Georgia Flag Debate

Great Debates
41

With all due respect, grienspace, give me a break. “Oh, the poor old veterans”?

First off, my grandfathers both served; my father’s father was a fighter pilot who shot down V-1s in his Tempest, was shot down himself over Holland and served with the Dutch resistance for months, eating grass and sawdust and getting into gunfights with Nazis. My mother’s father flew 35 missions in a Halifax bomber. I respect veterans, thank you, and need no lessons in the contributions they’ve made.

Secondly, your implication that all or most veterans opposed the Maple Leaf and loved the Red Ensign is bunk. Veterans do not equal loyalists, and many love the Maple Leaf. I also STRONGLY question your claim that anyone, veterans or otherwise, cared more about it than they do about the Maple Leaf today.

As a matter of fact, the Red Ensign has a pretty spotty claim to being our flag. Canada’s first flag was the Blue Ensign. The Red Ensign was unofficially adopted soon after and flown over the Parliament Buildings early on, but it was later abandoned and replaced with the Union Jack. The Red Ensign was adopted as Canada’s naval jack for merchant ships in 1892, but when the Royal Canadian Navy was started in 1909, they used the White and Blue Ensigns. Throughout, they kept updating the Red Ensign with different coats of arms (as more provinces joined Confederation.)

Canadian soldiers in WWI fought under the Union Jack, not the Red Ensign.

The Red Ensign wasn’t even approved for use abroad until 1924, and was not officially declared for use by the RCAF until late 1943 and the Army until early 1944. Not until after the war was the Red Ensign even used on federal government buildings and returned to Parliament by order in council, and that order stated that it was to be used only until a national flag for Canada was decided upon.

42

Another Southerner here that never heard of Forrest. And it wasn’t the Ken Burns documentary either, it was Forrest Gump! I didn’t watch “The Civil War”, because I’ve ingested enough of it over the years. Robert E. Lee is not just a hero, he is practically a GOD to some people, here in Virginia. Stonewall Jackson, and J.E.B Stuart are who we think about when we think of great Civil War generals. There are monuments everywhere in the state to these guys. More monuments to them than to other famous Virginians like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, something that I find monumentally stupid. Although I would lay down in front of the bulldozer if they ever tried to pull down the statues on Monument Avenue in Richmond.

When will Southerners see that their insistance on celebrating that disgusting war does us all a disservice. The rest of the country simply does not understand and never will. There are so many other ways to embrace and celebrate our Southern heritage. This insistance on clinging to this flag and the “honor of the South” is exclusionary to a large segment of our population. A segment of the population who’s labors and sacrifices were even greater than the heros we so revere.

Needs2know

43

Danielinthewolvesden:

Well, no thank you. I’m less interested in Forrest himself than in your curious assertion that he is more “glorified” than the likes of Robert E. Lee. spoke-, Needs2know, Strainger, Mjollnir and I, Southerners all, have explained that our own experiences and observations are very much at odds with this claim.

So if you can substantiate it, that’s what I’d like you to do.

44

Just to chime in here, I grew up in Tennessee and Texas and have spent the last dozen years living north of Atlanta, and the one time I’ve heard Forrest referred to in reverential tones was by a biker I met at a party (don’t ask) who’d earlier bragged about his involvement with the KKK. This makes me think spoke’s speculation about California skinheads is probably close to the truth.

45

OK, Danielinthewolvesden, I read your rant against Nathan Bedford Forrest over in the Ashcroft thread. I was floored. In that thread, you asserted:

That quote may be described charitably as inaccurate, and less charitably as slander. Taking your points one at a time…[ol][li]Forrest was not illiterate. He was self-taught. I hope you understand the distinction.[/li][li]Forrest was perhaps the most brilliant tactician the war produced. Time after time his men defeated superior forces through Forrest’s daring and his intuitive understanding of the principles of warfare. He is described by brittanica.com as a “born military genius.”[/li][li]It is true that Forrest’s men massacred black troops at Ft. Pillow. Forrest was at that time operating under a directive from his superiors to take no negro prisoners. Granted, “I was just following orders” is not an acceptable excuse for the commission of an atrocity.[/li][li]The KKK was founded as a social club along the lines of a Masonic order by Confederate veterans in Pulaski, Tennessee. I’m fairly certain that Forrest was not among its founders, though he does appear to have been the organization’s first “Grand Wizard.” When the organization descended into terrorism, Forrest ordered it to disband, as I noted in my earlier post. Quoting brittanica.com again, “Forrest ordered [the KKK] disbanded in 1869, largely as a result of the group’s excessive violence.”[/li][li]There are certainly non-racist reasons to appreciate Forrest, contrary to your assertion. For example, here is an article offering some good reasons why the people of Rome, Georgia, in particular might hold him in some esteem.[/ol][/li]
Forrest was undoubtedly a bigot. He had been a slave trader prior to the War. Yet even in this regard, there is some ambiguity in the record. Here’s an article from the Memphis Daily Avalanche from July 6, 1875 (after Forrest had disbanded the KKK):

Self-serving? Maybe. But then, he didn’t have to accept the speaking engagement, did he?

