Georgia Flag Debate

Great Debates
61

My apologies about my confusion of the Southern Cross for the Stars and Bars. Thanks for the correction, Strainger. But I don’t think I’m alone in that misconception. For right or for wrong, symbols do not mean what they were originally intended to mean. Instead, they mean what most of the people who see the symbol associate it with. Witness the corruption of the Buddhist (I think?) swastika for members of modern western civilization. (uh oh… I think I’ve invoked Godwin’s Law :frowning: ). Many Americans, perhaps most Americans, associate the Southern Cross with practices that should not be honored on the flag of a freedom-loving state. That reason alone should be sufficient to encourage the legislature to pick another flag.

Perhaps some symbol or phrase associated with state’s rights would be appropriate for the flag and would not offend a portion of the population the flag is intended to represent. Surely a flag that represents the ideals agreed upon by the current citizens of Georgia is more important than a flag that represents the ideals of the former citizens of Georgia.

If honoring history is more important to Georgians than it is to me, perhaps one of these two less inflammatory ideas could be useful:
Why not a tribute to the contributions of African-Americans in Georgia? They have been there for centuries, while the Confederacy was only there for five years.
Why not a symbol that might be associated with veterans rather than the Southern Cross? I’m thinking of the Massachussets state quarter with the minuteman on it, or maybe something like the purple heart license plates. Certainly that would be less likely to be viewed as a contentious statement.

I doubt that the average Georgian has much input on a matter like this; it’s probably mostly influenced by the opinions of politicians and vocal minorities. Does anyone think these alternatives would be unacceptable to Georgians?

62

Tell me, Danielinthewolvesden, what do you think your “Harvard professor” (oh, well, if he’s from Harvard, he must be unbiased) means to imply by use of the phrase “storm trooper” to describe Forrest? It’s not exactly an emotionally neutral term, is it?

Do you think the same term could aptly be applied to Sherman, and to his campaign of death and destruction? Ah, but the South lost the war, so we don’t get to pick which epithets get attached to which generals, I suppose.

As I explained, Forrest was the most prominent general operating in Alabama. As I also explained, he routinely defeated much larger forces, including the capture of Union troops outside Gadsden which likely saved that town from being sacked. I’m guessing that’s considered pretty “important” to the good folks in Gadsden.

Here’s a question for you: Why do you suppose Americans remember John Paul Jones so fondly? I mean, the British maintained naval superiority throughout the course of the American Revolution, did they not? John Paul Jones won some minor victories, but he never changed the tide of war.

John Paul Jones is remembered with particular fondness because he fought fiercely and because he won his battles against incredible odds. It is the same with Forrest.

Why is he remembered fondly in Tennessee? Uh, because he was a Tennesseean, maybe? And because he fought primarily in Tennessee? And because (as I stated earlier) he is almost universally acknowledged as the greatest tactician of the war?

After Robert E. Lee surrendered, he was asked by a Union Officer who he thought the greatest general was. Lee’s reply: “Sir, a gentleman I have never had the pleasure to meet, General Nathan Bedford Forrest.”

I’ll say it again. The Klan was founded as a social club. It later evolved into a vigilante organization and then into a terrorist group. When the Klan descended into terrorism, Forrest disbanded it. But hey, you just keep sticking your fingers in your ears and humming. Wouldn’t want to let any facts interfere with your prejudices.

“Racist madman,” huh? Compare these quotes:

That’s your “racist madman” Nathan Bedford Forrest talking.

Here’s another quote:

That last quote is from Abraham Lincoln. Let’s go storm the Lincoln Memorial and tear it down! You with me?

63

By the way, thank you, Strainger, for your kind words.

Danielinthewolvesden, the fact that some racist yahoos (in California, I guess, 'cause I’m not seeing it here) have co-opted Forrest’s image and used it to express their own racism, does not give you or Mr. Loewen the right to go back and re-write history to make Forrest into the evil hate-monger you seem to want him to be.

We are often trapped by our Judeo-Christian mindset into dividing people into two neat categories: “good” and “evil.” The point I am trying to make with my posts is that history is seldom so clear cut, seldom so black-and-white. History and human behavior come in shades of gray. No one is unremittingly, irredeemably evil. No one is perfectly good.

Forrest, while far from perfect, is not the monster Loewen decribes. Nor is Lincoln the angel that “Harvard historians” recall.

