Nathan Bedford Forrest statue causing controversy

[bripat9643]

My ancestors fought against the Southern traitors and held our home counties for the Union.

It appears that you are descended from a long line of servile gullible morons.

 

[bripat9643]

Having met Senators Byrd and Thurmond and studied their lives, no doubt exists that Byrd was the far better man than the racist Thurmond. Byrd repented his past and did his past to best to rectify his mistakes. Thurmond never did, didn't have the decency to recognize his illegitimate bi-racial daughter.

Horseshit, Robert Byrd was a disgusting human being.

It really is sickening to observe the way libturds will defend their own monsters no matter how vile, reprehensible and utterly guilty they are.

 

[bodecea]

My ancestors fought against the Southern traitors and held our home counties for the Union.

It appears that you are descended from a long line of servile gullible morons.

Well, take those "The Lost Cause" distortion glasses off and maybe you will be able to see things better.

 

[bodecea]

Reading all the faux outrage and denigrations from the Yankees here is certainly an entertaining way to spend a Sunday morning.

It seems that they've all got these self-righteous opinions and nary a BIT of historical education. There are lots of good books out there on the causes and repercussions of the Civil War, from several different perspectives. I'd suggest that some of you mouth-breathing carpetbaggers go crack a few of them and come back when you've educated yourselves.

As of now the only thing you've done is prove that government education is really all about indoctrination...

Amusing...you use the term "carpetbagger" incorrectly and yet seem to think you can school us on historical education.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I should have said "mouth-breathing progeny of vile carpetbaggers..."

Lost Cause-itis.....you've got it bad.

 

[del]

Reading all the faux outrage and denigrations from the Yankees here is certainly an entertaining way to spend a Sunday morning.

It seems that they've all got these self-righteous opinions and nary a BIT of historical education. There are lots of good books out there on the causes and repercussions of the Civil War, from several different perspectives. I'd suggest that some of you mouth-breathing carpetbaggers go crack a few of them and come back when you've educated yourselves.

As of now the only thing you've done is prove that government education is really all about indoctrination...

got any more pix with mark levin?

those are teh awesomest evah.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We were the ones in charge, little one, and your ancestors bowed before mine during and after the Civil War.

My ancestors fought against the Southern traitors and held our home counties for the Union.

It appears that you are descended from a long line of servile gullible morons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Honorable men defy political classification. UnAmeriturds like bripat are simply swept aside.

Having met Senators Byrd and Thurmond and studied their lives, no doubt exists that Byrd was the far better man than the racist Thurmond. Byrd repented his past and did his past to best to rectify his mistakes. Thurmond never did, didn't have the decency to recognize his illegitimate bi-racial daughter.

Horseshit, Robert Byrd was a disgusting human being.

It really is sickening to observe the way libturds will defend their own monsters no matter how vile, reprehensible and utterly guilty they are.

 

[The Gadfly]

Now that we've all exchanged insults, does anyone remember what began this "discussion"? I believe it was about a statue, no? A statue of a Confederate general in a Southern town he just happened to defend during the War Between The States (which is the correct official name for the conflict). Hardly grounds for a national conflict, it would seem, and yet the initial response here was the usual snide responses that reflexively emanate from most of the Northern contingent here, whenever the Confederacy is mentioned.

It mattered not, that the historical facts surrounding Gen. N.B. Forrest can be easily enough separated from the myths. I have provided the evidence, as determined by a United States Congressional inquiry, that Forrest was NOT the Founder of the Klan, that Forrest was NOT even present at the meeting that founded the Klan, that Forrest did not even know of his "election" to lead the Klan, and that his involvement with it appears to have only been to use his influence to attempt to disband the Klan. That's the historical record, Myth notwithstanding. As to the "Ft. Pillow Massacre" the Official Records indicate that Forrest was NOT present when the fighting began, that he ordered the shooting stopped when he arrived on the scene of the action, and subsequently arranged for the transfer of some of the most severely wounded U.S. Colored Troops to Union hands so that they could receive medical treatment. That is what the OR, generally considered the most reliable primary source material on the military actions of the conflict, say about the matter. I posted these facts, widely recognized to be the best historical evidence we know of; obviously some here do not care to let such an historical inconvenience get in the way of their preconceived (though ill-founded in fact), OPINIONS. I believe we have now all seen what sort of unpleasantness follows from that sort of willful ignorance.

Now,someone here did get one thing right; history DOES contain a lot of wrongs. Native Americans were wronged, slaves, (whether Irish or African) were wronged, and yes the South was wronged. However, in the last thirty years or so, there has been a concerted attempt to perpetuate, and even exacerbate, the wrong done to the South and its people. All manner of propaganda, most of it either demonstrably false, or ill-supported by historical fact, has been promoted as if it were Holy Writ, and the historically ignorant masses, (some Southerners included) have credulously accepted this drivel as justification for a continuing attack on the South, its history, its people, and their heritage. The purpose of this attack has been a transparent attempt to make the South and its people the "whipping boy" for all the racial problems of America.

