Patterico's Pontifications

2/10/2011

WTF?! A Proposed License Plate to Honor a War Criminal and the Founder of a Terrorist Organization?

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 5:43 pm

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

(Depiction of the Ft. Pillow massacre--double click to enlarge)

Of course that becomes a little more understandable (but not excusable) when you learn the man was also Confederate Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest. From CNS News:

The Mississippi Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans wants to sponsor a series of state-issued license plates to mark the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, which it calls the “War Between the States.”

Well, it beats “The War of Northern Aggression” I suppose.

The group proposes a different design each year between now and 2015, with Forrest slated for 2014.

“Seriously?” state NAACP president Derrick Johnson said when he was told about the Forrest plate. “Wow.”

Forrest, a Tennessee native, is revered by some as a military genius and reviled by others for leading the 1864 massacre of black Union troops at Fort Pillow, Tenn. Forrest was a Klan grand wizard in Tennessee after the war.

Um, actually he founded the KKK as its first Grand Dragon.

Of course no one doubts the martial skill of Gen. Forrest.  But if martial skill was all that mattered, then I suppose soon they will have license plates commemorating Gen. Erwin Rommell and Admiral Karl Dönitz, right?

And consider, for example, what Forrest did before founding the KKK.  You might recall that when black soldiers began to be used by North, the South declared that they would treat them as revolting slaves.  So when Ft. Pillow, defended in part by black soldiers, surrendered to Southern forces, they gave them no quarter.  The Encyclopedia Britannica notes that

In what proved the ugliest racial incident of the war, Confederate forces under General Nathan B. Forrest captured Fort Pillow on April 12, 1864, and proceeded to kill all the black troops within; some were burned or buried alive. A Federal congressional investigating committee subsequently verified that more than 300 blacks, including women and children, had been slain after the fort surrendered.

Also, from General U.S. Grant’s autobiography:

While these preparations were going on the enemy was not entirely idle. In the West Forrest made a raid in West Tennessee up to the northern border, capturing the garrison of four or five hundred men at Union City, and followed it up by an attack on Paducah, Kentucky, on the banks of the Ohio.  While he was able to enter the city he failed to capture the forts or any part of the garrison.  On the first intelligence of Forrest’s raid I telegraphed Sherman to send all his cavalry against him, and not to let him get out of the trap he had put himself into. Sherman had anticipated me by sending troops against him before he got my order.

Forrest, however, fell back rapidly, and attacked the troops at Fort Pillow, a station for the protection of the navigation of the Mississippi River.  The garrison consisted of a regiment of colored troops, infantry, and a detachment of Tennessee cavalry.  These troops fought bravely, but were overpowered.  I will leave Forrest in his dispatches to tell what he did with them.

“The river was dyed,” he says, “with the blood of the slaughtered for two hundred yards.  The approximate loss was upward of five hundred killed, but few of the officers escaping.  My loss was about twenty killed.  It is hoped that these facts will demonstrate to the Northern people that negro soldiers cannot cope with Southerners.”  Subsequently Forrest made a report in which he left out the part which shocks humanity to read.

And I have mentioned before that after the Civil War, black people were granted an equal right to vote across the South, and gaining political office.  The extreme example was South Carolina, where black people made two-thirds of the population and voters.  They elected the nation’s first black Lt. Governor.  Meanwhile, in Tennessee, where half the population and half the voters were black, they chose the first black man to be a U.S. Senator.  But by 1880, the office holders in the South were exclusively white, and were made up of racists who considered black people to be rightfully slaves.  How did this happen?  Because of Forrest and the campaign of terrorism waged by his Ku Klux Klan and similar organizations.  What they did was nothing less than the overthrow of democracy in the South.

So he was a war criminal, terrorist and destroyer of democracy, fighting dishonorably in an evil cause.  He does not deserve this honor.

If anyone should be remembered, it should be those who were slaughtered:

——————

Of course, WTF stands for “Win the Future.”

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

232 Responses to “WTF?! A Proposed License Plate to Honor a War Criminal and the Founder of a Terrorist Organization?”

  1. General Lee should be honored.

    Jim (ad29d8)

  2. Absolutely, there is one thing with some liberal circles redefining founding fathers as people not worthy of respect, but there is no excuse for Gen. Forrest…

    I can’t, however, abide with grouping Donitz and Rommell with Forrest, unless you’re going to add Lee and Jackson with your list.

    JFH (6579fb)

  3. Racist

    JD (d4bbf1)

  4. As one who grew up learning to revere Lee and has some sympathy for calling it “The War of Northern Aggression”, I firmly agree there is no place for celebrating war criminals. It sounds like Forrest should have been the exception to the rule of gracious treatment of the Confederate army at the end of the war.

    I am sure they can find subjects for their license plates that have some redeeming qualities.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  5. True, JFH. There’s no reason to disparage Rommel and Donitz that way.

    Newtons.Bit (922da8)

  6. Tell me Aaron, are you equally outraged over the actions of the Buffalo Soldiers, especially the 9th and 10th Calvary, in their treatment of Native Americans who were defending their lands?

    What Forrest did was every so wrong, but we learn about that. We are not taught about the Buffalo Soldiers.

    retire05 (63d9af)

  7. retire, let’s not exercise moral equivalence.

    No doubt you are quite right that there were other atrocities, but this one deserves to be discussed. Forrest must not be honored.

    Aaron, I appreciate the recent few history lessons. I was aware of Forrest. Retire’s right that this is something a lot of people learn about. Apparently not enough people.

    Burying surrendering soldiers alive? Burning women and children in cold blood? Mississippi should be beyond that era, but thanks to the hard work of Forrest and others, the south was poisoned to great extent. I think they are reopening a wound.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  8. MD says it well. The nation needed to heal, but for Forrest, the civil war didn’t end. The KKK was an insurgent terrorist organization that successfully continued screwing blacks and Republicans out of political power and safety.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  9. Dustin, frankly I am sick of this crap that you can honor your heroes (who slaughtered Native Americans) but no one can honor anyone who was on the other side of your coin.

