Well, yeah, but Northern Virginia is more or less the seat of the United States government. That’s what makes it weird. It’d be like having a Guy Fawkes wing of the Houses of Parliament.
Do people still seriously see them as equals? Sure, they shouldn’t be treated rudely but they are in no way equal. Just look at their continent, it’s a complete disaster. They refuse to use it for agricultural reasons, or they don’t know how to. Their skulls are a completely different shape, and their brains less developed. They don’t even have any Neanderthal ancestors. They are a straight offshoot from the Homo-Erectus. Every other race is a hybrid breed composing of Neanderthal and the Homo-Erectus and thirty thousand years of evolution.
Even their language is primitive. Sure, there are some very successful black people, but that doesn’t account for them as a whole.
Is it your superior Neanderthal genes that made you think they don’t have agriculture in Africa?
They still are not using to the fullest extent. If a moderator is in here could you please delete my comment. I will keep personal rants off of the forum.
Most of us do, and none of what you are saying is related to this debate topic, which makes me suspect you’re trying to get a rise out of people. We don’t allow that here, so I’m giving you a formal warning for trolling. If you do want to join the illustrious ranks of Dopers who spout this kind of pseudoscience, you had better do it only when it’s relevant to the topic under discussion.
Book 'im, Danno.
They don’t usually delete comments in this forum.
We don’t delete posts here, but since the post was so off-topic, I’ll instruct everybody else to drop the issue as well.
Yes, and he’s the worst. After all, RE Lee was a great general and a gentleman.
But NBF was a uncouth super-racist, who really wasn’t that well known or great as a general. The worship of NBF is simply code for being a racist Southern Apologist. “See, I am not really a racist, I jest think ol’ Nathan was sech a great genr’l, and damn he wasn’t such a racist after all. hellfire after killing some in cold blood by hiz own hand and authorizing the lynching of many more, well shoot, there’s a story he made up to the Negra’s after the war…”:rolleyes:
In fairness, Forrest attempted to dissolve the Klan when it got violent. He just wanted to scare them negroes.
Nope. Lie promulated by NBF backers. NBF was threatened with huge financial losses if he didn’t try to dissolve the KKK. So, he made a public announcement, but the KKK knew he didn;t mean it.
Interestingly though he gave a speech to a black organization: http://www.tennessee-scv.org/ForrestHistSociety/forrest_speech.html
Considering it was 1875, there was no advantage to such a speech and it risked alienating a whole bunch of Southern whites.
Also in fairness, he was in fact a really good cavalry leader.
What his troops did at Ft. Pillow was deplorable, one of the most shameful moments in American history. He was a slave trader before the war. He founded the KKK. Clearly not a decent guy, regardless of whether he quit the KKK after they went beyond “scaring” or whomever he accepted a bouquet of flowers from later on after the war or whatever he said to Congress when they were investigating the KKK.
I think in the narrow field of military history it is possible to separate his exploits as a general from his other aspects and retain some respect for him. Brice’s Crossroads was a brilliant victory. And “get there first with the most” is good advice in many endeavors.
True, that can be said for a lot of military commanders including among others Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and Field Marshal Walther Model.
He did give a speech. But we don;t know what was said at the speech. No period source has the text of the speech. And again, his arm had been twisted.
He was a good calvary raider, one of the 3 best on the CSA side. He wasn’t a very good general. Brice’s Crossroads was a pretty good victory but it did nothing to further the Southern side, strategy wise, and over all it’;s was fairly small potatoes, having like 1/10 the combatants of any of the really important battles. Few other than Civil War buff would even note it at all, except that the pro NBF/KKK crowd pushes it as such a great victory.
