Civil War Buffs Celebrate Southern Terrorist's Birthday

[Ombudsman]

Members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans pause during the benediction in front of the statue of General Nathan Bedford Forrest during the annual birthday celebration. Over 200 people attended the event sponsored by the SCV Gen Nathan Bedford Forrest Camp 215.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 ... d-protest/

[Ombudsman]

“The slaughter was awful. Words cannot describe the scene. The poor deluded negroes would run up to our men, fall upon their knees, and with uplifted hands scream for mercy but they were ordered to their feet and then shot down. … I, with several others, tried to stop the butchery, and at one time had partially succeeded, but General Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs and the carnage continued. Finally our men became sick of blood and the firing ceased.”

http://www.alternet.org/confederacy-mak ... page=0%2C2

[UnLurker]

Strike three. I'm out.

[Boatrocker]

When I saw the title, I thought you were talking about an actual terrorist, like the one shown below.

Oh, fucking please . . . If Sherman was a "terrorist" then so were Ira Eaker, Hap Arnold and Curtis Lemay.

[UnLurker]

Strike three. I'm out.

[Mr.B]

Oh, f****g please . . . If Sherman was a "terrorist" then so were Ira Eaker, Hap Arnold and Curtis Lemay.

So Sherman was lily-white and did no wrong?

I can't apply the term of "terrorist", but no military leader was exactly of a choir-boy reputation.

[O Really]

I think the "terrorist" issue with Forrest is more with his work as the first Grand Wizard of the KKK rather than his work as a cavalry officer.

[Ombudsman]

I think the "terrorist" issue with Forrest is more with his work as the first Grand Wizard of the KKK rather than his work as a cavalry officer.

He was pretty despicable all the way around. No wonder Partisan (aka the guy who is ashamed of his Christian name) finds him admirable.

[UnLurker]

Strike three. I'm out.

[O Really]

I think the "terrorist" issue with Forrest is more with his work as the first Grand Wizard of the KKK rather than his work as a cavalry officer.

He was pretty despicable all the way around. No wonder Partisan (aka the guy who is ashamed of his Christian name) finds him admirable.

I don't think either side in the civil war selected their military leaders for being nice guys. If Sherman had had Meade's job at Gettysburg, he might have chased Lee's army to a total defeat, likely shortening the war considerably. Meade, instead, let them get away. (oversimplification, but still..)

[Ombudsman]

I think the "terrorist" issue with Forrest is more with his work as the first Grand Wizard of the KKK rather than his work as a cavalry officer.

He was pretty despicable all the way around. No wonder Partisan (aka the guy who is ashamed of his Christian name) finds him admirable.

So...you're Christian name is "ombudsman"? Must have been hell growing up. Try practicing what you preach.

I "preach" leaving personal information alone; anything else is "pretty despicable".

And I still say that "terrorists" come in many flavors, depending on who's on the receiving end. If degrees of destruction are used, then Sherman was far more the villain than Forrest, whether during or after the War of Northern Aggression.

I understand why you'd be ashamed to have someone call you by name. It'd be very embarrassing for your family particularly your defense of terrorists. Not that your love affair with Southern Revisionist history is a secret to them.

[Ombudsman]

I think the "terrorist" issue with Forrest is more with his work as the first Grand Wizard of the KKK rather than his work as a cavalry officer.

He was pretty despicable all the way around. No wonder Partisan (aka the guy who is ashamed of his Christian name) finds him admirable.

I don't think either side in the civil war selected their military leaders for being nice guys. If Sherman had had Meade's job at Gettysburg, he might have chased Lee's army to a total defeat, likely shortening the war considerably. Meade, instead, let them get away. (oversimplification, but still..)

There's a difference in fighting, and killing for a tactical advantage to ultimately end the war and save more lives, than there is with someone brutally massacring people and showing no mercy. Tennesseans should be ashamed of themselves that they've allowed so many monuments to be erected Forrest's honor.

[O Really]

... War of Northern Aggression.

The term "civil war" is pretty descriptive, but if you're going to change the name, how about maybe "The War Where the Rebels Got Their Asses Kicked." Or "The War of Total Destruction of the Confederate States of America." Or "The War Where the Confederate States of America Stepped in it Over its Head." Or "The War Where Southern Stubbornness Caused Total Demolition and Temporary Economic Ruin."

If it were me, I'd just go with "civil war." A pig is prettier without lipstick.

[UnLurker]

Strike three. I'm out.

[O Really]

History (the real stuff, not just the Northern lies) is not your thing, is it?

Isn't history always written by the winners? But call it what you will, it's long over. At least for most of the United States of America.

But here's a thought - tell me where I can get a copy of "The War of Northern Aggression" by the losers and I'll read it. Unless I have to use Confederate money to pay for it. I'm a little short, there. Should I look under "Fiction, non-specified"? I already looked under "History - Civil War" and didn't find it.

Oh wait - maybe this is it... http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/War_ ... Aggression

[Bungalow Bill]

I think I read where Forrest grew disenchanted with the KKK and quit, don't
know the details, but it's there somewhere on the net. Civil War is okay, that's
what it actually was. War Between the States is misleading, as if all the states
were in a war between themselves. For an alternative I'll go with The War for
Freedom and Against the Slaveocrats, though it didn't start out that way.

Uncle Billy did cause a lot of destruction in those states he passed through,
and most of it was deliberate, but there was relatively little killing of civilians,
it was mostly property damage, make 'em howl yawl.

Sorry, you lost in 1865 and 1965. Isn't that enough?

[O Really]

I like this idea - we could write a series of books and sell them in various countries. Like "The Third Reich Lives: How Hitler Won the War" or maybe "Secrets of the Soviets: How Revisionism Still Lets Them Rule All of Eurasia." Maybe "North Korea: World Leaders in Democracy."
Yeah, that's the ticket!

[UnLurker]

Strike three. I'm out.

[O Really]

Or you could actually use your brain for something more than making a dent in your pillow and study the actual events of 1860-1865. Bring an open mind if you can find one.

"Yeah that's the ticket" was certainly used with full understanding of its origin. You don't think I believe my own made-up "history books" any more than I believe your version do you.

However, if you have a real book to recommend, I'll look at it.

[neoplacebo]

I think that phrase originated back in the early part of the 20th century; I can remember Curly saying it, maybe Moe, too. woo woowoo woo