    BTW, according to Brian Steel Wills, a Civil War historian and biographer of Nathan Bedford Forrest, there is no proof that Forrest was ever a Grand Klegal. Also, Forrest disbanded his KKK group and left them. That others picked up the idea is not the fault of Forrest.

    While I think the whole license plate thing is stupid, and we need to get beyond the War of Northern Agression, let’s at least be honest with the facts, shall we? Would there be the same outrage over a state issuing a license plate in honor of William T. Sherman who went on to glory by slaughtering Native Americans?

    retire05 (63d9af)

  10. It sounds like Mississippi has a fairly permissive approach to license plate design, but it does put a new spin on the game of License Plate Bingo.

    DRJ (fdd243)

  11. Let me be clear, i am not saying Rommell or Donitz are as bad as Forrest.

    Yes, all three men fought for evil. But Forrest also fought dishonorably and was a terrorist after his side surrendered. He is worse, imho.

    And yes, i think it is valid, therefore, to compare them to Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee.

    But i wanted to pick out examples of men that the south would never honor. Which makes jackson and lee very poor choices, because of course those men will get license plates.

    As for the Buffalo soldiers, let me tell the blunt truth. i haven’t studied what happened there. i have looked in my studies primarily to reconstruction in a multi-year project grappling with the meaning of the 14th amendment. i know alot about the revolutionary era. and less about most other eras. i know in general the buffalo soliers were used to suppress native americans, but if there were any Tippecanoe type massacres, i plead ignorance.

    I will add that nothing should ever be swept under the rug, though. if the buffalo soldiers committed atrocities, that should be acknowledged.

    I am singling out Forrest because i know the character of the man. it is impossible to know of every wrong done in human history or even every wrong done on american soil.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  12. retire

    btw, i think alot of southerners would object to sherman getting a plate because of atlanta and the march to the sea.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  13. Actually, I’d kinda like a plate for Rommel…

    As for Dönitz…

    I can’t help but feel a little sorry for him…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  14. No, Forrest is more in the category of Heydrich and Skorzeny, the first mercifully met his maker, the
    last was actually hired by the US, to recruit fellow
    German nationals for the Egyptian government, yes it’s all connected,

    narciso (e888ae)

  15. Aaron, my point is not that the South would create a license plate honoring Sherman, but that Sherman is definately considered a hero of the North, and no one wants to talk about his atrocities.

    retire05 (63d9af)

  16. My God, Fritz, you take the writtings of someone at WaPo that compares the non-slave owning Southerners to poor who supported Bush’s tax cuts for the “rich”?

    I suggest you read Shelby Foote instead.

    retire05 (63d9af)

  17. #

    #

    Dustin, frankly I am sick of this crap that you can honor your heroes (who slaughtered Native Americans) but no one can honor anyone who was on the other side of your coin.

    I understand.

    But Forrest is not your hero. If you think he is, then you’re mistaken about who he is. I think I have a good enough read on your basic character to know that you’re not compatible with that kind of POS. The fact that there are other POSs that Aaron hasn’t mentioned today doesn’t mean he’s unjustified in this history lesson, given Mississippi apparently forgetting this terrorist, butcher, war criminal.

    By all means, call attention to similar issues, but let’s not demand someone also address your concern, when theirs is as legitimate as Aaron’s about Forrest.

    This isn’t “anyone who was on the other side of [the] coin”. That Aaron goes to so much trouble to explain specifics shows he’s not making such a sweeping ban on honoring confederate soldiers.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  18. retire

    i have lived north and south. in the north what Sherman did in the civil war is generally considered questionable.

    And they are never allergic to hearing about the dark side of a hero.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  19. Retire05, I think that a Sherman license plate would also be in poor taste.

    aphrael (b10968)

  20. Retire

    Well, the tax cuts for the rich is a pretty clumsy comparison.

    But okay, let’s say the government wanted to confiscate everyone’s home and force them into rentals. Who would oppose it? naturally everyone who owns a home. But so would the people who don’t own, but rent, because they hope to on a home someday. And even if they knew they would never own a home, they see the morality of it: if you own a home, you should be able to keep it.

    The American dream, these days, is something like a decent house, wife or husband, a couple kids, and a couple cars. In 1850, the southern version of that was owning a few slaves. Which is really f—ed up, but that is how they saw it. And they felt it was property that the government should not be taking from people.

    Of course that is only part of the problem. The other thing is that many in the south believed in the theory of race war. I have to think it started just as pure pro-slavery propaganda, but I suspect after a time even the slaveholders themselves believed it. they believed that if the slaves were freed the slaves would go nuts and just start killing white people. That’s why you hear Lee say things like he was defending his family. His family was in no danger from the election of Lincoln—unless you believed that if the slaves were freed they would kill your family.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  21. For those who haven’t read it, The Impending Crisis is an incredibly good analysis of the politics of the era leading up to the civil war.

    aphrael (b10968)

  22. Dustin, no, Forrest is not a hero of mine. But Aaron repeated the rumor that Forrest was a Grand Klegal, although the #1 Forrest biographer says there is no evidence of that. Aaron also failed to point out that Forrest disbanded the KKK under his leadership. If we are going to present facts, let’s present them ALL. The good, and the bad.

    Aaron, if the Yankees are not opposed to hearing about the dark side of their heroes, then explain to me why most that I have met do not know that Sherman lead troops in the Indian “wars”?

    I recently met a guy who was bragging that his ancestor was a Buffalo Soldier and how the Buffalo Soldiers had been awarded 23 Medals of Honor for their effort in killing Indians. I asked him if he was aware of the atrocities committed by the Buffalo Soldiers and he told me “They were honorable and didn’t commmit atrocities.”

    I guess wearing a necklace of Native American ears doesn’t count with some people. Or making caps out of the breasts of Native American women is just something that all soldiers of the time did.

