Professional Soldiers ® - KKK leader's name to be removed from Florida High School

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- General Discussions (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=46)

- - KKK leader's name to be removed from Florida High School (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43978)

KKK leader's name to be removed from Florida High School

A Florida school board has agreed to begin considering whether to change the name of a primarily black high school named for the first "grand wizard" of the Ku Klux Klan and Confederate Army General, Nathan Bedford Forrest.

In this era of political correctness I'm amazed the name of the school wasn't changed a long time ago.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs...opstories.html

Still waiting...

Still waiting for all the "Byrd" named items to be changed.

Not to be insensitive, but what is their mascot? A rebel? I would have thought this would have been addressed in the 70's. Really? Wow.

I think you have to look at the man in the context of his times. There are a significant number of former U.S. Presidents who were slave holders, or whom conducted themselves in a manner that would be rejected today.

General Forrest was a polarizing character, no doubt.

Rising from his enlistment as a private, he attained the rank of Lieutenant General in four years and was one of the few general officers to take active part in his military operations. He was extremely courageous and killed several men in close combat.

At the end of the war, General Forrest counseled his men to return home and be good Americans.

In the Reconstruction era, there were many men of evil intent from both sides roaming the former Confederate states, and taking advantage of citizens was a way of life. Numerous societies and organizations were founded to protect the populace, and to take advantage of them.

The Klan was originally formed as a veterans organization, and that was when General Forrest joined. As they began to adopt violence and condone extremist views, he is said to have disbanded the organization in 1869.

In 1875, he was invited to speak to a group of black citizens backing racial reconciliation, where he stated:

"Ladies and Gentlemen I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the southern states. I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God's earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself. ( Immense applause and laughter.) This day is a day that is proud to me, having occupied the position that I did for the past twelve years, and been misunderstood by your race. This is the first opportunity I have had during that time to say that I am your friend. I am here a representative of the southern people, one more slandered and maligned than any man in the nation. I will say to you and to the colored race that men who bore arms and followed the flag of the Confederacy are, with very few exceptions, your friends. I have an opportunity of saying what I have always felt - that I am your friend, for my interests are your interests, and your interests are my interests. We were born on the same soil, breathe the same air, and live in the same land. Why, then, can we not live as brothers? I will say that when the war broke out I felt it my duty to stand by my people. When the time came I did the best I could, and I don't believe I flickered. I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe that I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to bring about peace. It has always been my motto to elevate every man- to depress none. (Applause.) I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going. I have not said anything about politics today. I don't propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, that you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Use your best judgement in selecting men for office and vote as you think right. Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. I have been in the heat of battle when colored men, asked me to protect them. I have placed myself between them and the bullets of my men, and told them they should be kept unharmed. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I'll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand." (Prolonged applause.)

I would grant that LTG Forrest, while a military hero, is a controversial figure. I think that it is likely the school was named after him as a gesture of defiance by racists during the civil rights era. I would not attempt to justify it.

Having said that, I do think that General Forrest has been the victim of a campaign to tarnish his military reputation. I believe that it is important to examine LTG Forrest's words and deeds in the context of the time and mores of the culture he lived in. In such context, I do not believe that he is the Great Satan he is made out to be, but I do not believe that we should be naming high schools after him either.

Shelby Foote said that he felt Forrest and Sherman were the two greatest military leaders to come from the Civil War. I think he was at least half right.

TR

Yeah, well I can understand how an African-American community would rightfully have issues with a school named for someone whose 'reputation' includes:

"...successful businessman – indeed a millionaire – dealing in cotton, land and slaves."

"'...in April 1864, Forrest and his men were involved in one of the most controversial episodes of the Civil War. After surrounding Fort Pillow, near Memphis, Forrest demanded the surrender of the garrison, which included 262 soldiers of the U.S. Colored Heavy Artillery. When the Union forces refused, Forrest’s men easily overran the fort. Then, according to several eyewitness accounts, the Confederates, enraged by the sight of black men in Federal uniform, executed many of the colored troops after they had surrendered: an unambiguous war crime. Though accounts varied, the incident stands as one of the most gruesome of the Civil War era; “Remember Fort Pillow” became a rallying-cry for African-American soldiers throughout the Union Army.'"

"...is best known as having been a prominent figure in the foundation of the Ku Klux Klan, a group composed of mostly Confederate veterans committed to violent intimidation of blacks, northerners and republicans."

http://www.civilwar.org/education/hi...d-forrest.html

Richard

U.S Presidents owning slaves:

Washington
Jefferson
Madison
Monroe
Jackson
Van Buren
Harrison
Tyler
Polk
Taylor
Johnson
Grant

Many of these prospered as well. I suppose by the above standard, they should not have schools named after them, either.

The accounts of Fort Pillow remain controversial to this day. Each side has their own version, and I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in between. Ultimately, history is largely written by the victors, or those with the most ink.

In fact, the Confederates, who outnumbered the Federal troops by four to one or more, had the fort surrounded and in an advantageous positions to deliver a withering cross-fire upon the defenders, creating the majority of the casualties, which approached 50% of the Federal forces. Forrest offered terms to the then Federal commander, Major Bradford:

"The conduct of the officers and men garrisoning Fort Pillow has been such as to entitle them to being treated a prisoners of war. I demand the unconditional surrender of the entire garrison, promising that you shall be treated as prisoners of war. My men have just received a fresh supply of ammunition, and from their present position can easily assault and capture the fort. Should my demand be refused, I cannot be responsible for the fate of your command."