64

As long as we’re discussing Forrest’s qualifications as a “racist madman,” these facts also seem pertinent:
[ul][li]When the war started, Forrest asked 45 of his slaves to join him in the fight, offering them their freedom if they agreed, regardless of the outcome of the war.[/li][li]All 45 rode with him. Only one deserted during the course of the war.[/li][li]Among Forrest’s elite command escort were eight black soldiers.[/li][li]65 black troopers were with Forrest when he surrendered his command. Forrest said of these black soldiers “No finer Confederates ever fought.”[/ul][/li]
History is complicated, huh?

65

Ah, so he is remembered becuase he is a “tenneseean”, eh? Ok, sounds good- then why does he have scads more plaques & stuff than President Andrew Jackson, another native, and who was FAR more important than NBF?

“Universally aknowledged as the greatest tactician”? By whom might I ask? Find me a well-known non 'southern apologist" who does so, please. And, it is odd, that NBF was SOOO great, when all you southerners were saying a few posts before that you had hardly or just heard of him.

NBF was the national Leader & the “Grand wizard” of the KKK during its most violent heyday. He has the blood of hundreds of innocent black folk on his hands- and in one case, directly, as i quoted above. “Social club”? From Oxford-“It beagan with a group of wild young men in Pulaski, Tenn.”. I guess my definition of social is different than yours. Perhaps an “anti-social club”, perhaps. He dissolved the KKK under duress (IMHO), and it continued its actions. I notice that he did not 'rat" on its murderous members to the Attorney general, now did he? If he was so “appalled” by the violence- why not?

Let me give another quote from NBF, in his report on the attck on Ft Pillow, where his men, acting on his orders, murdered some 200 black union soldiers who had surrendered. “The river was dyed with the blood of the slaughtered for 200 yards”. NBF also “hoped” that Ft Pillow would “deomaonstrate to the Northern people that negro soldies cannot cope with Southerers”. Sounds like the REAL NBF here.

However, I admit- nice quotes. BUT- that is why we admire men, who- like Lincoln “Walk the Walk”, instead of those like NBF who just “talk the talk”.

66

Simple. Because Forrest fought his battles mostly in Tennessee. Jackson, on the other hand, fought his battles in Alabama, Florida and Louisiana. It’s the darndest thing, but when you put up a marker commemorating a battle, you tend to put it where the battle took place. Shall I show you some Jackson plaques in Alabama? There are plenty.

Here’s a test of your theory that the reason for erecting plaques to Forrest is racism. Go to North Carolina or South Carolina, states where the Klan was active in times past (but where Forrest did not fight), and try to find a single plaque or statue dedicated to Forrest. Happy hunting!

Rommel, Patton, Schwartzkopf, (who all studied his tactics assiduously), and R.E. Lee (as quoted in my earlier post). Shall I go on? (Oops, sorry, I guess Lee would qualify as a “Southern apologist”)

You want more confirmation of Forrest’s abilities? Check out Ken Burns’s documentary The Civil War (which, as I stated earlier, was my first exposure to Forrest). Have you seen it?

And you were saying that Forrest was (and I quote) “not a very good general at all.” You attacked his abilities as a general. I have demonstrated that you were dead wrong. You were the one wondering out loud why there would be plaques dedicated to the exploits of Forrest. I have given you your answer.

It is true that Forrest was never mentioned in the same breath with the Confederate “holy trinity” of Lee, Jackson and Stuart. I’m quite sure that his association with the KKK added shame to his name and is a likely reason he has not been more widely and vocally admired in the South. See, contrary to your apparent preconceptions, the vast majority of Southerners loathe the Klan.

Forrest was also an intemperate and insubordinate hothead, which may have caused him to lose points with his contemporaries and no doubt helped to cost him a spot in the pantheon. He fought repeatedly with his commander Braxton Bragg over matters of strategy (with history proving that Forrest was correct).

Frankly, snobbery is probably part of the reason, as well. Forrest was of humble birth, unlike the more commonly admired Confederates. He was neither a West Pointer nor a gentleman. As noted earlier, he was unschooled, and clearly rough around the edges.
Regarding the Klan:

The more quotes I hear from your Oxford History of the American People, the less I am inclined to regard it as a dispassionate source of information. Let’s try a source which I think we can agree is neutral, Brittanica.com. According to Brittanica:

Look, Forrest was a bigot. I have stated that several times. But for you (and Mr. Loewen) to assert that the only possible reason to commemorate him is that bigotry, then you are dead wrong. Clearly, his military exploits are fully worthy of the attention he has received.