    Forrest was an ass. So was Sherman. Everyone talks about Andersonville. No one ever talks about Elmira. Tit for tat, my guy is better than your guy. It’s that crap I’m sick of.

    retire05 (63d9af)

  23. Retire05: nobody knows about Sherman leading troops in the indian wars because, in general, the indian wars are ignored. People remember the civil war; it’s extensively studied and knowledge of it permeates our culture. The indian wars, not so much.

    It’s not because yankees are favoring yankees; it’s because the Indian wars just get lesser status than the civil war.

    aphrael (b10968)

  24. Aaron, slavery was an unhumane institution. But let’s be honest about it. Most slave ships sailed out of Boston Harbor. The biggest slave holder in Louisiana was a free black. The first slave holder in the U.S. was a black man, who owned two white men and a African. One of the most prolific slave ship captains was a free black from New England.

    No one, in any state, was without fault. But slavery was the only way that the South could compete with the North. And for the history revisionists to have placed all the blame for slavery on the South boils my blood.

    retire05 (63d9af)

  25. aphrael, no, no one studies the Indian “wars” because the Indians don’t have a lobby to plead their case. End of story.

    retire05 (63d9af)

  26. I defend Sherman’s Civil War actions in the same vein that I defend the Hiroshima bomb: call it brutal and inhumane, but it was an effective way to end a war that was going on too long. Sherman’s march to the sea was, in my mind, an evil… but a necessary one.

    As for Forrest, some say that he turned around in his racist views toward the end of his life, much like George Wallace did a century later. If that’s historically accurate, then good on him, but I somehow suspect that’s not why some Mississipians want to honor him.

    Bad call, Mississippi.

    Kman (26c32e)

  27. i don’t see how that contradicts what i’m saying. i express no real opinion on *why* we (generally speaking) don’t care about the indian wars; i’m saying we don’t care about the indian wars. why does nobody know about sherman’s role in the indian wars? because *nobody cares about the indian wars*.

    (i’m exaggerating. but not as much as i’d like to be.)

    aphrael (b10968)

  28. Shorter kmart – RACISTS !!!!

    JD (d4bbf1)

  29. Shorter kmart – RACISTS !!!!

    JD (d4bbf1)

  30. I defend Sherman’s Civil War actions in the same vein that I defend the Hiroshima bomb: call it brutal and inhumane, but it was an effective way to end a war that was going on too long. Sherman’s march to the sea was, in my mind, an evil… but a necessary one.

    Holy f**k, I agree with Kman.

    I feel f**king dirty. I need to shower in boiling water, and scrub myself with steel wool.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  31. That’s right, aphrael, no one should care about the Indian “wars” because, after all, they were just a bunch of savages, right?

    retire05 (63d9af)

  32. Retire05 – that’s not what i’m saying at all. I’m making a descriptive claim about the way Americans, and American culture, behaves. I’m not making a prescriptive claim about how we should behave.

    The Indian wars were a travesty. The treatment of Indians in peace time was a travesty. The entire set of actions is a stain upon our national honor. It represented generations of the worst instincts of man, justified by exactly the kind of rhetoric you just implied I supported; and it was a betrayal of the noble notions that our republic claimed to stand for.

    I can understand some of it in the context of the times; but only some of it.

    That said, in practice, modern Americans just don’t care; it had minimal impact on our memories and our consciences.

    aphrael (b10968)

  33. okay, scott jacobs wins the thread at 30.

    imho…

    btw, remember a broken clock is right twice a day. kman is only right once a month, so he is waaaay behind.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  34. War Is Hell

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  35. I’m not one to hold the sins of many generations ago against anyone out there today, but it’s so sad to see someone say something stupid like ‘the south couldn’t compete without slavery’.

    So don’t compete then. Have some freaking morality.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  36. I Won

    Ulysses S. Grant (479a30)

  37. John Black Jack Pershing, now there was a good general. Went after Pancho Villa he did.

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  38. Great, Aaron gives the thread “award” to some guy that can’t seem to post an entry without using profanity. Guess the standards for the “award” are not all that high.

    George Patton; now there’s a general.

    Oh, and Dustin, the North simple replaced their slaves with child labor. One northern mill had almost 60% of their labor under the age of 12 by 1830. Paid them a $1.00/wk and fired them if they were injured.

    Maybe the North should have thought about that whole competition thing, right?

    retire05 (63d9af)

  39. Comment by Aaron Worthing — 2/10/2011 @ 8:00 pm

    Really?

    I would have thought 12 would have gotten it for me.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  40. retire

    well, feel free to disagree, but he made me laugh.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  41. George Patton; now there’s a general.

    Indded.

    He also cheated on his wife (it is suspected that among his lovers was his niece), and was quite the racist.

    That doesn’t change the fact that I think he was the finest general the US ever produced, but if you’re going to loath people for personality flaws, you should probably know about his too…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  42. Hopefully the cadets at west point will be allowed to study Forrest without apology.
    The Nathan Bedford Forrest license plate should be a no go at this point in our history… I’d suggest the state of Colorado 10th Mountain Division plate instead

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  43. One northern mill had almost 60% of their labor under the age of 12 by 1830.

    One northern mill!!! OMG OMG OMG OMG

    Therefore, slavery is ok.

    Oh wait, you’re not saying that? Well, then I won’t pretend you did, since I’m not a jerk. You do agree that conflating people’s arguments with things they aren’t saying is jerk behavior, right?

    so we agree that slavery is unforgivable, and anyone who justifies it in the name of competition is a moral turd, right? And also that abusive child labor is also wrong (no where near as wrong as slavery, of course).

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  44. Comment by retire05 — 2/10/2011 @ 8:29 pm

    I frequently post without profanity.

    I only break out the good stuff when ignorant little turds like you come along.

    Shallow, feckless little trolls who deem it necessary to defecate all over threads with your pathetic little “insights” that reveal you to be wholly ignorant of the subject matter, but who have amazingly managed to grab a hold of some insignificant little factoid, and throw it at anything it is even remotely related to in the hopes of sounding like you aren’t as hopelessly stupid as you actually are.

