Nathan Bedford Forrest statue causing controversy

[The Gadfly]

Was Frederick Douglass or George Washington Carver a terrorist who killed American citizens?

No, and neither was a uniformed soldier commanding uniformed troops of a sovereign nation, who directed his attacks at the uniformed soldiers of the other belligerent nation in the conflict, rather than at civilians (which is more than can be said for war criminals like Sherman, Turchin, McNeil, Lane, Sheridan and others who engaged in the willful, deliberate, murder by execution of unarmed civilian non-combatants, to include women and men not of military age). It's all there in the Official Records, over and over; you murdering Yankees were actually PROUD of your war crimes! As for as I'm concerned, your goddamn Bluebellies were the original NAZIS! You Yankees remain a nation of liars, oppressors, occupiers and war criminals, and if you are Yankee trash living in Virginia, then you pollute the air of the South by breathing it, and dirty Southern soil be treading upon it. Go back to where you came from, Carpetbagger! (It is not our fault that you marginally civilized debris can't learn not to shit where you sleep, so go back to that filthy, decaying Rustbelt you and your kind built, and stay there, because we do not want or need you down here!) I've got more common cause with, and affection and respect for, Black Southerners, than I do for ANY Yankee!

So, the murder of black troops after they surrendered at Ft. Pillow to Forrest falls where in all this?

It doesn't, because as best as we can determine from the records, THERE WAS NO SURRENDER. Briefly, during the first stage of the battle, the U.S. Colored Troops defending Ft. Pillow lost most of their (White) officers, including the commander, to Confederate sharpshooter fire. During a lull in the fighting, the Confederates, under a flag of truce, sent a message from Forrest to the acting commander informing him that his troops were in a position to take the Fort, and giving the garrison the opportunity to surrender. The acting commander declined, and Forrest ordered the attack. The defenders, disorganized with the loss of so many officers, virtually all fired at the initial advance; the second wave of the Confederate charge came over the wall while they were reloading, and shot many of them at close range. Northern propaganda called this a massacre, despite the fact that men attempting to reload their rifles and continue to fight were still active combatants, and thus, fair game. Many of the remaining garrison fled the Fort and continued the fight when they ran into yet another Confederate force between them and the river; a confused fight began, during which many of the U.S. Colored Troops laid down their weapons, only to pick them up again and resume fighting; Confederate commanders reported that some of their men were killed by the USCT after these "false surrenders" (pretending to surrender and resuming fighting was a practice NOT condoned by either side in the war, and subjected any offender to being immediately shot, in accordance with the articles of war of the time). Forrest had not been in the engagement since early morning;he had been injured when his horse was shot out from under him, and did not arrive at the scene of the fighting near the river until later in the afternoon, at which point he ordered his men to cease fire, and arranged transfer of some of the more severely wounded USCT to a Union gunboat on the river. The surviving senior Union officer later confirmed that there was never any intention of surrendering the Fort, and that the flag was never lowered, nor any orders given to the USCT by any of their surviving officers to lay down their arms. Most of the carnage resulted from confusion, panic, and the breakdown of unit discipline among the inexperienced and nearly leaderless USCT. I suggest you consult the Official Records.

 

[The Gadfly]

Ah, I see, the "historian" is happy to tell us "all we need to know" about a war and a period of history he never studied. All you have to offer is regurgitated propaganda; no real history, nor even the background to know how to research it. Sorry, but "everybody knows" is NOT documented historical facts, just the hysterical rantings of another unschooled ignoramus masquerading as an intellectual. When I state facts, I give you the recognized sources from which they come. I debunked the Forrest myth a while back; information you and your cohorts here could have easily found and verified; obviously the lot of you would rather spout nonsense than bother to learn something, or even check the facts, but then, intellectual sloth is a well-known vice in Yankeedom. Ironic, considering it's your lot who like to portray Southerners as "lazy, stupid, and uneducated"; a little "denial and projection" in that stereotype, perhaps? An "historian" who doesn't know what the Official Records is; my God, that's just comical. Just another crass Yankee blowhard, who imagines he can carry his point if he shouts loud enough.

Yawn... are you still trying to rewrite history?

Your grandpa Buearegard was an asshole who deserved to lose. The only thing we did wrong with the civil war was not punishing them for their treason more severely...

