![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Measure of a Man
Feb. 16th, 2011 01:27 pmIs more what he does than what he says.
The stupid... it continues.
Mississippi has been petitioned by the Sons of Confederate Veterans to grant a license plate honoring Nathan Bedford Forrest. It's a part of the continuing attempt to whitewash the past, and make the cause of the Civil War (which, of course the SCV refers to as, "The War Between the States" as if that somehow changes things. For the record, I also think the US came about because of a revolution, not a "War for Independence", but I digress), some abstract issue related to the rights of states.
It was about states' rights, but it wasn't at all abstract. it was about the right of states to declare other human beings to be property. Neither was it one in which states were seen as sacrosanct. The whole point of Dred Scott was that states didn't have the right to grant rights to escaped slaves. The Fugitive Slave Act was all about forcing other states to enforce the idea of slavery in non-slave states.
Which brings is to Mr. Forrest. Why is he being honored? He was a good general... for values of good which include having his troops engage in a wholesale massacre of enemy troops who had surrendered at Ft. Pillow
The circumstances after the battle have made it a cause celèbre, even to the present. The results of the battle were sensational (Forrests losses were about 20 killed, and 80 wounded, the defenders had 231 dead, 100 wounded and 226 captured. Of the black troops, 75 were among the captured; they made up more than half the total of the garrison.
Confederate apologists argue it wasn't a massacre, that the losses were in the fighting, and the numbers reflect on Forrest's genius as a commander. I've seen some compare it to Jackson at New Orleans (where the dead on the US side numbered less than five). This might be more believable if Forrest had been, like Jackson, in defense.
More to the point, the report from the gunboat commander Forrest allowed to bury the dead says, We found about 70 wounded men in the fort and around it, and buried, I should think, 150 bodies. All the buildings around the fort and the tents and huts in the fort had been burned by the rebels, and among the embers the charred remains of numbers of our soldiers who had suffered a terrible death in the flames could be seen.
All the wounded who had strength enough to speak agreed that after the fort was taken an indiscriminate slaughter of our troops was carried on by the enemy with a furious and vindictive savageness which was never equaled by the most merciless of the Indian tribes. Around on every side horrible testimony to the truth of this statement could be seen. Bodies with gaping wounds, some bayoneted through the eyes, some with skulls beaten through, others with hideous wounds as if their bowels had been ripped open with bowie-knives, plainly told that but little quarter was shown to our troops. Strewn from the fort to the river bank, in the ravines and hollows, behind logs and under the brush where they had crept for protection from the assassins who pursued them, we found bodies bayoneted, beaten, and shot to death, showing how cold-blooded and persistent was the slaughter of our unfortunate troops.
Of course, when a work is carried by assault there will always be more or less bloodshed, even when all resistance has ceased; but here there were unmistakable evidences of a massacre carried on long after any resistance could have been offered, with a cold-blooded barbarity and perseverance which nothing can palliate.
Compare the details of wounds, with this comment from Forrest's report on the battle.
My loss in the engagement was 20 killed and 60 wounded. That of the enemy unknown. Two hundred and twenty-eight were buried on the evening of the battle, and quite a number were buried the next day by details from the gun-boat fleet....
I cannot compliment too highly the conduct of Colonels Bell and McCulloch and the officers and men of their brigades, which composed the forces of Brigadier-General Chalmers. They fought with courage and intrepidity, and without bayonets assaulted and carried one of the strongest fortifications in the country....
In closing my report I desire to acknowledge the prompt and energetic action of Brigadier-General Chalmers, commanding the forces around Fort Pillow. His faithful execution of all movements necessary to the successful accomplishment of the object of the expedition entitles him to special mention. He has reason to be proud of the conduct of the officers and men of his command for their gallantry and courage in assaulting and carrying the enemy's work without the assistance of artillery or bayonets.
If they didn't use bayonets in the taking of the fort., which he stresses.. whence the wounds?
Before the war Forrest made his fortune in trading slaves.
There is the nature of the man who fought for slavery. A comfortable jail for his "consignment goods" no different than any other sort of property; save that this property also happened to be human.
After the war... he founded the Ku Klux Klan. He helped establish the culture of Jim Crow. What, one wonders, do the SCV have to say about that?
Sons of Confederate Veterans member Greg Stewart told The Associated Press last week he believes Forrest distanced himself from the Klan later in life. It's a point many historians agree upon, though some believe it was too little, too late, because the Klan had already turned violent before Forrest left.
"If Christian redemption means anything – and we all want redemption, I think – he redeemed himself in his own time, in his own actions, in his own words," Stewart said. "We should respect that."
Stuff and nonsense. First, this is a question of gov't recognition, so his "Come to Jesus Moment" isn't relevant, to that aspect of the argument. Second, the sum of Forrest's life (slave dealer, traitor, vigilante, organiser of Jim Crow and the idea of "keeping the nigger in his place"), those are the things he did. They are what he stood for.
Why, I wonder, to the people of Mississippi need to commemorate a man from Tennessee? Have they no traitorous, slave dealing, racists of their own to celebrate?