Sorry for the length of the post, but sometimes ignorance-fightin’ takes time.

46

Back to issues regarding Southern state flags
As has been pointed out elsewhere, about Georgia with its 1950’s flag and SC’s use of the Confederate Jack above the statehouse, there is the feeling that these actions were taken really late in “history,” as an act of defiance, pointing to the U.S. War of Secession (the term used in many foreign lands to refer to that conflict) as their defining historical event (which may or may not be). But that happened just at the time the Federal government intervened with them again – over something on which the Southern establishment was clearly, absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

OTOH the Texan national flag, antedating both Texas statehood and the Confederacy, would hold a legit claim to historical continuity, whatever evils may have happened under it in the intervening years (BTW the same claim of historical continuity in spite of episodes could be made of the Hawaiian flag which incorporates a British Union Jack; or the Maryland flag which is the banner-of-arms of Lord Calvert – though I’m sure some rabid anti-royalist must have complained at some point).

Of course, the solution proposed is, shall we say kindly, unimaginative. In fact, what is the deal with the pervading vexillological lameness of U.S. state flags? “The State Seal on a Blue Field”… Jeez, man! I mean, the aforementioned TX, HI, MD are among a minority (along with OH, CO, CA, NM, DC and a few others) where you don’t need to hold the flag in your hand, put on your glasses and read which state it is. (Although if the people from Ohio will forgive me, that was taking it a little too far to the other extreme.)

jrd

47

From “Lies across America” by James W Loewen. “NBF stands as the paramount hero on the Tennesee landscape. He gets a bust in the state Capitol… and 32 different state
historical markers, far more than anu other person in any other state in America. Tennessee provided 3 United Sataes Presidents… but Forrest gets more markers than all 3 put together.” … "Forrest is also the subject of a statue and historical marker in Gadsen Ala., 8 other Alabama historical markers… “From Florida to Texas, parks streets, and schools are named for Forrest, as is a city in Ark. & a county in Miss.”

“Forrest’s military career simply cannot explain the extraordinary homage…him” “His operations in Tenn were on a modest scale, far less important than those of Gen. Braxton Bragg…”

“After the war, Forrest became the first national leader of the Ku Klux Klan”… Loewen concludes that Forrest is being honored for being a racist- not a general. He recounts a story where a captured servant to a union officer was brought before NBF. When the black man insisted he was a free man & not a slave- “Forrest drew his pistol and blew the mans brains out”. So much for “just following orders”.

Altho NBF did disolve the 1st Klan (in 1869&70)- some think it was under duress. Note that Forrest’s grandson became a “grand dragon” and national secretary of the second Klan, founded a short time later (in 1915).

As to NBF new prominence- on pg 256 Loewen also says; “Neo-Confederates once brought more shirts of Robert E Lee than any other Confederate hero; now one manufacturer outsells five Forrest Tshirts to every Lee”. I recieve a knife catalog from a Tenn co- they also sell tshirts. There are only 2 ones with generals on them. One has Lee, Stuart & NBF - the other is just NBF.

As to NBR importance as a General- in the Oxford History of the American People, he rates 2 mentions. Lee gets dozens. Stuart get 5, Bragg gets 8, Johnston gets over 20. Here are the 2 mentions: “The romantic exploits of the great Confederate cavalrymen Stuart, Forrest, Morgan & Shelby, contributed little to their cause…”. That’s it as a GENERAL.

Next—“Although apologists for the South decry the crimes of the KKK (163 Negroes were murdered in one Florida county in 1871, 300 murdered in a few parishes outside New Orleans), they were led by “the flower of Southern manhood” who cannot escape responsibility for acts in the same class with those of Hitler’s storm troopers. The “Grand Wizard” of the KKK was General Nathan B. Forrest csa…” “The Klan was formally disbanded in 1869 and the Knights the following year; but under one or another guise the intimidation of the Negroes went on”. Oxford does not throw out comparisons to Hitler’s storm troopers lightly.

IMHO- every monument, statue and other item honoring this racist madman should be taken down- the metal melted down & made into another monument apologizing for them, and honoring the Black folks who were killed by the Klan. it won’t be enough, but it’s a start.