Just putting the REAL history, and information on the primary sources that back it up, out here for comparison with your uninformed and historically INACCURATE propaganda drivel. I want to be sure everyone can see which is which. It happens that while I did not major in history, I took a number of post-graduate courses on the history of the period in question, so, you, junior, are playing way, WAY, out of your league. I've studied this era extensively, I know the primary source materials well, and I know how to do the research, as more than one self-styled "historical expert" on a number of boards has learned by getting thoroughly embarrassed at having his ignorance exposed.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Everybody knows Guy is wrong. Hey, Guy! The south lost.

I'll tell you like i told JoeB, "Everybody knows..." is not a valid argument.

Both of you sound like schoolchildren.

 

[The Gadfly]

Everybody knows Guy is wrong. Hey, Guy! The south lost.

You have nothing, Jake; nothing at all left but misguided "patriotism", an attitude, schoolyard taunts, and insults. Go worship that portrait of "Parson" Brownlow, the one that once hung in the TN statehouse; the one with the tobacco juice spit stains running all over it; shows what REAL Southerners think of what you descended from.

 

[JoeB131]

Just putting the REAL history, and information on the primary sources that back it up, out here for comparison with your uninformed and historically INACCURATE propaganda drivel. I want to be sure everyone can see which is which. It happens that while I did not major in history, I took a number of post-graduate courses on the history of the period in question, so, you, junior, are playing way, WAY, out of your league. I've studied this era extensively, I know the primary source materials well, and I know how to do the research, as more than one self-styled "historical expert" on a number of boards has learned by getting thoroughly embarrassed at having his ignorance exposed.

Guy, I'm sure you are one of these weird assholes who gets out and dresses like a confederate for re-enactments or whatever... and I simply don't care.

The Civil War was fought because a few rich assholes wanted to keep owning slaves when that sort of thing was going out of style in the world. Period. And the funny thing is, they thought they could win or get England to intervene on their side.

Fact is, they fought a pointless war for an evil reason, and a lot of them died.

And the fact that some people would still try to rationalize their actions amazes me...

 

[bodecea]

No, and neither was a uniformed soldier commanding uniformed troops of a sovereign nation, who directed his attacks at the uniformed soldiers of the other belligerent nation in the conflict, rather than at civilians (which is more than can be said for war criminals like Sherman, Turchin, McNeil, Lane, Sheridan and others who engaged in the willful, deliberate, murder by execution of unarmed civilian non-combatants, to include women and men not of military age). It's all there in the Official Records, over and over; you murdering Yankees were actually PROUD of your war crimes! As for as I'm concerned, your goddamn Bluebellies were the original NAZIS! You Yankees remain a nation of liars, oppressors, occupiers and war criminals, and if you are Yankee trash living in Virginia, then you pollute the air of the South by breathing it, and dirty Southern soil be treading upon it. Go back to where you came from, Carpetbagger! (It is not our fault that you marginally civilized debris can't learn not to shit where you sleep, so go back to that filthy, decaying Rustbelt you and your kind built, and stay there, because we do not want or need you down here!) I've got more common cause with, and affection and respect for, Black Southerners, than I do for ANY Yankee!

So, the murder of black troops after they surrendered at Ft. Pillow to Forrest falls where in all this?

It doesn't, because as best as we can determine from the records, THERE WAS NO SURRENDER. Briefly, during the first stage of the battle, the U.S. Colored Troops defending Ft. Pillow lost most of their (White) officers, including the commander, to Confederate sharpshooter fire. During a lull in the fighting, the Confederates, under a flag of truce, sent a message from Forrest to the acting commander informing him that his troops were in a position to take the Fort, and giving the garrison the opportunity to surrender. The acting commander declined, and Forrest ordered the attack. The defenders, disorganized with the loss of so many officers, virtually all fired at the initial advance; the second wave of the Confederate charge came over the wall while they were reloading, and shot many of them at close range. Northern propaganda called this a massacre, despite the fact that men attempting to reload their rifles and continue to fight were still active combatants, and thus, fair game. Many of the remaining garrison fled the Fort and continued the fight when they ran into yet another Confederate force between them and the river; a confused fight began, during which many of the U.S. Colored Troops laid down their weapons, only to pick them up again and resume fighting; Confederate commanders reported that some of their men were killed by the USCT after these "false surrenders" (pretending to surrender and resuming fighting was a practice NOT condoned by either side in the war, and subjected any offender to being immediately shot, in accordance with the articles of war of the time). Forrest had not been in the engagement since early morning;he had been injured when his horse was shot out from under him, and did not arrive at the scene of the fighting near the river until later in the afternoon, at which point he ordered his men to cease fire, and arranged transfer of some of the more severely wounded USCT to a Union gunboat on the river. The surviving senior Union officer later confirmed that there was never any intention of surrendering the Fort, and that the flag was never lowered, nor any orders given to the USCT by any of their surviving officers to lay down their arms. Most of the carnage resulted from confusion, panic, and the breakdown of unit discipline among the inexperienced and nearly leaderless USCT. I suggest you consult the Official Records.