67

Simple. Because Forrest fought his battles mostly in Tennessee. Jackson, on the other hand, fought his battles in Alabama, Florida and Louisiana. It’s the darndest thing, but when you put up a marker commemorating a battle, you tend to put it where the battle took place.

Rommel, Patton, Schwartzkopf, (who all studied his tactics assiduously),
And you were saying that Forrest was (and I quote) “not a very good general at all.” You attacked his abilities as a general.
Forrest was also an intemperate and insubordinate hothead, which may have caused him to lose points with his contemporaries and no doubt helped to cost him a spot in the pantheon. He fought repeatedly with his commander Braxton Bragg over matters of strategy. Clearly, his military exploits are fully worthy of the attention he has received.
**
[/QUOTE]

Some cites on Patton, Rommel & Swartzcopf & others considering him the GREATEST tactician of the Civil war? Greater than marse Robert? Really? And, i said he was not a “good general”- and your post confirmed this- He did have a certain brilliance in “irregular cavalry tactics”- yes, and Oxford did call him (along with others) a “great cavalryman”- and I agree. But his exploits were strategically meaningless. He was an insignificant & “poor” General- not becuase of his lack of tactical abilities, it was because he was unable to see that Irregular cavalry, atho very useful in raids & the like, were useless in doing something called “winning the war”.

Umm, re Andrew Jackson and markers- you DO know the man did a bit more than be a General, right? One of our most important & controversial Presidents? And one of the markers in Tenn, is where NBF “rested”. Gee, big deal.

68

And you DO understand how historical markers work, right? You put up a marker where an event occurred. Jackson did his “generalling” in AL, LA and FL. He did his “Presidenting” in Washington,DC.

Outside of his birthplace and his home in Nashville, where in Tennessee should there be markers to Jackson? Should they just sprinkle them randomly about the countryside?

Also (regarding Forrest), you DO understand the difference between strategy and tactics, don’t you? I said (and I maintain) that Forrest was the greatest tactician of the war. While Lee was an accomplished strategist, he did not always make the best tactical decisions. Witness his decision to launch Pickett’s Charge, which arguably cost him the battle of Gettysburg.

Also, I think you understimate the importance of irregular cavalry to the war effort in general. Disruption of supply lines was a critical factor that prolonged the “western” phase of the war.

Furthermore, news of successful raids also provided morale boosts for Confederate citizens. Morale is vital in any conflict. No morale=no new recruits=a quick end to the war.

The Union had an overwhelming advantage in manpower and materiel. How do you suppose the South held them at bay in the west as long as they did?

All of that is to say nothing of Forrest’s important roles in the Battle of Shiloh, the Battle of Chickamauga, and the Nashville campaign, as well as his various rear-gaurd harrying actions in protecting withdrawals of Confederate troops.

While you are demanding “cites,” I challenge you to find one single cite (other than your boy Loewen) that agrees with your laughable conclusion that Forrest was either “insignificant” or a “poor general” (in any contorted sense of that phrase you want to come up with).

69

You said that 3 well-known generals all said they considered NBF the “greatest tactician of the war”. I again, ask you for cites. Not a cite that they studied his tactics, but “greatest tactician of the Civil war” (which honor belongs still to RELee).

I also quoted this, but here it goes again, form Oxford: “The romantic exploits of the great Confederate cavalrymen …Forrest… contributed little to their cause…”. NBF’s only mention in the entire volume, EXCEPT his role in the first KKK. Real signifcant. Oh, and it was Johnston & Beauregard who led the rebels at Shiloh, not NBF. OK, there are TWO cites. Now give me one for each general- Rommel, Swartzkopf & Patton.

Oh- and again- NBF did not “dissolve” the first KKK out of altruism. Congress had just passed a law that would keep the Union troops in the southern States, and allow them to be used against KKK terrorists. The KKK had to be officially dissolved, or Union troops would start shooting KKK members, and likely arrest NBF- or shoot him.

70

DITWD, do you own any other history books? If you don’t know what you’re talking about, you shouldn’t argue with those who do.

Here’s some of what a cursory web search yields:

And here is a dandy link to some accurate information about Forrest.

Go crack a few more sources about Forrest or the Civil War and get back to us. Your aggressive ignorance is appalling.