48

Needs- I understand- and i do certainly think that parts of the South are more involved in a mere 5 years or so of their history, than all the other 200+. However, lest some think I am a “Confederate general basher”- “marse Robert” was argueably Americas greatest general- and if not THE greatest- one of the top five. And, he was a scholar & a gentleman, besides. Not to mention- likely less racist than many of the Northern generals. He deserves honor.

49

Thanks for digging that quote up, spoke. I don’t read that many Great Debate threads. I’ll address a couple of statements in there.

These statements are simply not true. For one thing, he’s not the biggest hero in the South, by any means. We’ve established that already. I’d say the biggest hero, among Confederate leaders, is Robert E. Lee, followed by Stonewall Jackson, ad infintum. Generally (yuk yuk), NBF is never even mentioned. Yes, spoke has corrected some fallacies about NBF, but that doesn’t mean he’s regarded as a hero. And, if someone does admire Forrest, how can you be 100% sure that it’s because he was racist? Frankly, your statements are this close to insinuating that Southerners are a bunch of racist hicks, and that sort of thing tends to really piss me off. My personal Civil War heroes? Buford and Farragut – thanks for asking. Although I do admire Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet for their leadership, tactical skills (well, ordering that whole Pickett’s Charge thing was a bit of a screw-up on Lee’s part), and sense of honor. (Yeah, I was a transplant to the South too, but I’m not nearly the Yankee that mouthbreather is. ;))

It looked like the second flag from the left under “Georgia’s History” in the link Mr. Blue Sky provided. And yeah, I agree. I wish they would go back to it (it does have a history behind it) instead of using the monstrosity that they passed through legislation yesterday.

50

Strainger- i did not mean to imply that the South is all “racist hicks” or even has a monopoly on them- hell, I live in Calif, with the motorcycle gangs, and the rest of that crap. You certainly have your share, tho. But all you Southerners have said NBF is not a “hero” to you, and so clearly, at least amoung the more intelligent folks down South, he ain’t such a big deal. But ya gotta admit the “I ride with Forrest” bumper stickers are not purchased by folk who are in the NAACP.

And, of the five “historical” flags at the bottom- are not 2 of them from the Confederacy- which lasted for only a few years? Why not the “Don’t Tread on me flag”, or the Union Jack, or some other US flags? Georgia was a Colony far longer than it was in the Confederacy. I think they just wanted another way to sneak em in.

51

As a Georgian I’ve been hearing this debate rage pretty steadily since I was able to understand speech. “IS it a symbol of EVIL and STUPIDITY.” “Is it a symbol of HISTORY and HONOR.” I’m pretty sick of the wohle thing, and in all honesty don’t care what they do to the flag.

But, the thing that gets me is that this symbol that supposedly represents Georgia history was NEVER, NOT ONCE, EVER used as a Georgia regiment flag for battle or otherwise. It was from North Carolina. Why couldn’t the legislators who put it on the flag, reguardless of their motive, at least chosen a flag from Georgia. As a matter of fact the Three bars that origionally adorned the Georgia flag were on more Civil war standards than the “Stars and Bars” both in Georgia AND in other states. Did the North Carolinian’s just make a prettier flag? Did the legislators pick randomly from “The Big Book of Confederate Flags”? I can live with racisim, ignorant people are becoming easier to ignore in today’s society (and perhaps that’s a bad thing), but if you’re going to do something with “Historical Signifagance” shouldn’t it be historicaly accurate?

Ok, that’s my little rant.

52

Oops, ok So replace my refrence to the “Stars and Bars” with one of those.

53

I grew up in Texas, and only just now happened to discover this…

Apparently, the reverse side of the Texas state seal contains depictions of the six flags that have flown soverign over the territory in its history: Mexico; Spain; France; Republic of Texas; USA; and the Confederate States of America. Now, nobody ever sees the back side of the state seal, so I don’t really have to wonder why there has been no outcry.

What I have known since my youth is that the Six Flags Over Texas theme park in Arlington is named after the aforementioned six flags, and has them all flying proudly just inside the front gate. The park, like the state seal, uses the less-well-known CSA national flag, rather than the Southern Cross that gets everybody’s ire up so effectively.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with it. I guess I’m posting this to express my surprise that nobody else does, either - at least not vocally.

Is it simply that not enough people realize what the Confederate flag is? The Stars ‘N’ Bars can fly with impunity, but you’d better hide that battle flag…

54

I must be the only U.S. Grant fan alive. :slight_smile:

55

If James Loewen is your only source, Danielinthewolvesden, you are on shaky ground indeed. Loewen is not so much a historian as a half-assed muckraker. He bends and twists facts to fit his hypotheses (and not incidentally, to sell books). His merits (or lack thereof) have been discussed in several other threads. For example, here

One example from your quotes:

Loewen mentions the statue to Forrest in Gadsden, Alabama, as well as several other markers mentioning him in Alabama. Loewen then goes on to imply, nay to state unequivocally, that racism is the only possible reason for these markers.