    You’re a worthless pile, and while I would never – not even for a moment – dream of doing you harm, if I saw you dying slowly – oh so slowly, an in agonizing pain – I would light a cigarette and watch with a smile on my face.

    Smiling in the knowledge that on that day, the global average I.Q. would rise.

    See? Not a vulgarity to be found.

    Aren’t you happy you challenged me to rise above profanity?

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  45. steveg

    by all means study every military man of intelligence. and the stupid ones, too, to learn from their mistakes. :-)

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  46. I feel like some Porgie and Bess right about now.

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  47. I don’t think retire is worthless, and if his tenor has something to do with some intra blog battle I’m thankfully completely clueless about that.

    I thought things got off to a bad start in another thread, and he was too snarky, but he seems to want the same things I want.

    How that got to this point in this thread, with repeated equivocations, doesn’t make sense to me. But I write that off as someone who is ticked off about the end of federalism with the civil war (or something approximately like that). I’m surprised something like this doesn’t result in a lot of common ground. I mean, we’ve got Kman and Scott on the same page. Ted Bundy and Mister Rogers agree.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  48. The other thing is that many in the south believed in the theory of race war. I have to think it started just as pure pro-slavery propaganda, but I suspect after a time even the slaveholders themselves believed it. they believed that if the slaves were freed the slaves would go nuts and just start killing white people. That’s why you hear Lee say things like he was defending his family. His family was in no danger from the election of Lincoln—unless you believed that if the slaves were freed they would kill your family.

    That was hardly propaganda; it’s what happened in Haiti, and there was every reason to fear it would happen again. Even before Haiti, Jefferson thought it likely to happen sooner or later, which is one reason that when he proposed abolition he wanted the freed slaves sent back to Africa.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  49. The pre-eminent historian of Reconstruction (Eric Foner) says that the early KKK was little more than the armed wing of the Democrat Party. One always hopes that the Democrats will one day apologize for this.

    Kevin M (298030)

  50. That’s why you hear Lee say things like he was defending his family. His family was in no danger from the election of Lincoln—unless you believed that if the slaves were freed they would kill your family.

    Hmmmm. I always thought that Lee was defending his family from the Northern troops. He was a Virginian first, I thought. I was of the understanding that he didn’t like slavery and wanted to see it end, but he thought the South needed to do it, not be told how and when by the North. I may well be wrong in my understanding, but that is what I’ve thought.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  51. There’s many a general with serious personality flaws, but that’s not the same as both conducting a famous atrocity and being proud of it in one’s despatches. If a man leads his men to slaughter noncombatants and the surrendered, I don’t care if his manners were nice at parties and his political ideals impeccable; he’s not a good man.

    Maureen (265a5e)

  52. Don’t really know what to think of Forrest and don’t intend to defend him, but it seems like there is room for doubt about some of the accusations here. Fort Pillow simply isn’t as well documented or versed as, say, Malmedy; or, if we’re really earning the “massacre” title, Nanjing.

    It’s curious that some contemporary, actual evidence from both sides leaves out any mention of women and children. Yet at least one artistic rendition of the event(s) shows a Confederate soldier attacking a black mother defending her child. What gives? Is this true? Would anybody put it past media of the time to exaggerate the horrors perpetrated by the enemy?

    Can’t do any justice to the incident right now but the Wikipedia entry (I know, I know, give me a break) paints a decidedly mixed picture and at least some of the evidence quoted contradicts the Brittanica citation. For example: some black soldiers (20%)were taken prisoner, the quote attributed to Forrest by Grant (!) may be inaccurate inasmuch as approximately half the Union were killed – rather than over five hundred men, virtually (as Forrest allegedly relates) the entire garrison. It isn’t entirely clear that the garrison as a whole surrendered; though, damningly, a study by Albert Castel concludes that the fort had “ceased resisting or was incapable of resistance.”

    Zingums (93eafa)

  53. “The War Between The States” is accurate but not as pithy as the equally accurate “Civil War”. “The War of Northern Aggression” is mere coat-trailing and translates as “The Unnecessary War Started By Bloodthirsty Bluebellies”.

    I’m from Cork (Corcaigh in Irish) which is known as the Rebel County because of our heroics against the British in the War of Independence (1918-1921). At hurling and Gaelic football matches supporters wave full-scale Battle Flags of the Confederacy to celebrate our “rebel” status, a stirring sight to behold, I assure you.

    A few years ago the PC mopes began objecting on the grounds of racial sensitivity!!! The supporters were not best pleased.

    Our county colours are red and white so the Japanese Rising Sun flag is also extensively used. No one ever objected to that! The Maple Leaf and the Red Cross are also appropriated for similar reasons which makes us KKK racists with Canadian and Swiss sympathies and Japanese imperialist ambitions.

    Cork is listed by “The Lonely Planet”as one of the world’s Top Ten cities to visit so y’all come and see us real soon. No grits, mind you, but our tripe, drisheen and crubeens are to die for!

    liamascorcaigh (7de030)

  54. Considering that Southern rebel troops fired the first shots at the long established United States Fort Sumpter, I reject the characterization of the Civil War as anything to do with “Northern Aggression”.

    Unless by Northern Aggression you mean “not going to let the Northern States use the Democratic Proccess to outlaw black chattel Slavery”. Because when all is said and done, slavery was the deviding line.

    That and General Lee’s inability to put his Nation above his State when push came to shove. They sure wrote eloquently in defense of the subject, but they were still all sorts of wrong.

    Southerners need to get over themselves and join the rest of the USA. I am so tired of their [BS] justifications for pride in what was horrid and resulted in 4+ years of bloodbaths.

    [if you cuss, you get caught in the filters. so please don’t.]