71

zeno: 'agressive ignorance?"- ah, because I have only listed TWO cites, where most have listed NONE? Look, you gave two second hand sources, and it agreed that Forrest was known for his irregular calvary tactics- which I ageed to.

I asked for cites (unbiased), that would show that NBF is generally recognized as the “greatest tactician of the Civil war”. I have not got them, I asked for cites that would show that Rommel, Swartzcopf & Patton said that about him.

NBF, along with others such as Stuart & Shelby was known as a “brilliant cavalry commander”- in a war where cavalry was becoming obsolete. I agree he was such- but no greater than Stuar, and about as good as Shelby. Now, which of the “four horsemen” (Morgan is also often included) was the best is often heatedly argued.

Look, Loewen is a very popular & well known author, altho it can be argued he is biased. The Oxford series is generally recognized as one of the most scholarly, unbiased History sources. How many more sources do i need? I even took a upperdivision US History course, which was on America in the 19th century, so we spent a lot of time on The Civil War. the big mention of NBF there was his role at Ft.Pillow. Can you find me one critical source that attacks the Oxford book as biased, uninformed or generally incorrect? You can’t just wave your hands in the air, and say you don’t accept it, you know.

Anyone who writes an entire book about anyone, almost ALWAYS is biased, as it is very hard to write an entire book about one person & remain objective- and they usually come out on the “pro” side. I do not dismiss your cites- they are valuable, but we have to consider they are likley as biased as Loewen.

72

Let me tell all of you straight–the Conferate flag is the Black people’s swastika. It is a symbol that to us represents a battle cry to those who believe that Black people are inferior to Whites, and should be treated as worse than dirt forever. The fact that there were those such as Lee and Jackson and Forrest who fought quite honorably under the flag is irrelevant. They and others before and others after them fought for the state’s rights to keep black people slaves, or stay second-class citizens. That was the states’ rights for which the Civil War was fought.

73

[ul][li]Danielinthewolvesden asserted that the only reason to erect monuments to Forrest is the racism of those erecting the monuments. (Thus, by extension, implying that the people of Alabama and Tennessee, where those markers are most prominent, are bunch of racist rednecks.)[/li][li]Danielinthewolvesden** stated that “General” Forrest (his quote marks) was “illiterate” and “not a very good general at all.”[/li][li]I have demonstrated (amply, I believe) that the military exploits of Forrest (primarily in Tennessee and Alabama) justify the markers which chronicle those exploits.[/li][li]I have demonstrated that Forrest was not “illiterate.”[/li][li]As for Forrest being “not a very good general,” I have provided links from which one who is willing to learn might discover (for example) that Forrest lost only one of his 54 engagements during the course of the war. Hardly the record of a poor general.[/li][li]In response to Daniel’s characterization of Forrest as a “racist madman,” I have provided a speech Forrest gave to a black organization, calling for reconciliation of black and white Southerners. The speech was given late in Forrest’s life (two years before his death, in fact), when he had no motive to do anything other than speak his genuinely-felt sentiments on the subject. In fact, he had no apparent motive to address a black organization at all, except for his expressed desire for reconciliation.[/li][li]I have shown that Forrest disbanded the Ku Klux Klan when it turned to terrorism. Daniel you are dead wrong (again) when you say that Forrest disbanded the Klan in response to Federal legislation. Here’s the correct time sequence, from Brittanica.com: [/li][quote]
But Forrest ordered [the Klan] disbanded in 1869, largely as a result of the group’s excessive violence. Local branches remained active for a time, however, prompting Congress to pass the Force Act in 1870 and the Ku Klux Act in 1871.
[/quote]

Please note that the federal legislation came after Forrest had already ordered the Klan disbanded. Daniel’s assertion that Forrest disbanded the Klan in response to federal legislation is positively Loewen-esque.
[li]Daniel, unable to rebut the evidence, now wishes to sidetrack the debate into an argument over whether Rommel, Patton and Schwartzkopf ever explicitly stated that Forrest was the greatest tactician of the war. (The fact that they studied his tactics should be ample proof of the original point - that Forrest’s exploits were militarily and historically important, and therefore worthy of historical markers.)[/ul][/li]
Danielinthewolvesden is apparently incapable of admitting what ought to be obvious by this point - that his original statements were in error.

Come on Daniel, you can do it. It’s just three simple words: “I was wrong.”