The stupid... it continues.
Mississippi has been petitioned by the Sons of Confederate Veterans to grant a license plate honoring Nathan Bedford Forrest. It's a part of the continuing attempt to whitewash the past, and make the cause of the Civil War (which, of course the SCV refers to as, "The War Between the States" as if that somehow changes things. For the record, I also think the US came about because of a revolution, not a "War for Independence", but I digress), some abstract issue related to the rights of states.
It was about states' rights, but it wasn't at all abstract. it was about the right of states to declare other human beings to be property. Neither was it one in which states were seen as sacrosanct. The whole point of Dred Scott was that states didn't have the right to grant rights to escaped slaves. The Fugitive Slave Act was all about forcing other states to enforce the idea of slavery in non-slave states.
Which brings is to Mr. Forrest. Why is he being honored? He was a good general... for values of good which include having his troops engage in a wholesale massacre of enemy troops who had surrendered at Ft. Pillow
The circumstances after the battle have made it a cause celèbre, even to the present. The results of the battle were sensational (Forrests losses were about 20 killed, and 80 wounded, the defenders had 231 dead, 100 wounded and 226 captured. Of the black troops, 75 were among the captured; they made up more than half the total of the garrison.
Confederate apologists argue it wasn't a massacre, that the losses were in the fighting, and the numbers reflect on Forrest's genius as a commander. I've seen some compare it to Jackson at New Orleans (where the dead on the US side numbered less than five). This might be more believable if Forrest had been, like Jackson, in defense.
More to the point, the report from the gunboat commander Forrest allowed to bury the dead says, We found about 70 wounded men in the fort and around it, and buried, I should think, 150 bodies. All the buildings around the fort and the tents and huts in the fort had been burned by the rebels, and among the embers the charred remains of numbers of our soldiers who had suffered a terrible death in the flames could be seen.
All the wounded who had strength enough to speak agreed that after the fort was taken an indiscriminate slaughter of our troops was carried on by the enemy with a furious and vindictive savageness which was never equaled by the most merciless of the Indian tribes. Around on every side horrible testimony to the truth of this statement could be seen. Bodies with gaping wounds, some bayoneted through the eyes, some with skulls beaten through, others with hideous wounds as if their bowels had been ripped open with bowie-knives, plainly told that but little quarter was shown to our troops. Strewn from the fort to the river bank, in the ravines and hollows, behind logs and under the brush where they had crept for protection from the assassins who pursued them, we found bodies bayoneted, beaten, and shot to death, showing how cold-blooded and persistent was the slaughter of our unfortunate troops.
Of course, when a work is carried by assault there will always be more or less bloodshed, even when all resistance has ceased; but here there were unmistakable evidences of a massacre carried on long after any resistance could have been offered, with a cold-blooded barbarity and perseverance which nothing can palliate.
Compare the details of wounds, with this comment from Forrest's report on the battle.
My loss in the engagement was 20 killed and 60 wounded. That of the enemy unknown. Two hundred and twenty-eight were buried on the evening of the battle, and quite a number were buried the next day by details from the gun-boat fleet....
I cannot compliment too highly the conduct of Colonels Bell and McCulloch and the officers and men of their brigades, which composed the forces of Brigadier-General Chalmers. They fought with courage and intrepidity, and without bayonets assaulted and carried one of the strongest fortifications in the country....
In closing my report I desire to acknowledge the prompt and energetic action of Brigadier-General Chalmers, commanding the forces around Fort Pillow. His faithful execution of all movements necessary to the successful accomplishment of the object of the expedition entitles him to special mention. He has reason to be proud of the conduct of the officers and men of his command for their gallantry and courage in assaulting and carrying the enemy's work without the assistance of artillery or bayonets.
If they didn't use bayonets in the taking of the fort., which he stresses.. whence the wounds?
Before the war Forrest made his fortune in trading slaves.
There is the nature of the man who fought for slavery. A comfortable jail for his "consignment goods" no different than any other sort of property; save that this property also happened to be human.
After the war... he founded the Ku Klux Klan. He helped establish the culture of Jim Crow. What, one wonders, do the SCV have to say about that?
Sons of Confederate Veterans member Greg Stewart told The Associated Press last week he believes Forrest distanced himself from the Klan later in life. It's a point many historians agree upon, though some believe it was too little, too late, because the Klan had already turned violent before Forrest left.
"If Christian redemption means anything – and we all want redemption, I think – he redeemed himself in his own time, in his own actions, in his own words," Stewart said. "We should respect that."
Stuff and nonsense. First, this is a question of gov't recognition, so his "Come to Jesus Moment" isn't relevant, to that aspect of the argument. Second, the sum of Forrest's life (slave dealer, traitor, vigilante, organiser of Jim Crow and the idea of "keeping the nigger in his place"), those are the things he did. They are what he stood for.
Why, I wonder, to the people of Mississippi need to commemorate a man from Tennessee? Have they no traitorous, slave dealing, racists of their own to celebrate?