Interesting version of what happened....you have a link, I presume.

 

[bodecea]

Everybody knows Guy is wrong. Hey, Guy! The south lost.

You have nothing, Jake; nothing at all left but misguided "patriotism", an attitude, schoolyard taunts, and insults. Go worship that portrait of "Parson" Brownlow, the one that once hung in the TN statehouse; the one with the tobacco juice spit stains running all over it; shows what REAL Southerners think of what you descended from.

"The Lost Cause"....because Southerners can't stand facing that their fore-fathers fought to enslave their fellow man.

 

[bodecea]

No, and neither was a uniformed soldier commanding uniformed troops of a sovereign nation, who directed his attacks at the uniformed soldiers of the other belligerent nation in the conflict, rather than at civilians (which is more than can be said for war criminals like Sherman, Turchin, McNeil, Lane, Sheridan and others who engaged in the willful, deliberate, murder by execution of unarmed civilian non-combatants, to include women and men not of military age). It's all there in the Official Records, over and over; you murdering Yankees were actually PROUD of your war crimes! As for as I'm concerned, your goddamn Bluebellies were the original NAZIS! You Yankees remain a nation of liars, oppressors, occupiers and war criminals, and if you are Yankee trash living in Virginia, then you pollute the air of the South by breathing it, and dirty Southern soil be treading upon it. Go back to where you came from, Carpetbagger! (It is not our fault that you marginally civilized debris can't learn not to shit where you sleep, so go back to that filthy, decaying Rustbelt you and your kind built, and stay there, because we do not want or need you down here!) I've got more common cause with, and affection and respect for, Black Southerners, than I do for ANY Yankee!

So, the murder of black troops after they surrendered at Ft. Pillow to Forrest falls where in all this?

It doesn't, because as best as we can determine from the records, THERE WAS NO SURRENDER. Briefly, during the first stage of the battle, the U.S. Colored Troops defending Ft. Pillow lost most of their (White) officers, including the commander, to Confederate sharpshooter fire. During a lull in the fighting, the Confederates, under a flag of truce, sent a message from Forrest to the acting commander informing him that his troops were in a position to take the Fort, and giving the garrison the opportunity to surrender. The acting commander declined, and Forrest ordered the attack. The defenders, disorganized with the loss of so many officers, virtually all fired at the initial advance; the second wave of the Confederate charge came over the wall while they were reloading, and shot many of them at close range. Northern propaganda called this a massacre, despite the fact that men attempting to reload their rifles and continue to fight were still active combatants, and thus, fair game. Many of the remaining garrison fled the Fort and continued the fight when they ran into yet another Confederate force between them and the river; a confused fight began, during which many of the U.S. Colored Troops laid down their weapons, only to pick them up again and resume fighting; Confederate commanders reported that some of their men were killed by the USCT after these "false surrenders" (pretending to surrender and resuming fighting was a practice NOT condoned by either side in the war, and subjected any offender to being immediately shot, in accordance with the articles of war of the time). Forrest had not been in the engagement since early morning;he had been injured when his horse was shot out from under him, and did not arrive at the scene of the fighting near the river until later in the afternoon, at which point he ordered his men to cease fire, and arranged transfer of some of the more severely wounded USCT to a Union gunboat on the river. The surviving senior Union officer later confirmed that there was never any intention of surrendering the Fort, and that the flag was never lowered, nor any orders given to the USCT by any of their surviving officers to lay down their arms. Most of the carnage resulted from confusion, panic, and the breakdown of unit discipline among the inexperienced and nearly leaderless USCT. I suggest you consult the Official Records.

Casualty stats from Fort Pillow.