What Loewen fails to mention is that Forrest, with a force of 500 men, captured 1700 Union troops outside Gadsden, and likely saved the city from being sacked. Was Loewen unaware of that fact, or did he intentionally omit it to mislead his readers?

Loewen fails to mention that Forrest was the most prominent General campaigning in Alabama. It is hardly surprising (or indicative of racism) to find, then, that the state of Alabama has a number of historical markers devoted to Forrest’s exploits.

Does Loewen mention that Forrest disbanded the KKK when it turned violent? I do not see that fact mentioned among your Loewen quotes. The KKK reformed some 46 years later (not a “short time later,” as you state in your post). I do not see how you can logically hold Forrest responsible for the actions of the re-constituted Klan.

Nor does Loewen mention Forrest’s concilliatory speech to the Jubilee of Pole Bearers (a black organization) which I quoted in my earlier post. Why does Loewen fail to mention this speech? Because it doesn’t fit his hypothesis?

There is some irony in the title of Loewen’s book, “Lies Across America.”

Forrest was surely a bigot. (Try finding someone from that era who was not.) But to say that his bigotry is the only possible reason to memorialize him ignores his talents and exploits as a military leader, ignores his efforts to rein in the Klan, and ignores his concilliatory gestures toward black Southerners.

As I said earlier, I did not intend to become the chief apologist for Forrest, but I won’t stand by and hear him slandered with such labels as “racist madman” or “stormtrooper.” He was neither a “madman” nor a “stormtrooper.” You toss out these epithets far to casually.

Personal anecdote:

I grew up in the country, in northwest Georgia. There was a sweet little old lady there who ran a country store up on Lookout Mountain where we sometimes stopped for a moon pie or a barbecue sandwich. I found out later in life that she was the great-granddaughter of Nathan Bedford Forrest.

I mention this to explain why I feel somewhat obligated to set the record straight (as best I can). See, when you twist facts to turn Forrest into some sort of irredeemable monster, there are those still living who feel the cumulative effects of such slanders. I have no problem with pointing out legitimate flaws in the man’s character. He surely had some. But let’s at least leaven those flaws with some truth about his place in history, and his efforts to undo racial animosity.

56

No need for them to show up. :slight_smile: We took the hint and will be voting it out April 17th.

And as a note, ours will not have any trace of the flag.

57

Danielinthewolvesden, your earlier post included the following:

This is obviously a very troubling and incendiary account. However, I have scoured the Web looking for independent confirmation of the story and can find none. Not even the Forrest-bashing sites (and there are many) make any mention of this alleged incident. Does Loewen cite a source for this story? Or is he making this up, too?

Also, here is a pretty thorough account of events at Fort Pillow, which seems to cast some doubt on Forrest’s culpability in the episode. From that site:

58

1- Name some important battles or campaigns in Alabama. Next- Loewen mentions the heavy amount of NBF markers that occur in Tenn, with the others as sidelights. Don’t try & tell me that NBF was an important general in Tenn. Alabama was not on the “front”. Again- if NBF was such an important general- why do his campaigns get no mention in a scholarly, unbiased history of the US?

  1. I gave the exact years when the Klan was disbanded, and when it reformed. Note that Oxford mentions the “disbanding” of the original Klan did not stop its actions. Note that NBF grandson was an important figure in the second Klan. NBF can not be blamed for his grandsons actions, but the regard the Klan had for NBF can be seen in the high place they put his namesake & grandson.

  2. I gave an exact quote from Oxford when I used the term “stormtrooper”. You may attack Loewen as biased- try doing that with Oxford. Although Samuel Elliot Morrison is the primary Author, there are dozens of professors as sources. Morrison is the author of some 2 dozen highly regarded books on US History. An “Oxford univeristy press” book is rarely attacked for muckraking & sensationalism. I did not toss out the epithet of “stormtrooper”- this highly regarded, staid, Harvard professor did- however, i do concur. However, I feel that the leader of the KKK is certainly fair game for attacks as a “racist madman”.

Note to spoke- Loewen may be attacked here by some, but he always gives excellent cites & sources. That story comes from Brian Wills, a biographer of NBF, I beleive in his book- “A Battle from the Start”.

59

Yeah, I’d consider him a hero too. But, everyone knows about him. I can’t ignore the contributions of the lesser-known (but still pretty well-known) figures, though. I mean, Farragut kicked ass along the Mississippi. And Buford, well, he was portrayed by Sam Elliot in “Gettysburg.” And, as we all know, portrayal by Sam Elliot=hero. :smiley:

60

By the way, spoke-, thanks for all the insight and information you’ve provided in this thread. I’ve gotten a lot out of your posts.