You’re the one still talking about it, Einstein.
A little corporate cynicism creeping in there is all. I’ll have to look into it.
There’s evidence that Forrest began to distance himself from the Klan for other reasons, not just because of a railroad scheme, or because “criminals and the dispossessed began to fill the (Klan) ranks” (though it must have been galling to see violence perpetrated by other than Southern white gentlemen), or that the heat from Federal authorities was threatening to get too intense. Quite likely it was because the Klan’s goals (intimidating freed slaves into not voting and chasing out supporters of the Union) had largely been met.
*"Although he repeatedly denied membership — even lying to Congress — Forrest in fact led the Klan through one of its most violent and successful periods, when robed terrorists succeeded in rolling back Reconstruction. He even told one newspaper reporter that while he was no member, he “intend[ed]” to kill radical Republicans. He added that he could raise 40,000 men in four days.
Forrest sympathizers have long claimed that he disbanded the Klan when it became violent. In fact, it had been extremely violent for years under Forrest, and was only disbanded when its work was essentially done — blacks and Republicans had been terrified into not voting — and when it came under intense criticism…
The severest of the criticism of Forrest — subjects studiously avoided by today’s neo-Confederate activists — centers on three indisputable facts:
Forrest was a Memphis slave trader who acquired fabulous wealth before the war;
He commanded the troops who carried out an 1864 massacre of mostly black prisoners; and
He led violent resistance to Reconstruction as the first grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan…
Where nostalgia for the Lost Cause was once presented in the rosy light of Lee’s personality, today it is a man who was a slave trader, an apparent party to war crimes and a brutal Klan boss who represents that movement."*
So no - non-Southerners who point out these facts are not trying to be Mean To The South, but resisting historical revisionism that paints disgusting people like Nathan Bedford Forrest as heroes.
Again, the vast majority of people living in the South today don’t worship the past and revere the Confederacy - they’ve moved on. Those who cling to the old resentments are an increasingly tiny and irrelevant faction.
As one indicator of progress, there’ve been far fewer Dope threads in recent years in which Confederacy supporters defend the ludicrous claim that preserving slavery was not the South’s prime motivation in starting the Civil War (a number of posters spent a good deal of time documenting otherwise, including linking to state documents of secession that made clear that slavery was the overriding factor). We still see the occasional rant about the Poor Maligned South, but even that chip on the shoulder is slowly dissolving. 
You mean I started all this controversy by posting here yesterday? Nobody else had mentioned the war between 1865 and yesterday?
I feel terrible now. My apologies to everyone for opening up this regretable part of the past that everyone had moved on from.
Wait, so the Anti Defamation League is a “Forrest sympathizer” now?
Because it was their site (linked by you) that said:
(emphasis added)
In fact, when Forrest ordered the Klan to disband (in 1869), its political goals had not been met. Radical Reconstruction was still in full bloom and the South was still controlled by Republican legislatures. So your statement is patently false.
Nor did Forrest order the Klan disbanded under federal pressure. The Force Acts (which brought federal power to bear against the Klan) were not passed until 1870-1871, a year after Forrest had ordered the Klan disbanded.
So in other words you poked around until you found a site with enough of an axe to grind that they were willing to distort the facts. (I understand and appreciate the SPLC’s mission, but I hate to see them twist history to pursue it.)
Keep looking Jackmannii. Look long enough and I’m sure you can find a site that implicates Forrest in the Kennedy assassination.
I don’t understand all this fascination with the KKK. It is a strawman because there were only fairly small number of people involved in it. The KKK still exists but do you know where the most recent hotbeds of activity were as of a few years ago? Indiana ran away with that prize and Connecticut came in an also ran at second place. What does that mean? I have no idea except some people clumped together to play out their dreams somewhere. What do all the skinhead groups mean in the Midwest mean and how does that reflect on the region? Again, I doubt very much for the average person.