Capacitor, I understand your visceral aversion to the flag. For that very reason, I think it is an inappropriate symbol for any state.

On the other hand, I hope you understand that it is mighty hard to convince folks to spit on a banner which their ancestors (however misguided they may have been) died to defend.

74

Oh yes, and Daniel, this…:

…just convinces me further that whoever wrote that “Oxford history” of which you are so proud knows very little about the War. You might ask Lee how important the cavalryman J.E.B. Stuart was to his campaign. I don’t think his answer would jibe with the conclusion of your “Harvard historian.”

75

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spoke- *
[list][li]Danielinthewolvesden asserted that the only reason to erect monuments to Forrest is the racism of those erecting the monuments. (Thus, by extension, implying that the people of Alabama and Tennessee, where those markers are most prominent, are bunch of racist rednecks.)>1[/li][li]Danielinthewolvesden stated that “General” Forrest (his quote marks) was “illiterate” and “not a very good general at all.”>2[/li][li]In response to Daniel’s characterization of Forrest as a “racist madman,” I have provided a speech Forrest gave to a black organization,>3[/li][li]I have shown that Forrest disbanded the Ku Klux Klan when it turned to terrorism. Daniel you are dead wrong (again) when you say that Forrest disbanded the Klan in response to Federal legislation. Congress to pass the Force Act in 1870 and the Ku Klux Act in 1871.[/li][/quote]

Please note that the federal legislation came after Forrest had already ordered the Klan disbanded. Daniel’s assertion that Forrest disbanded the Klan in response to federal legislation is positively Loewen-esque.>4
[li]Daniel, unable to rebut the evidence, now wishes to sidetrack the debate into an argument over whether Rommel, Patton and Schwartzkopf ever explicitly stated that Forrest was the greatest tactician of the war.>5[/li]

[QUOTE]

>1. No, I did not say that- i say that the only reason to glorify NBF- even more than Robert E Lee- is, IMHO- racism. Does that mean he caanot be remembered for winning a battle or two? No- but the fact that there are more monuments in Tenn (birthplace of the KKK)to NBF than exist to any other person in any other state- shows he is being FAR over-glorified. Ay best- he should be no more remembered than Stuart- who is regarded by most to be far greater that NBF. And NBF is not even in Lee’s neighborhood. Why is NBF given more monuments, etc- than even RE Lee?

>2 And i still stand by that- no matter how brilliant of a tactician he might have been, his contibutions were minor. Some folks- who are great in running small units- are terrible at running large armies. Illiterate? Maybe I was over harsh, perhaps “uneducated” and “barely literate” would have been better.

>3Words are cheap- actions cost much. Show me one thing he DID which shows he was contrite. Did he testify against his (now-ex) KKK members? Did he give a list of names to the AG? Anything?

>4 Here you are correct- NBF dissolved the KK in response to a THREAT of such legislation,. Such Legislation happened anyway, however in a somewhat modified Law. In any case- they did not arrest Forrest- which they would have, had he not “dissolved” the KKK.

>5 You made that specific claim- and i ask you to back it up. You also claimed NBF was “universally aknowledged as the greatest tactician of the Civil war”. Not- “claimed by some” or “ONE of the…”. Back it up, or back down. I have asked this 3 times. I have agreed that NBF was one of the 4 greatest cavalry leaders in the South- i am not ignoring his skills. I just think he is not in the same league as Lee, Stuart & Johnston.

Oh, and one other thing slipped by me- you claimed he freed his 45 black slaves, and they fought for him- i have seen nothing of this, anywhere. Cite, please?

Finally, unless you can show a book written by one of the greatest American History writers in America, who is also a full professor at harvard- and whoes book was “fact-checked” and "sourced’ by over 20 other Professors- is wrong, i really do not think you attacks on it mean much.

76

Cite, please. (Happy hunting.)

Stuart was a great cavalryman, but not the greatest. His disobedience of Lee’s orders at Gettysburg cost the Confederates dearly.

Uh, because Lee didn’t fight a single battle in Tennessee? As I noted a couple of times before, you put the markers where the battles occurred. Forrest’s battles were in TN, AL, and MS, so that’s where his markers are. Lee’s battles were in VA, PA, MD and NC, so that’s where his markers are.

Cite please? Please provide some evidence to rebut the entry from Brittanica.com which says Forrest disbanded the Klan because of the group’s excessive violence. Why doesn’t Brittanica tell us that Forrest was threatened with arrest if that is so, Mr. Loewen, I mean Daniel?