Confederate dead: 14
Union dead (mostly black soldiers): 230
Union seriously wounded: 100

 

[Unkotare]

When did it become YOUR "one nation?"

You're welcome to shove a porcupine up your ass tail first.

E Pluribus Unum....do you need a translation?

So the guy who designs our money is the final arbiter of truth?

Damn, you're stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

For someone with a 'degree in history', you're pretty stupid. Or willfully ignorant. If the War between the States was just about slavery, why did Lincoln wait until 1863 to issue the Emancipation Proclamation? Why did it only free the slaves in the states 'still in rebellion'? Why did it NOT apply to Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri?

Why is any of that even relevent?

Why is the fact that Lincoln didn't free a single slave during the war relevant to your claim that ending slavery was the reason Lincoln started the war? It takes a special kind of stupid not to understand that.

Lincoln didn't start the war, the South did.

Wrong, Lincoln committed the first act of war.

Beacuse they knew Lincoln was an abolitionist.

Lincoln was no abolitionist, moron.

 

[squeeze berry]

Doesn't say so in the Constitution and the south lost by force of arms. Show me where the Constitutions states states can secede or leave the union.

Show where SC had the right to secede in federal law.

If they were sovereign states at the time of the writing of the Constitution they remain sovereign states under the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Show me where the Constitution says the states DON'T have that right.

show us where the federal govt is permitted to invade states

 

[bripat9643]

In this day and age, why would anyone in America be constructing monuments to the very first domestic terrorists?

Why do they construct monuments to our first dictator?

 

[bripat9643]

Given that 26% of Alabama's population is "black" with ancestors who were slaves during the Civil War, where do they fit into your beloved Southern heritage that includes a monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest?

what about the white population in the south, do you hear them bitching about the statues of Frederick Douglass or George Washington Carver?

Was Frederick Douglass or George Washington Carver a terrorist who killed American citizens?

No, but General William Tecumseh Sherman was. He murdered 50,000 civilians in cold blood.

 

[Unkotare]

Let me throw you off the top of the Sears Tower.

I'd love for you to try.

 

[grunt11b]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raVFzZZLp3A]Gump and the Klan - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpCDKea7HJ4&feature=fvwrel]American History X - Scary Sheets - YouTube[/ame]

HAHA!!!

 

[Unkotare]

most of my education was thanks to the Catholic Church...

.

The church you ran away from because you were too stupid to understand its teachings? Your stupidity turned to fear and your fear to hatred. Not the best topic for you, bigot.

Well, no, I just realized that they probably couldn't pass my Religion Test any more than anyone else.

Like I said. Let me throw you off the top of the Sears Tower. If God catches you, I'll convert...

Otherwise, your teachings are bullshit... no more valuable than any other opinion.

Thanks for proving yet again that you are too stupid to even begin to grasp theology (or much of anything else).

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, he didn't. He killed 23 guerillas in cold blood.

what about the white population in the south, do you hear them bitching about the statues of Frederick Douglass or George Washington Carver?

Was Frederick Douglass or George Washington Carver a terrorist who killed American citizens?

No, but General William Tecumseh Sherman was. He murdered 50,000 civilians in cold blood.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When SC fired on Ft Sumter, it acted as a gangster organization. States are not equal to the national government. Go read your Constitution.

See, you can never win on this.

Doesn't say so in the Constitution and the south lost by force of arms. Show me where the Constitutions states states can secede or leave the union.

If they were sovereign states at the time of the writing of the Constitution they remain sovereign states under the 10th Amendment.


Show me where the Constitution says the states DON'T have that right.

show us where the federal govt is permitted to invade states

 

[grunt11b]

No, he didn't. He killed 23 guerillas in cold blood.

Was Frederick Douglass or George Washington Carver a terrorist who killed American citizens?

No, but General William Tecumseh Sherman was. He murdered 50,000 civilians in cold blood.

No, he didn't. He killed 23 guerillas in cold blood.

 

[bripat9643]

The FACT remains that SC LEGALLY seceded from the Union in January 1861. At that moment Fort Sumter became the property of the State, REGARDLESS of who paid for it.

There was a reason there were no trials after the War, the SCOTUS would have ruled the secession Constitutional and the actions of the North UNconstitutional.

On bringing Jeff Davis to trial Ulysses S. Grant said “we will lose in court what we have won on the battlefield.”

In other words Grant conceded that secession was perfectly constitutional.