My point above still stands. When you talk about social ills like drug problems, the boogie men are usually the suppliers and not the end users. In the case of American slavery, that was mostly New England centered around Boston and Newport. Good luck finding much social awareness with that around here. They sent the ships to Africa to buy slaves from the native population, loaded them up, many did not make the trip let alone their final destination, profited greatly from it and used the fund to establish white family legacies that exist to this day.
What does that have to do with your typical Bostonian today? I have no idea whatsoever but it doesn’t have much to do with someone in Charlottesville, VA Atlanta or Dallas either.
One question I have is that, yes the entire country is horrible in regards to race relations, but why is the South so much worse?
Between 1865 -1965 over 2400 blacks were lynched, the vast majority were in the South. Starting in 1909 over 200 bills were introduced in Congress in order to make lynching a Federal crime, but they were all shot down mostly due to the efforts of the Southern congressmen.
Hell, when my older brother asked my great-grandfather why he left Mississippi for California with nothing but the shirt on his back and his younger sister he answered with, “They were hanging people, that’s why.”
I swear some folks have convinced themselves that there are Confederate flags sprouting on every corner and Klan robes in every closet in the South.
The Klan has never been anything but a marginalized fringe group in most of the South since the 1920s. Respectable people have always viewed them with disgust everywhere I’ve lived. Even most open racists tended to regard the Klan as a bunch of worthless trash.
The Klan, maybe, but when you have congressmen fighting anti-lynching laws (and when people dress up and have pictures taken with the mutilated bodies) you can’t really say it’s only a fringe group that did those things.
First of all, you are incorrectly attributing a statement from the Southern Poverty Law Center website to me.
Secondly, while ignoring much of what the ADL says about Klan history (including the fact that intimidation of blacks was part of its activities from earliest Klan days), you’re attempting to find in the ADL link a defense of Forrest that is not there. A more complete quote from the ADL link:
“By 1869, internal strife led Klansmen to fight against Klansmen as competing factions struggled for control. The Klan’s increasing reputation for violence led the more prominent citizens to drop out and criminals and the dispossessed began to fill the ranks. Local chapters proved difficult, if not impossible, to monitor and direct. In disgust, Forrest officially disbanded the organization and the vast majority of local groups followed his lead. Some number of local units continued to operate but were eventually disbanded or sent into hiding by federal troops.”
What that tells me is 1) overall control of the Klan became extremely difficult for Forrest, 2) riffraff were increasingly filling the ranks, costing support among “respectable” citizens, and 3) outrages were threatening to bring on federal scrutiny, which in fact occurred only a short time after Forrest “disbanded” the Klan. The handwriting was on the wall and blacks and Republicans had already been intimidated, so why risk potential prosecution?
Sorry the SPLC’s less than reverential treatment of Nathan Bedford Forrest annoys you. As a reminder, here are their three main points about the man:
“Forrest was a Memphis slave trader who acquired fabulous wealth before the war (note also his horrific physical abuse of his slaves);
He commanded the troops who carried out an 1864 massacre of mostly black prisoners; and
He led violent resistance to Reconstruction as the first grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan…”
What in all of that leads you to think he’s someone to be proud of?
Hail to thee, O Nathan Bedford Forrest High. Gotta keep up that proud tradition. :dubious:
My hometown had a fairly large Klan presence in the 1920s. There was (and still is) a big Italian population in a city near there, and the people of my hometown were upset that a bunch of no good spaghetti eating Papists were ruining the area with their street parades and general Papism. Of course, this was the 1920s Klan and not the 1860s Klan, and I grew up in upstate New York, but. . .
You are talking about the 1920s, when the Klan was in its heyday. (Not just in the South, but nationally.) The fight over anti-lynching laws was from about 1918 to 1922.
And you have to go back at least 80 or 90 years to find lynching pictures of the sort you describe.
And that’s my point. Northerners are never going to let that past go, because it makes them feel so good about themselves. They get to congratulate themselves about how progressive they are compared with those benighted Southerners.
(Well, at least until you start looking at segregation stats. cough cough)
In the 50s Truman initially did not support anti-lynching legislation because he was afraid of alienating Southern supporters.