    SGT Ted (5d10ae)

  55. Scott Jacobs, as true to your form, you simply replace profanity with perjoratives.

    I think you missed your calling. Politics, perhaps? And with your penchant for debate via insults, and heaping ill will upon your opponent, you would make a great Democrat.

    retire05 (63d9af)

  56. MD

    regarding lee, ask yourself this. what rational fear would lee have had of northern troops?

    And if he was so scared of northern troops, then why was he instrumental in virginia’s secession?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  57. Kman

    actually while i agreed with most of your first comment, this was out of order.

    > Bad call, Mississippi.

    mississippi hasn’t made the call yet. a few sons of confederate vets have made it and they do not represent the entire state. i am sure by the end of it the NAACP of Tennessee will make an appropriate fuss about it, and sensible people will notice that we cannot be trying to kill or capture the head of one terrorist organization (bin Laden) while honoring the head of another (Forrest).

    Btw, for all the people who say forrest repudiated the Klan, there is one reason and one reason only why the KKK went away for a while there: because they accomplished their mission. i mean, my God congress couldn’t even pass a law addressing the problem of lynching. And the President of the U.S. arranged a personal viewing of the Klan-praising film “birth of a nation.”

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  58. Aaron, how was Lee instrumental in Virginia’s secession? Did not Lincoln ask Lee, under the advise of Scott, to head the Army of the Potomac? Would Lincoln have asked that of a man who was helping facilitate the secession of Virginia?

    Lee did not resign his commission, or assume leadership of the Army of Virginia, until after the war started and Virginia had already seceeded.

    Had Virginia remained in the Union, Lee would be a Northern hero.

    retire05 (63d9af)

  59. When David Duke almost upset the Long’s families hand picked successor for US Senator, and then an ICON governor and it took both parties presidential candidates to campaig against duke to defeat him and then a 3 year pyrric investigation culumlating in a plea deal for Duke to never run again against a phoney charge of money laundering – anyone who thinks the Klan cannot is not a force in some areas is seriously delusional

    The LAST thing Mississippi needs is to make them mainstream again

    EricPWJohnson (598bf5)

  60. Forget all this Civil War silliness,

    Since we are celebrating war criminals and terrorists, when can I expect the Che Guevara, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and Pancho Villa plates?

    Hey kids, collect the whole set!!

    the bhead (a31060)

  61. mississippi hasn’t made the call yet. a few sons of confederate vets have made it….

    Noted.

    {It would be a] Bad call, Mississippi.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  62. Aaron, how was Lee instrumental in Virginia’s secession?

    He wasn’t. Aaron makes up plausible, but ultimately untrue, things from time to time.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  63. regarding lee, ask yourself this. what rational fear would lee have had of northern troops?

    Aaron, aside from your claim that Lee was instrumental in Virginia’s seccession, which you give me no reference on, it seems pretty obvious what Lee had to fear from the northern troops.

    I was always of the understanding, as retire05 says, that Lee was offered the job by Lincoln of being in command of the northern troops. That doesn’t prove the Lee was not instrumental in Virginia’s secession, but it suggests that Lee was not known as a strong and vocal apologist for slavery.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  64. retire

    i suggest very strongly that you read Ralph Korngold’s book on Thaddeus Stevens. it will open your eyes.

    And if you do, use the search box on the right. it will cause patterico to get a little $ with no additional cost to you.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  65. MD

    the reference to lee’s involvement is in korngold’s book on stevens. i make the same recommendation to you. it is a brilliant book and it will tell you things about history you never knew. like how Virginia was abducted from the union. it was referenced in a speech by lincoln, but few of the historians mention it.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  66. kman

    i told you if you lied about me, i would remove the comment and i have done so. In fact if i catch you lying about what anyone said, period, I will do so.

    That is strike one. on the third strike, you go into moderation. That means your comments will not appear until i review and approve them.

    Feel free to appeal my decision to Patterico, but again, he doesn’t take people lying about him lying down either.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  67. David Duke was the most formidable candidate EVAH! It took th combined efforts of the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and others to keep him from rising to power.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  68. Oh sorry about my strong language. History revisionism and feel good sops to the pro-slavery rebels losers of the Civil War really tick me off.

    SGT Ted (5d10ae)

  69. SGT

    have you seen what my own blog is called? Its called, um, Allergic to Bull____. so needless to say your language doesn’t offend me. but its how patterico set it up.

    Btw, for everyone’s benefit, sometimes comments get filtered for reasons that have nothing to do with us being annoyed with you. for instance, our spam filters will cut you out if you say “viagra” because apparently we got alot of corporate spam emails selling that. so if your comment doesn’t appear for any reason, don’t assume I or patterico are mad at you. it could be a mistake and if it is, we will fix it.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  70. Aaron,

    It should be noted that the Klan of the immediate post-war south and the Klan resurgence in the 1920s were two different creatures. In the latter day Klan, Illinois( of all places) had the most members per state if I remember correctly.

    I am NOT defending either one here at all.

    SGT Ted (5d10ae)

  71. AW:

    Banning me (or warning me of a ban) will not alter the fact that your statement that Lee was instrumental in Virginia’s secession, is false.

    like how Virginia was abducted from the union.

    Okay, I’ll bite. Just how does an entire state get abducted from the union?

    Kman (d30fc3)

  72. btw, it is rich to see you, a proven liar, call me a liar. but since this time you limited your comments to saying my claim was false, i will let that slide.

    > Just how does an entire state get abducted from the union?

    How about we let Lincoln explain it:

    > It is ventured to affirm [that union sentiment is in the majority], even of Virginia and Tennessee; for the result of an election, held in military camps, where the bayonets are all on one side of the question voted upon, can scarcely be considered as demonstrating popular sentiment. At such an election, all that large class who are, at once, for the Union, and against coercion, would be coerced to vote against the Union.

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1063

    And again, read korngold’s book. he talks about it in detail.

    And let’s not forget that secession in virginia was contentious enough that a huge chunk of the state seceded from virginia and rejoined the union. You know, WEST VIRGINIA. and in Tennessee, Senator Andrew Johnson refused to walk out with the rest of his delegation, specifically claiming that the people of Tennessee had been coerced into secession.

