the issue. The United States and the people in this country should spend all their efforts on what is in front of us and not what is behind us. Instead we live in the past and act as if the future is going to be put on hold while we do it.

Well then you operate under a set of rules that hardly anyone else does in anything else in their life. I've never met anyone who would so simplistically equate two situations like this.

The flag was something that never should have flown on state property to begin with. If the people who wanted it removed had gotten what was right back when the compromise was formed, it wouldn't have stayed anywhere on the property. The killings merely reopened the issue because of the appropriation of the CF by the murderer. But it didn't just appear out of nowhere, nor was it borne of being "PC." It came from people who long felt it was an inappropriate thing to fly on public/government property that felt the killings were merely the final straw for any lingering defense of the symbol and spoke up about it.

[AuburnNTexas 7,127]

One key point is to judge people in the past by todays standards is totally unfair. Slavery has been in existence almost from the beginning of time. As one poster said slaves were sold world wide and they were not just black slaves. Bedford Forrest was a man of his time and as such acted as a man of his times. The American slave trade involved many people originally they were legal in both North and South. People involved in the Slave Trade might be Northern Traders, Arab Traders from North Africa, Other Blacks both buying selling and capturing slaves, southern plantation owners, etc. While the North gave it up first it was a combination of things many religious groups disapproved of Slavery(In the north and South by the way), but there was also an economic reason The North did not have the growing season and the types of crops that allowed a plantation type environment. In Northern factories it was cheaper to pay immigrants extremely low wages provide no housing or company housing so the workman was beholden to the company and to make people work extremely long hours and to allow child labor. In the US history has forgotten all the other groups involved in the slave trade the other blacks, the Arabs, we also seem to have forgotten that even after slavery was abolished in the US that it was not abolished in many African and Arab countries and that it still occurs in some of those areas to this day.

In the North you would see signs no dogs or Irish allowed. My point is that the living conditions in the North were often as bad as the slaves in the South. The difference was and it is a huge difference was the person in the North was not owned by another human being. I am not defending the slave trade as it was and is an abhorrent act. I am also not defending Bedford Forrest or the Confederate Flag what I am saying it is to easy to take things out of context when we make judgements. In the article it mentioned it mentioned that Bedford Forrest did not found the KKK but was it's first Grand Wizard. It also stated that over time he realized the direction the KKK was going and repudiated it. At that time in the South for him to repudiate the KKK and step away from it was courageous step.

Change does not happen overnight it usually starts as baby steps that eventually leads to ever faster steps and hopefully to remarkable turn around. I have lived long enough to have seen good people do bad things because of the times they lived in. White only restaurants, water Fountains, etc. I have seen many of those same people slowly change over time. I am not naïve while Racial conditions have improved there are still ism's out there racism, Religionism, Povertyism, etc. I totally understand why a black man or woman would look on the confederate flag as a symbol of their oppression and would want it removed from things like state buildings. I also can see why some people look on the confederate Flag as a symbol of the South's fight for States Right's, individualism, etc. and have a different outlook on the flag.

Because of the hurt the Flag has towards one group I applaud the removal of it from Government entities like SC Statehouse, etc. What scares me though we can't learn from our history if we try to remove our history instead of studying our history. Also history can't be looked at only through today glasses only it must have context to its time. Hopefully no American today can look at Slavery or segregation and be happy about it but they also need to realize that times change and even good people do bad things to fit in the society of their time.

By todays standards Thomas Jefferson was Simon Legree he was a Land Owner and a Slave owner. Yet when writing the Declaration of Independence he basically initially tried to abolish slavery then had to compromise to get the Colonies to approve the Declaration. He also had slaves but eventually freed them before he died. For a Southern gentleman of his era he was a radical left wing liberal. Times change and you have to judge people with your own views and experience and with the judgment to look at them in the context of their times.

[autigeremt 6,569]

The flag coming down has nothing to do with 9 souls lost at the hands of a hate monger. The flag is merely an opportunity made in the middle of a "crisis". I disagree on the notion that you can pick and choose on the issue. The United States and the people in this country should spend all their efforts on what is in front of us and not what is behind us. Instead we live in the past and act as if the future is going to be put on hold while we do it.

Well then you operate under a set of rules that hardly anyone else does in anything else in their life. I've never met anyone who would so simplistically equate two situations like this.

The flag was something that never should have flown on state property to begin with. If the people who wanted it removed had gotten what was right back when the compromise was formed, it wouldn't have stayed anywhere on the property. The killings merely reopened the issue because of the appropriation of the CF by the murderer. But it didn't just appear out of nowhere, nor was it borne of being "PC." It came from people who long felt it was an inappropriate thing to fly on public/government property that felt the killings were merely the final straw for any lingering defense of the symbol and spoke up about it.

I KNOW I have clearly stated that the flag shouldn't have been there in the first place. My point is much broader than the simplistic mindset you ascribe to me. I'm clearly stating that the flag would still be flying tomorrow afternoon and beyond if not for some loon nut job racist. Prove otherwise.