No, Mr. McCarthy, I don’t believe he did.

You still have offered no explanation as to why Forrest would give a conciliatory speech to a black audience, if not to demonstrate an honest desire for reconciliation. Well?

Considering his 53 victories to one defeat, and his repeated triumphs over numerically superior foes, I am led to ask, “Why not?”

According to whom?

He seems to me to display a poor understanding of the Civil War and the manner in which it was fought, if he contends that the cavalry units contributed little to the Southern cause. He is aware, is he not, that the Confederacy, lacking an industrial base, depended largely on captured supplies and munitions for its war effort? Who do you think seized those materials? And again I ask, given the enormous superiority of the North in terms of manpower and supplies, why were they not able to defeat the South much sooner? It was owing largely to the supply disruption and harrassment of the cavalry units. Who provided reconnaissance to Lee and the other Southern commanders? The cavalry. Lee called Stuart the “eyes” of his army.

“Greatest American history writer,” indeed.

Here ya go.

Admittedly, this is one of those “Southern apologist” sources. I don’t have much use for folks who try to glorify the “Lost Cause” myself, but I don’t see any other source which disputes the account of Forrest’s slaves fighting at his side. Do you?

This source also indicates that Forrest’s tactics were studied by Rommel, Patton and Schwartzkopf.

Arguing about who is the “greatest General” or the “greatest strategist” or the “greatest tactician” is a lot like arguing who is the greatest baseball player of all time. A lot of subjective assessment is involved. I am not about to go digging through the library to find a list of books for you that declare Forrest to be the “greatest tactician,” though I’m quite confident I could do so. His record speaks for itself.

You are trying very hard to sidetrack the debate, but I will bring it back around to the original point one more time. Forrest’s military exploits fully justify the historical markers erected to commemorate them.

77

[quote]
there are more monuments in Tenn …to NBF than exist to any other person in any other state

[quote]

I daresay no general but Forrest fought and won more battles in any one state. Small wonder, then, that there are so many monuments.

Speaking of which, I believe that this is the first time you have made the above assertion. Do you have a source? If it’s Loewen :rolleyes:, please give me a quote.

I doubt that this assertion is true, frankly. Is he counting every marker that mention’s Forrest’s name? What is his source of information? I would be very surprised if Lee didn’t have at least twice as many monuments/markers in Virginia.

78

>1 Well, I have asked you for some several cites, and not by southern apologists, and you have mostly come up with Southern Apologists cites, and none for the “greatest tactician”. Or the Rommel, Swartzcopf, Patton quotes, either. I’ll look for a cite, anyway. However, did not somebody call Stuart one of the “Big Three” right here in this thread, while admitting he had hardly heard of NBF?

>2 There is a great deal of differance between turning in someone because their political beleifs are under attack- and turning someone in for the murder of hundreds of innocent folks. Civilized folks will report such crimes- rather than keep silent.

>3 he was lying his racist ass off.

>4 Oddly enuf, occording to this cite, NBF disolved the Klan “because its mission was accomplished”. Now- we know that is wrong- there were still LOTS of innocent blacks to kill.

>5 You can say that in your opinion NBF was the greatest, and maybe even SOME say that- but “universally aknowledged” demands some cites. We have already found one well known History expert, Prof Morrison, and one well known writer- Loewen who do not aknowledge him as such. Thus- by definition- NBF is NOT “universally” aknowledged. Go back & read the first page of this thread- many, including you- said you had barely heard of NBF.

As for your next post & query- i have already given that info & cite.

79

I said “one of the” not “THE”- don’t quote me wrong. He has written some 2 dozen US History books, many published by Oxford press. And i am sure that your opinions are very nice and all- but do YOU have a PhD in American History? A Full Professorship at Harvard? 24 books published? And, is your opinion here fact checked & sourced by some another 2 dozen Professors? But you do know enough to dismiss his writings. :rolleyes:

You know- Loewen is rather controversial, I will admit- but there is no big controversy over the Oxford series, or Prof Morrisons work.

80

I am certain that Lee, Jackson and Forrest, if they were alive today, would be ashamed at how the flag they fought for, which to them represented the people and the states they loved, turned into a battle flag that one group of Southerners use in battle against against another group of Southerners’ fight for basic rights they were entitled to.