    As usual your aggressive ignorance is on display.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  73. So that’s why we have West Virginia? I never knew that. Of course, I learned history from libs. And haven’t finished my remedial self-study.

    Gesundheit (cfa313)

  74. Hey, bottom line. Can we get back to the license plate question?

    As I understand it, license plates serve the useful function of letting cops know who owns the car and letting the government screw more money out of you. So… they need to have a number of some kind. Would it be an outrageous suggestion to just keep them at that and let people “honor” whoever they want with their own bumper stickers?

    Gesundheit (cfa313)

  75. I noted that one of the posters above accused the 9th and 10th Calvary of having committed atrocities.
    Does the poster have any further information? From his charges it sounds more like the Sand Creek Massacre or Custer on the Washita River neither of which involved the 9th or 10th Calvary.

    Mike Giles (e660fb)

  76. ges

    well, that is more of a case of the teaching of the civil war being taken over by people who were sympathetic to the southern cause. and forcing a state into secession is about the most hypocritical moment in the civil war. Whether there is a right to secession or not, there is certainly a right NOT to secede.

    of course in South Carolina, they had just about seceded in the nullification crisis, leading them to adopt the state motto: “if at first you don’t secede, try, try again.”

    (No, not really.)

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  77. Nathan Bedford Forrest was never tried or convicted of any war crime anywhere but in the press. The Fort Pillow battle was the subject of a US Congressional investigation which found Forrest had not acted inappropriately or committed any crime. Remember, the Union soldiers who fought in this battle were killed or captured, so the Northern press had a blank sheet with which to smear Forrest, since the Union was unable to defeat him on the field.

    War is confusing enough with radio communications, but in 1863, the visual signals (flags) were used. During the fighting, Confederates put a blocking force West of Ft Pillow to cut off an avenue of retreat toward the Mississippi River. A Confederate soldier in the fort cut the lanyard on the flag pole, a signal of surrender, causing the blocking force to cease fire. Union troops fired on the Confederates which may have been viewed as an act of perfidy – a war crime. Here is Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest’s Ft Pillow after action report.

    http://www.civilwarhome.com/forrest.htm

    Arch (24f4f2)

  78. Ges

    well, that is a good point and there was a case a bit back when one state wanted to have an optional plate that said, “choose life” and pro-abortion groups got all mad and tried to stop that. i believe the state was allowed to put up the choose life plate.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  79. On the subject of the Forrest license plates, I think the state of Mississippi should issue them. They will simply mark that driver as a complete a$$hole, and everyone else on the road will know to avoid him/her.

    Mike Giles (e660fb)

  80. How about we let Lincoln explain it

    Well, I’m not sure Lincoln’s speculation qualifies as historical fact. Virginia, a slave state, voted for secession by a ratio of something like 4:1, and I don’t think most of the margin can be attributed to “bayonets” pointing at voters.

    (In any event, “abduction” is an odd way to phrase it).

    Kman (d30fc3)

  81. I only supported the “Choose Life” plates as a fairness issue. Once you’re going to start issuing plates with themes on them, you’re pretty well stuck. But I really do question the wisdom of governments using official “documents” (loosely defined) to promote the flavor of the week.

    Might as well sell advertising space on the back of your birth certificate. Travel agencies on the inside cover of your passport. Can I get a Mississippi plate that promotes Michigan tourism?

    Gesundheit (cfa313)

  82. All this true but at the end of his life Forrest repudiated the Klan, found Jesus Christ and became a force for racial reconciliation. Remember the Parable of the Hours.

    tdiinva (a13855)

  83. Kman

    First, i am not citing lincoln alone.

    Second, the first time they voted overwhelmingly against secession. So they held a second referendum, in confederate military camps, that they voted for it.

    you explain that.

    and Lee commanded those soldiers in secret. korngold documents that.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  84. Aaron, I checked out Ralph Korngold.

    I found:

    Are There Classes In America?

    by RALPH KORNGOLD
    National Lecturer of the Socialist Party

    Published by THE SOCIALIST PARTY
    803W. Madison Avenue
    Chicago

    Copyright, 1914, by National Office, Socialist Party, Chicago, Ill.

    Is this the same guy you are recommending?

    retire05 (63d9af)

  85. When Sherman was planning his march across Georgia, he worried about Nathan Bedford Forrest, so he told his subordinates to occupy Forrest by threatening Mississippi and Alabama. Sherman had actually offered to promote the Brigadier who executed Forrest. That order actually is a war crime.

    The most decisive cavalry engagement in the Western Hemisphere was the Battle of Brice’s Cross Roads on 10 June 1864, pitting Forrest against Brig General Samuel Sturgis. Sturgis had several companies of black troops swear on a Bible to kill Forrest rather than take him prisoner. Forrest’s observers watched the 8,500 Union troops eat breakfast, form up and march toward Tupelo. Forrest had his 3,000 mounted infantry saddle two mounts and gallop toward the Bridge at Tishomingo Creek. His artillery lead the way and set up beside Brice’s Cross Road. Union scouts rode back to the column expediting their march. (It’s very hot in Mississippi in June especially if you are dressed in navy blue wool.) The Union cavalry charged into Forrest’s ambush and the horses did not like the double grape shot, so they turned tail and ran back headlong into the exhausted infantry column. Forrest sent a force around the Union’s left flank and crashed into the black troops who wore “remember fort pillow” banners. For the next two days, Forrest’s men chased the retreating forces for 60 miles. This engagement is taught at the US Army War College as the earliest example of a maneuver battle. Not since Alexander the Great routed Darius III at Arabella in 331 BC, has an out numbered attacker overwhelmed his enemy so completely.