In June 2005 when twenty Southern senators refused to cosponser a resolution to apologize for Congress’ lack of anti-lynching action.
Although it wasn’t as often as earlier in the century, the last lynching occurred in 1964, which is well within my parent’s life.
Who said he was?
Maybe you should go back and read my posts again. Slowly this time, if that helps.
Nowhere have I said he was admirable. I just get tired of people playing loose with the facts to make Forrest a cartoon villain. He was not. As I mentioned upthread, he made public appeals for racial reconciliation. But that gets left out of your narrative (and that of the SPLC, I notice).
Historical accuracy matters. It matters more than your need for villains.
When my boyfriend was running for mayor I spoke at a rally at the State House supporting the removal of that stupid flag from the grounds. Hundreds of people came out for us. We were told the Klan was coming and were ridiculously prepped for counterprotestors. They didn’t show. In fact, nobody showed up at all from the opposition.
In fairness, it was the day of the Cup, so I guess maybe they took their bedsheets to the horse race?
No matter what the reading speed, I fail to see any acknowledgement that you erred in suggesting that the Klan was a “goofy fraternal organization” that somehow got perverted into a violent anti-civil rights movement (when in fact intimidation of blacks was an early preoccupation among its founders).
Nor is it playing “loose with the facts” to note Forrest’s brutality as a wealthy slave trader, his criminal behavior during the Civil War or his role as first Grand Wizard of a Klan that became notorious for violence during his reign. That’s quite a lot to “reconcile”.
What an admission! Next thing you know, the Lost Cause nostalgists will begin to rethink his role as a positive symbol of the Good Ol’ Days.
We’re not holding our breath, though.
Because that’s not an error. That’s exactly how it started. As a goofy fraternal order for ex-soldiers. Yes it went bad quickly, but that doesn’t change the fact of its origins.
Who said it was? He was a slave trader. Who’s disputed that?
Criminal? He was never convicted of any war crime, and indeed there was letter evidence that he put himself at risk by riding between his men and the defeated Union troops to try to stop the slaughter at Fort Pillow. I use the phrase “defeated troops” advisedly, because there was conflicting testimony about whether they surrendered. They apparently never surrendered as a unit (the Union flag was still flying at the time of the slaughter), although at least some of them plainly tried to surrender and were killed. But some continued to fire. The troops caught under the bluff by the river had their arms with them. They weren’t “prisoners,” contrary to your earlier post. So here you (and the SPLC) ARE playing fast and loose with facts.
Well again, the false internet meme that got repeated here is that he was the founder of the KKK. (He was not.) Also implicit was the suggestion that Forrest got things named after him in the South because of his involvement with the Klan. (This is a suggestion first propagated by James Loewen, and then picked up as an internet meme.) In fact, his military exploits during the war were legendary, and he was acknowledged by generals of both sides as one of the great military geniuses the war produced. That is why he was idolized in the South. (Note the past tense. Nobody much remembers him these days.)
Forrest was able to exercise little to no effective centralized control over the Klan, and he attempted to disband it when it became violent. As noted by the Congressional committee which subsequently investigated the matter:
And again you just gloss right over Forrest’s role as a proponent of racial reconciliation. Not villainous enough I guess:
That last sounds pretty damned admirable to me. You know, considering how EEEEEvil Forrest was. :rolleyes:
No, we really don’t care. We have plenty of things to feel proud about without having to bring the Civil War into the conversation.
The only problem is that a lot of Southerners want to whitewash their history. They’ll concede something like “Sure, slavery and lynchings and the klan and Jim Crow were all bad but now let’s talk about what’s important - our magnificent heritage which is a source of umblemished pride for us. God bless Jeff Davis and Bobby Lee as the greatest heroes who ever walked the Earth. And curse those damn yankees who attacked us for no reason whatsoever except that we declared war on them.”
Here, by the way, is the text of Forrest’s speech to the Jubilee of Pole-Bearers:
What a load of utter horse shit. Nobody I know approaches Civil War history that way. You are conjuring up straw men.