Bradford's response: "I will not surrender."

Forrest immediately ordered a charge on the remainder of the Federals. The Union troops broke and ran for their gunboats nearby where many were shot down on the run, and others drowned trying to swim to safety. The fleeing Federal soldiers admitted that they kept their weapons and many continued to fire during their withdrawal from the fort.

Does this sound a bit inflammatory? "the Confederates, enraged by the sight of black men in Federal uniform...." How would you (or anyone other than the soldiers involved) know what "enraged" the Confederates? By all accounts I can find, neither Major Booth (the initial Federal commander who was killed early on), nor Major Bradford struck the colors or raised a while flag. How do you determine when a force has ceased resistance, but continues to fire? Note, this is all prior to the Geneva or Hague Conventions.

I have already addressed Forrest's participation in the Klan in my previous post.

We can each review the facts and accounts and take of history what we will.

FWIW, I agree that the school should not be named for General Forrest. I do however, applaud him for his bravery and courage in combat. He had three horses shot out from underneath him at Fort Pliiow.

TR

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Grant

IIRC, in Grant's case, it was a technicality. His father-in-law owned the slave and sent him to Grant to train as a farrier. I believe that there was a similar technicality with Gen. Lee, he did not own slaves but his wife did.

Pat

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSM (Post 529822)

I believe that there was a similar technicality with Gen. Lee, he did not own slaves but his wife did.

This is slightly off topic, but how does that not equate to Gen. Lee owning slaves?

To me that's like a guy saying, "I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is."

In considering the issues, the men, and the times, then and now, I think the following views - presented by CSA VP Stephens at Savannah on 21 March 1861 - might be useful to the debate.

Quote:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

http://civilwarcauses.org/corner.htm

Richard

Quote:

Originally Posted by PedOncoDoc (Post 529825)

This is slightly off topic, but how does that not equate to Gen. Lee owning slaves?

To me that's like a guy saying, "I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is."

It's often used as an "ironic argument" that the Southern Gen. Lee was not a slave owner and that the Northern Gen. Grant was. The argument leans heavily on those technicalities.

Pat

I thought we were discussing Nathan Bedford Forrest, and whether a High School should be named for him.

Since you seem to want to discuss slavery and the opinions of the times, I think it only fair to mention how morally flexible the Northern leadership was on that topic as well, particularly in order to end the war.

And the Emancipation Proclamation deliberately did nothing to free slaves held in the Northern states.

TR

IMO it is certainly appropriate to view the entire United States as a slave society until the passage of the 13th Amendment. However, such an interpretation should not overlook the fact that secession and the war that followed were, in no small measure, the results of slaveholders seeking (1) to preserve their vision of American civilization and their authority in a social hierarchy centered around race, gender, and class, and (2) to extend the institution of slavery as a focal point of that vision.

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America, available here, made this last point clear.

Quote:

ARTICLE IV
Section I. (I) Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

(2) A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime against the laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Sec. 3. (I) Other States may be admitted into this Confederacy by a vote of two-thirds of the whole House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by States; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress.

(2) The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make allneedful rules and regulations concerning the property of the Confederate States, including the lands thereof.

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

(4) The Confederate States shall guarantee to every State that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy, a republican form of government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature or of the Executive when the Legislature is not in session) against domestic violence.

To say that Forrest should be evaluated in the context of his times means considering also the cause for which he fought and the government he served.

My $0.02.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper (Post 529778)

I think that it is likely the school was named after him as a gesture of defiance by racists during the civil rights era. I would not attempt to justify it.

I do not believe that he is the Great Satan he is made out to be, but I do not believe that we should be naming high schools after him either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper (Post 529778)

I agree that the school should not be named for General Forrest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper (Post 529778)

I thought we were discussing Nathan Bedford Forrest, and whether a High School should be named for him.

Sorry, I must be missing something here. Which of these statements are you not agreeing with?

Or are you maintaining that the school should be named after him?

TR

The thing that is irritating and disturbing to me are the efforts to by some in the country to nullify any positive achievements by historical figures who were slaveowners. This applies to many people who are directly responsible for the founding of this country and the writing of its Constitution. Notably, Washington and Jefferson. You absolutely must view such things in the context of the times. History happened. You can only revise it so much. I can completely understand black children not wanting to attend a school named for NBF. I cannot understand the city of Memphis making efforts to have NBF and his wife disinterred from Forrest Park and the park renamed. History happened. You can't scrub the nation of its past and yet invoke "250 years of slavery and oppression" for political purposes when convenient. In full disclosure, I am the direct descendant of a couple of slaveowners and feel no guilt or shame. I can also say that my top five presidents are Washington, Jefferson, LINCOLN (for preserving the Union) Kennedy and Reagan. And when I am not flying a Pineland, 15 Star Spangled Banner, SF or USMC flag on my porch, I fly the 1st Ark. Inf., 21st and 37t Miss. Inf. The unit flags of ancestors whose valor in battle I much admire and revere.