Daniel, my friend, you really need to get a hobby, other than hijacking threads.
I have no interest in re-opening the Nathan Bedford Forrest debate. We debated his merits and flaws in full, ad nauseum in this thread. Anyone interested in that debate can follow the link and check it out. It contains also the full text of your Nazi comparisons, from which I invite the readers to draw their own conclusions.
I will, however, call you on some Loewenesque lies and half-truths in your last post. For at least the third time: The Klan was founded as a social club by a group of Confederate veterans in Pulaski Tennessee. Forrest, while not a founder (contrary to your earlier post), may have been the first grand wizard. Though started as a social club, the Klan quickly morphed into a vigilante group, and then into a terrorist organization.When the Klan descended into violence, Forrest ordered it disbanded. My source on this information is Brittanica.com, here and here.
The original Klan lasted only three years before Forrest dibanded it “largely as a result of the Klan’s excessive violence.” (Brittanica.) A new Klan (a distinct organization, according to Brittanica) was formed in 1915, more than 50 years later (as Kyomara pointed out).
Wow. Two lies in one. I have not defended slavery in a single post. Nor have I made any mention anywhere on this message board of the fact that some slaves had black masters. It is irrelevant to me. Slavery is evil regardless of the color of the master.
Were this the Pit, Daniel, I would have a few more candid comments for you. I will refrain. Do not ever, and I mean ever make another attempt to tar me as a racist.
Now don’t make me call your mother and tell her to take your computer away.
Certainly you never 'defended slavery" per se- but you did point out here, and elsewhere it was “not so bad”. Sounds like a 'slavery apologist" to me. I apologize for attibuting the bit about “slaves owning slaves” to you that was another poster on your side of the debate. But you are also a 'Confederate apologist", and it seems from the above you are also pretty close to being a “KKK apologist”. Who cares whether or not the Klan was originally formed as a 'social club" - it was not one for long. (The “brown shirts” were “just a political party” for a short time also). Yes, the original KKK had a rather short"official" lifespan, but it still managed to kill LOTS of black folks in the same time. The SS did not last very long either, you will note. And after NBF made his self-serving “dissolution” of the Klan- it still continued its activities for many years. You praise NBF highly, & you have never condemned the Klan. Come on say it: “the Klan was a bunch of cowardly pinheaded racists & killers”.
I did NOT call you a “racist”, however, here is a shoe- see if it fits, eh?
I have REPEATEDLY condemned the Klan in this series of threads.
I have REPEATEDLY condemned racism.
I have REPEATEDLY said that Forrest was, for most of his life, a bigot. (However, he appears to have experienced an epiphany on that score late in his life.)
I have praised Forrest as a military commander. I am not alone. Grant, Sherman, Lee and Johnston all agree (as you will recall from our earlier debate).
You are a liar.
Never have I said slavery “was not so bad,” or anything like that. Please find such a post if you contend it exists.
In my post which you just quoted, I was not defending slavery. I specifically said that it was morally indefensible, and I have REPEATEDLY said that it is evil.
On the subjects of race and racism, I am reminded again of the speech given by Nathan Bedford Forrest to a black audience a couple of years before his death:
Come on Daniel, can I hear an “Amen?”
You are a liar.
I have REPEATEDLY said that the South seceeded on the slavery issue, that the South was wrong to do so, and that it is well indeed that the Union prevailed. My only “apologist” sentiment is held on behalf of the individual Confederate soldier, who, more likely than not, fought not to defend slavery, but to defend his home from invasion, as I explained in some detail earlier in this thread.
You are a liar.
And if you were standing in front of me, you would be “pretty close” to a punch in the mouth.
(On the other hand, the tone of your posts suggests that you are only 14 or so. Maybe a paddling would be more appropriate punishment.)
Daniel, at the risk of veering into Pit material, you are a pathetic wretch. You lost a debate. Live with it, and please stop following me from thread to thread with your lies and slander.
Denigrating Daniel is one thing. He recently opined that one gets used to being called a liar and in any case, he is here to defend himself. James Loewen is another matter. It’s been some time since we last discussed him ( in the Greatest Indian Killer thread ). Perhaps since then you have read his books and found some inconsistancies. If you have evidence that he is prone to “lies and half truths” then by all means, let us examine it. If not, then I find your use of his name in that manner objectionable.