    Arch (24f4f2)

  86. There are days I want to believe nothing until Patterico finishes his cross examination. I just need to remind myself how much a college student can believe all kinds of bunk until you get into high enough level courses to see that your freshman TA was teaching his own opinion…

    A few years ago when Israel attacked southern Lebanon (in self defense) there were all kinds of reports of Israel destroying civilian targets, ambulances, etc. In the day of the Web one started seeing additional pictures rather than on the front page. One interesting thing was the frequent appearance of someone nicknamed (I believe) “the Green Helmet Guy”. This fellow was seen among the first responders to “civilian” casualties in an incredibly high percentage of photos, in different areas, and over years when people searched for him. That was part of the evidence assembled “for all to see” that “ambulances” were carrying rockets, etc., etc. So even when we have access to tons more info than 150 years ago, “seeing” is still not necessarily “believing”, as you don’t know who has the better photoshopping/ scene manipulation abilities- like the quarterback the other day.

    It is hard for someone to deceive about a correct math answer, anyway, at least until you get to junior level differential equations and linear algebra, anyway…

    Back to helping my daughter learn the current dogma concerning the world, 4th grade level, 2010-11 state approved curriculum edition… :-(

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  87. Second, the first time they voted overwhelmingly against secession. So they held a second referendum, in confederate military camps, that they voted for it.

    you explain that.

    You’ve got your facts wrong.

    The people of Virginia only voted for secession once. And it passed.

    Now, a couple of months earlier, the people voted for delegates for a secession convention. And yes, the delegates were not overwhelming FOR secession. But that was several months earlier. BEFORE Fort Sumter. BEFORE it was clear there was even going to be a war. That’s your explanation.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  88. I haven’t read all the comments but there are quite a few myths here. Forrest was the greatest cavalry leader of the era. He was also a pretty nasty segregationist. The two are unrelated. JEB Stuart, who is usually celebrated, was a glory hunter who let Lee down at Gettyburg by riding off on some mission of his own and allowed Lee to be surprised by Meade.

    Skorzeny was brought before the Nuremberg tribunal after the war and a large number of senior US officers testified in his defense. There is no evidence that he was anything like Heydrich who was a cashiered Navy officer before he joined the SS.

    The license plate idea is foolish.

    Mike K (8f3f19)

  89. retire

    apparently the same man. i admit i am surprised, because his book is emphatically NOT a marxist interpretation of history. in fact it was written to challenge Richard Current’s biography of stevens, which WAS a marxist interpretation of stevens’ life. stevens was a yankee industrialist, considered one of the evil men in history to most socialists.

    For instance, stevens put on his grave that he was buried in a desegregated cemetary because he wanted to vindicate the principle of “equality of man before his creator.” korngold presents that as most would see it, a man being consistent in life and death. Current editorialized that it was a joke because he had done so much to institute socioeconomic inequality.

    my best guess is that korngold had a change of heart sometime between 1914 and 1955 when he wrote that book on stevens. which makes alot of sense given that there were two world wars between when he was associated with those socialists and 1955. the world saw what happened with the russian revolution and saw the holocuast in german, two events that were very likely to influence people’s minds.

    and for that matter, richard current himself later changed his mind, going from attacking the radical republicans to defending them.

    anyway, all of that is an ad hom. korngold’s book is full of citations. why don’t you read it, and if you don’t trust him, check his sources?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  90. Kman

    no, you are wrong. there were two votes. see korngold.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  91. This site has some excellent information on Forrest.
    http://www.civilwarhome.com/forrestcampaigns.htm

    For any of you who saw the Shelby Foote parts of the Ken Burns mini series, you may remember the incident about Forrest, a 6’2″ former Memphis alderman, seemingly being able to go through Memphis unnoticed. Here’s the description on civilwarhome.com:

    “Hurlbut was severely censured, removed from his command at Memphis, and General C.C. Washburn put in his place. When, a short time after this, Forrest came into Memphis and captured Washburn’s uniform from the room in which he slept, it is said that Hurlbut curtly remarked: ‘They removed me because I couldn’t keep Forrest out of West Tennessee, but Washburn couldn’t keep him out of his bedroom.'”

    At the time Washburn was in his room!

    Forrest packed it and had it presented to Washburn by his fellow officers. Washburn bought some grey wool and gold braid and had it sent to Forrest.

    Arch (24f4f2)

  92. no, you are wrong. there were two votes. see korngold

    You seem to be a lot of stock in this one non-historian’s book, which seems to contradict widely accepted accounts.

    Or perhaps you are misremembering it. There was only ONE vote in Virginia to ratify secession. The “other vote” — which you are confusing — is the vote to elect delegates to the secession convention.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  93. Kman

    > one non-historian’s book

    That is so pathetic. [Here’s what a historian is defined as:]

    > a person who is an authority on history and who studies it and writes about it.

    Korngold is by that definition a historian. as they say, the first to resort to an ad hom loses the argument. read it, check his sources if you feel it is necessary and then get back to me.

    > which seems to contradict widely accepted accounts.

    What account? you have named none.

    But then again you don’t think that jefferson’s declaration of independance was prominent in the minds of abolitionists.

    [corrected after the fact]

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  94. What account? you have named none.

    How many do you need?

    The only vote for secession put to the people of the State of Virginia was on May 23, 1861.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  95. kman

    I told you not to lie about what people said. strike two.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  96. I told you not to lie about what people said. strike two.

    Where did I lie about what people said? What “people”?

    It’s almost like you reflexively call something a “lie” when you’re being contradicted.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  97. you cited a long list of sources supporting you. i check the first five and NONE of them did. Therefore you lied about what they said.

    Again, one more strike and you are in moderation.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  98. you cited a long list of sources supporting you. i check the first five and NONE of them did. Therefore you lied about what they said.

    None of them did what?

    They talk about Virginia referendum to secede and NONE of them mention that there were TWO of them put to vote by the Virginia people.

    They ALL mention the same one: the May 23 1861 referendum, and nothing else…. because there was no other referendum.