But, goodness isn’t always celebrated, and evil usually is! Look, I’m not suggesting leading kids to conform to that but OTOH I don’t think it is a bad thing to remind people of what they are. Teach 'em ethics if you can get 'em to listen, then show them around and point out what alternative values people adhered to in the past and how that worked out for 'em. Then fly 'em to Germany, point out how the white supremacists were in fact victorious for awhile, then note the lack of monuments. Moral? If God involves Himself in history in any way, it is not to impose an ethic on this or that stretch of time. Only we humans can do that, and sometimes all we can do is tear down the monuments afterwards, which eliminates the memory of what happened and the knowledge of what this place really is.
Well this IS my first visit to this issue. I certainly don’t support white supremacist views but OTOH history is compromised when we try to conform it to our (official I guess) modern values, which are probably going to change in a big hurry anyway. For instance, I think future generations will hate us more than they hate the antebellum South because we are so extraordinarily wasteful. We’ll see which set of historical figures causes the most suffering for this ostensible future generation. Unless you hate the thought of future generations engaging in relativistic moral thought, which could be construed as a religious agenda, which is a can of worms when you send in government agents to accomplish it, no?
He also said this, “I would lead a mob to lynch any man, black or white, who had ravished a woman, black or white. This is my attitude calmly and deliberately taken, and justified by my conscience in the sight of God.”
http://www1.assumption.edu/users/mcclymer/us%20survey/Tillman1907.html
I believe a decision to remove statues of men like Tillman and to rename buildings named after them should be left up to local governments, and popular opinion within local communities.
The moral horror I have always felt about rape prevents me from sympathizing with rapists who were lynched. My regrets are two: some lynching victims were innocent; black victims of rape were seldom if ever avenged this way.
Here’s my analysis of the GREAT:rolleyes: NBF as a general:
Battle of Chickamauga : did little but hang around on flank waiting to raid and loot.
Battle of Brice’s Crossroads: nothing but a big cavalry (but very successful) raid, no strategic victory. NBF’s greatest victory. A win!
Battle of Spring Hill: one of the few battles where the CSA outnumbered the North, but ended as a huge lost opportunity for the South. Forrest’s contribution was (wiki) “Forrest’s men moved south and he directed the brigade of Brig. Gen. Tyree H. Bell of Chalmer’s division to drive off what he thought was a small force of cavalry from a knoll south of McCutcheon’s Creek. They were actually engaging with Bradley’s brigade, which drove them back immediately with heavy artillery support. The chastened Forrest remarked, "They was in there sure enough, wasn’t they, Chalmers?”:rolleyes: whereupon NBF snided off to a flank, again waiting a chance to raid & loot. A loss.
Battle of Franklin : one of the worst disasters of the war for the Confederate States Army. NBF’s contribution (wiki) “across the river to the east Confederate cavalry commander Forrest attempted to turn the Union left. His two divisions on Stewart’s right (Brig. Gens. Abraham Buford and William H. Jackson) engaged some Federal cavalry pickets and pushed them back. They crossed the Harpeth at Hughes Ford, about 3 miles (4.8 km) upstream from Franklin . When Union cavalry commander Brig. Gen. James H. Wilson learned at 3 p.m. that Forrest was crossing the river, he ordered his division under Brig. Gen. Edward Hatch to move south from his position on the Brentwood Turnpike and attack Forrest from the front. He ordered Brig. Gen. John T. Croxton’s brigade to move against Forrest’s flank and held Col. Thomas J. Harrison’s brigade in reserve. The dismounted cavalrymen of Hatch’s division charged the Confederate cavalrymen, also dismounted, and drove them back across the river. Some of Croxton’s men were armed with seven-shot Spencer carbines, which had a devastating effect on the Confederate line. Wilson was proud of his men’s accomplishment because this was the first time that Forrest had been defeated by a smaller force in a standup fight during the war". A Loss
Third Battle of Murfreesboro: NBF runs off to do another raid: (wiki)”At one point some of Forrest’s troops broke and ran causing disorder in the Confederate ranks; even entreaties from Forrest and Bate did not stem the rout of these units. The rest of Forrest’s command conducted an orderly retreat from the field and encamped for the night outside Murfreesboro . Forrest had destroyed railroad track, blockhouses, and some homes and generally disrupted Union operations in the area, but he did not accomplish much else. The raid on Murfreesboro was a minor irritation, and Forrest was absent at Battle of Nashville ”. A tactical win leading to a huge strategic loss.