It appears to me that you haven’t read Mr Loewen because the advice you offer for teaching history in the most recent Loewen thread is the same as his.
I have indeed read Lies Across America. I wish Mr. Loewen were here. I would love to have the chance to discuss the book with him.
My impression of Mr. Loewen is that he uses the sensational half-truth to mislead his readers and sell books. I would not rely upon him as a source of accurate information.
I pointed out several of his inaccuracies, misleading half-truths and footnoting failures in this thread. I’ll reprint some of my comments from that thread:
Here’s a quote from Loewen’s book:
Absolute malarkey. Atlanta (to cite but one example) is littered with historical markers noting Union victories. Loewen’s statement is, to put it most kindly and giving him the full benefit of the doubt, “erroneous.” But it sure helps to promote his apparent thesis that Southerners are a bunch of unreformed racist rednecks.
Another example: Among Loewen’s “evidence” that Forrest is over-glorified in the South (which must be proof of racism), he mentions a city in Arkansas named for Forrest. Conveniently, he leaves out the fact that Forrest himself founded the city. He mentions a park in Memphis named for Forrest, but neglects to tell his readers that Forrest is buried there.
Loewen’s citations to sources do not hold up under close examination. For example, he cites Forrest biographer Wills as his source for the story of a black man supposedly slain by Forrest, and for his assertion that “black opponents always inflamed Forrest,” but the pages referenced by Loewen say absolutely nothing of the sort. In fact, one of the pages cited by Loewen actually describes Forrest’s religious conversion in later years.
There are other examples of this sort of deception in his book. In another chapter, Loewen describes, in incredulous tones, the statue of Stonewall Jackson on the grounds of the West Virginia State Capitol. (But West Virginia was a Union state!) Loewen fails to tell his readers that Stonewall Jackson was born in Clarksburg, in what is now West Virginia. That fact would make it a whole lot less astonishing to find his statue on the West Virginia Capitol grounds, but Loewen withholds the information from his readers.
However, I will concede that my coinage of the word “Loewenesque” was both ill-advised and a cheap shot in his absence. Therefore, I apologize for that.
I sure hope he shows up here on the boards one day, though…
Danielinthewolvesden, a quick search of the archives reveals that you have inspired no fewer than eight threads in the Pit. A more reflective poster might begin to wonder how he were managing to infuriate so many folks.
The most interesting of those Pit threads, in view of the accusations you are bandying about here, is this one:
It seemed to me that your remark was off the cuff. I missed the Georgia Flag thread and was unaware of your reasoned disputation of Loewen. Sadly, I am forced to agree that your arguments have merit. I feel that due to the nature of Loewen’s work he should be held to a high standard of truth.
So I do not accept your apology. Instead I offer my own. It was my assumtion that you had done no research. I’m sorry, I should have known better.
I withdraw my objection.
However (and at the risk of sounding like a Warner Brothers cartoon gopher) my apology stands. I should not have used the “Loewenesque” crack. I try to be temperate in my remarks on this Board, my last couple of shots at Danielinthewolvesden notwithstanding. So long as Loewen is not here to defend himself, I should have limited my remarks to pointing out his inaccuracies and should not have turned his name into an insult.
I actually agree with Loewen’s basic premise. Historical sites and especially historical markers in this country do not do a great job of telling the whole truth about our nation’s history. There is an unfortunate tendency among state historical commissions to put a smiley-face on history. Politically it’s understandable. Try telling a local Chamber of Commerce that you’re going to erect an historical marker in their community to commemorate a lynching. Few folks want to be reminded of the darker side of their past.
I would love to see more of a warts-and-all public presentation of history. I would love to see plaques lining the route of the Trail of Tears, or noting the sites of lynchings or race riots, or the sites where massacres occurred. We should remember our mistakes the better to avoid repeating them.
Loewen’s work has value, in that he challenges us to think about these issues. Unfortunately, in his iconoclastic zeal, he conceals or omits facts which do not fit his thesis. He is thus guilty of the same sin which he condemns in others.
A very wise poster on this message board once said that we should not fight lies with lies. I wholeheartedly subscribe to that sentiment.