I note that some of you have responded angrily to having the sort of insults you constantly fling (or gladly let others fling) at the South in general, and our Confederate ancestors in particular, flung right back in your faces. Obviously, you get unhappy, when someone dares questioned your cherished illusions. For you, lies are as good as the truth, so long as the lie is politically expedient.

You can call me names, you can make all sorts of wild accusations, but I am one proud Southerner who will NOT be bullied into submission or silence, while you engage in attempts to disparage my people, my native state and my ancestors; while you attempt to purge history of my regions' history and culture. The history of the South is not without stain or blemish, but Neither is the history of the rest of America without stains in blemishes of its own! That is why the rest of you have no right whatsoever to remake the South and Southerners into the SUPPOSED perfection of your own image (which is a great deal less righteous than you like to believe).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because we all make mistakes means we can't judge? Wow, try that it philosophy class or in Sunday School class, and we all watch you be bid farewell.

Present-ism does not preclude me from judging the Holocaust, or American slavery, or the almost complete eradication of Native America from 1500 to 1600, or Ghengis Khan's devastations, or the Inquisition -- does not prevent me from judging them as morally and colossally evil.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Present-ism does not preclude me from judging the Holocaust, or American slavery, or the almost complete eradication of Native America from 1500 to 1600, or Ghengis Khan's devastations, or the Inquisition -- does not prevent me from judging them as morally and colossally evil.

Only one of your examples was Constitutionally sanctioned, protected by Federal law and Supreme Court upheld.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Constitutional sanction does not (1) make slavery morally acceptable, or (2) prevent slavery from being condemned. As one pro-abolition editor opined, the Constitution was a pact with the devil, until slavery was abolished.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Constitutional sanction does not (1) make slavery morally acceptable, or (2) prevent slavery from being condemned. As one pro-abolition editor opined, the Constitution was a pact with the devil, until slavery was abolished.

It does make it legal and there is a legislative process.

 

[bodecea]

Constitutional sanction does not (1) make slavery morally acceptable, or (2) prevent slavery from being condemned. As one pro-abolition editor opined, the Constitution was a pact with the devil, until slavery was abolished.

It does make it legal and there is a legislative process.

So...why didn't the South take that process?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Constitutional sanction does not (1) make slavery morally acceptable, or (2) prevent slavery from being condemned. As one pro-abolition editor opined, the Constitution was a pact with the devil, until slavery was abolished.

It does make it legal and there is a legislative process.

So...why didn't the South take that process?

There were many attempts at compromise. The Missouri Compromise. Slave importation already had been banned.

Many Southrons supported Lincoln's plan to repatriate African slaves and his other proposals to incrementally outlaw slavery over the course of years. Industrial revolutions were making chattel slavery less cost efficient.

 

[bodecea]

It does make it legal and there is a legislative process.

So...why didn't the South take that process?

There were many attempts at compromise. The Missouri Compromise. Slave importation already had been banned.

Many Southrons supported Lincoln's plan to repatriate African slaves and his other proposals to incrementally outlaw slavery over the course of years. Industrial revolutions were making chattel slavery less cost efficient.

I ask...how could anyone in the South support Lincoln's ideas when no Southern state allowed him on the ballot....and censored any anti- slavery material....it was against the law in the South to have a copy of Uncle Toms Cabin...the were standing arrest orders for people like the Grimke sisters and Sojourner Truth.

 

[bodecea]

It does make it legal and there is a legislative process.

So...why didn't the South take that process?

There were many attempts at compromise. The Missouri Compromise. Slave importation already had been banned.

Many Southrons supported Lincoln's plan to repatriate African slaves and his other proposals to incrementally outlaw slavery over the course of years. Industrial revolutions were making chattel slavery less cost efficient.

Btw...the Dred Scott decision blew ALL compromises out of the water.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lincoln merely required the South to (1) respect Federal property in the South; (2) not to export slavery into the territories; (3) follow constitutional, electoral process.

The Old South dared to rise up, and Lincoln slew it.

 

[OODA_Loop]

censored any anti- slavery material....it was against the law in the South to have a copy of Uncle Toms Cabin

Against the law ? Not so sure.

 

[OODA_Loop]

So...why didn't the South take that process?

There were many attempts at compromise. The Missouri Compromise. Slave importation already had been banned.

Many Southrons supported Lincoln's plan to repatriate African slaves and his other proposals to incrementally outlaw slavery over the course of years. Industrial revolutions were making chattel slavery less cost efficient.

Btw...the Dred Scott decision blew ALL compromises out of the water.

SCOTUS does settle law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not for Lincoln, it didn't. Slavery was not going beyond the confines of the Old South as far as he was concerned. The southern leaders knew that he meant it.