Battle of Nashville : NBF wasn;t there until afterwards (he had snided off to loot and raid, see above) , thus allowing Union cavalry to run amok. Leading to: (wiki) “one of the largest victories achieved by the Union Army during the war, Thomas attacked and routed Hood’s army, largely destroying it as an effective fighting force.” Loss.
And of course: the Fort Pillow Massacre. A minor battle where NBF badly outnumbered the North, leading to one of the worst war crimes of the war. But nothing of strategic use was gained by this ‘victory”.
So let us look at the record: NBF had a hugely successful cavalry raid in one battle. At three major battles, NBF was not a success at all. In fact his sniding off to raid at Murfreesboro led directly to “one of the largest victories achieved by the Union Army during the war”.
Compared to RE Lee or Jackson, he’s not even fit to lick their boots.
But wait, there’s more! NBF’s actual obituary:
Note that in his period, he was not considered a “Great General” at all, "His daring and recklessness gave him more eclat at one period than his military services were really entitled to. Gen. Wheeler’s raid around the rear of Sherman’s army was the work of the daring man and the scientific soldier; Gen. Forrest’s sudden dash through Memphis, with no more result than the killing of a few men on either side, was the recklessness of the mere guerrilla chief-- which Forrest essentially was. but his skills as a cavalry raider were indeed admired and recognized.
Here’s a scholary article which shows that the selection of NBF’s battles is simply to support the “Lost Cause” of Southern Apologists:
http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/charm/CHARM%20proceedings/CHARM%20article%20archive%20pdf%20format/Volume%2013%202007/229-235_stone_graham.pdf
Indeed, many Union victory sites are ignored, while tiny & unimpoartant CSA victory sites get a great deal of attention.
Finally to debunk the oft mistated factoid that NBF wasn’t “really” a leader of the KKK:
*But Forrest’s defenders often hold the line at one claim, that he was a prominent figure in the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan. Even as they struggle to rationalize the Klan of that period as a necessary counter against the supposed excesses of the Union League and other northern influences, they usually deny any involvement of Forrest in the Klan’s organizing or activities, except for the odd claim that Forrest, despite having no authority or connection to the group, successfully ordered them to stand down in 1869.
So did Forrest really join the Ku Klux Klan? Yes, he did. Was he really Grand Wizard of the group? Yes, he was. How do we know this? Because the old klansmen who were there tell us so.
Forrest’s order to disband the group is something that Forrest’s supporters generally agree upon — they’ll credit him with stopping the Klan’s violence, though never supporting it, or being involved with it — but that order makes little sense when coupled with the assertion that the former general had no other connection to the group. Why would such an order come from Forrest, exactly? Sure, he was a well-known and popular figure after the war, but there were other former Confederate leaders who ranked him, both in actual seniority and in the public’s mind. Why not Robert E. Lee, or Jefferson Davis? (Or Johnston, or. . . ?) Are we to supposed to assume these men would have no influence, no moral authority with the klansmen? No, Forrest’s order — and the assertion that it was accepted and followed — only makes sense if those men understood Forrest to have been a leader within the organization, with the authority to issue such a directive.
*
I agree with all of this. I didn’t mean to suggest that Forrest deserves to have monuments planted all over the country because of his remarkable victory at what you accurately describe as a fairly minor cavalry raid. He was a very smart guerilla leader, despite no education. As a tactician, he was probably in the top 5 on the CSA side. But that’s about the best that can be said about him. And it is far outweighed by the fact that he got rich enough to fund a regiment in the first place by buying and selling human beings. Also, starting the KKK. And Fort Pillow.
If he repented later in life, that’s great, but I wouldn’t shed a tear about any statues being torn down or schools being renamed even if he did. Plenty of more deserving people.