    That supports my position, AW. And putting me in moderation only shows the lengths you’ll go to in order to avoid admitting that you are wrong about an historical fact.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  99. I’d like to see the timeline alleged regarding the Virginia votes for secession claimed by Korngold. I find it hard to fathom how the actual historical events could have been HONESTLY misconstrued this way. It’s almost like arguing with someone who feels Zinn is the absolute authority on the history of the US.

    Perhaps the “two votes” refers to the two votes held during the secession convention. However, given the events that occured between April 4 (when a resolution calling for immediate secession was voted down) and April 17, which included the battle at Ft Sumter and the Federal call for VA troops to be drafted to federal service to attack the seceeded states, I believe those events (and the rejection of the VA delegation by Lincoln himself) more plausibly explain the events than some phantom secret army holding bayonets to the throats of citizens as they voted.

    I would also like to see ANY other citation to support the “at bayonet point in military camps” claim. Absolutely NONE of that seems to fit the ACTUAL historical record. And I’d love to hear how, on a single day, they were able to have 170,000 people herded from a rural backcountry state to a very small number of military camps without any historical documentation of these roundups.

    A chronology of all the events surrounding VA’s secession is here, along with citations.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_in_the_American_Civil_War

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  100. Kman

    > None of them did what?

    Supported your assertion that Korngold’s account “seems to contradict widely accepted accounts” as you put it.

    Now let’s remind ourselves of what the word “contradict” means. It means to be in contradiction of. And the relevant definition of contradiction is

    > (logic) a statement that is necessarily false; “the statement `he is brave and he is not brave’ is a contradiction”

    Now you characterized your own sources as saying:

    > They talk about Virginia referendum to secede and NONE of them mention that there were TWO of them put to vote by the Virginia people.

    So you cited a number of sources that mention only the successful secession referendum. They do not positively say they were the only such referendum offered. So contrary to your claim, there is no contradiction. It is not logically impossible for both to be telling the truth and that the sources you referred to just neglected to mention the votes that failed.

    So your claim that there was a contradiction was a lie. Your claim that your sources supported your claim that there was only one secession referendum in Virginia is a lie. Two strikes. Care to go for a third?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  101. Before I invest too much time in this discussion, am I going to be banned for disagreeing, too? Because if so, there is no point in continuing.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  102. Just for the record, WHEN was the first secession referendum held, accoring to Korngold? The date, that is, not simply “before the first”.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  103. I am finding this latest back and forth between AW and Kman less than helpful. Even if we all read Korngold’s book this afternoon, I would need to suspend judgement until further reading. The idea that Lee was a strong force in getting Virginia to secede is a foreign one. It may well be true, but I would need more than 1 book saying so, even if footnoted.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  104. prowler

    disagreeing is fine. but kman has a long history of lying on this blog, even about things i say.

    give me a moment and i will show you an example of this, so you can see it is only after great provocation that i am bringing the hammer down on kman. the man has literally been stalking me since 2003 at least.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  105. So you cited a number of sources that mention only the successful secession referendum. They do not positively say they were the only such referendum offered.

    OMG. What a weasel-y thing to say.

    No, AW. I’m probably never going to find a source that specifically says that there was only one secession referendum in Virginia in 1861, just like I’m never going to find a source that says there was only one President Lincoln in 1861.

    But my inability to prove a negative doesn’t amount to a “lie”.

    The point is that, given the broad search term, you would think that SOMEwhere there would be a mention of a referendum other than the one held on May 23. See, for example, the link by prowlerguy in #99.

    And yet, there is none. Your little semantics game notwithstanding, that supports my position.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  106. prowlerguy- I don’t know if you frequent here or not. You should know/realize that disagreement is usually happily received. Kman has a history of being less than intellectually honest and I would not trust anything just because he said so.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  107. give me a moment and i will show you an example of this, so you can see it is only after great provocation that i am bringing the hammer down on kman. the man has literally been stalking me since 2003 at least.

    Or you could just prove that there were two referendums on secession in Virginia. Wouldn’t that be the best way to show my ass?

    Kman (d30fc3)

  108. prowler

    this is the thread where i first brought the hammer down.

    As i wrote toward the end:

    > Now, i have officially had it with you and your lying. Your next answer will be honest, or it will be removed. you will not sit here and lie about 1) what sebelius said, 2) what turley said, 3) what you said and 4) what i said, and stay here. and you can take up your appeal with patrick if you don’t like it.

    He is a completely dishonest person and i have run out of all patience with his antics.

    [Ah, forgot the link. sorry. here’s the thread: http://patterico.com/2011/02/09/pounding-the-table-on-obamacare-john-yoo-and-james-taranto-on-tribe/]

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  109. prowler

    or there is this. In this thread i criticized a decision of the Iowa Sup. Ct. calling it activism. claimed the decision was right, but in doing so demonstrated he didn’t know anything about it. when i confronted him and accused him of not even reading the opinion he was defending, he admitted it.

    http://patterico.com/2010/11/03/iowa-voters-to-gay-marriage-justices-%e2%80%9cyou%e2%80%99re-fired%e2%80%9d/#comment-717123

    comment 94

    then five minutes later he claims he did in fact read it. even though he had no idea which constitution we were applying. and mind you, kman claims to be a lawyer.

    http://patterico.com/2010/11/03/iowa-voters-to-gay-marriage-justices-%e2%80%9cyou%e2%80%99re-fired%e2%80%9d/#comment-717125

    the man is so dishonest and lazy he contributes nothing at all intelligent to the discussion except his aggressive ignorance. he does not argue in good faith.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  110. Before I invest too much time in this discussion, am I going to be banned for disagreeing, too? Because if so, there is no point in continuing.

    Comment by prowlerguy

    Kman isn’t being banned and he isn’t being moderated merely for disagreement. You can see the thread is full of disagreement. He’s a 9 year stalker who just wants to grief threads and has a long track record of lying. He makes it much harder to have a discussion, and simply wants the attention.

    It’s got nothing to do with disagreement. Stick around and see for yourself.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  111. Kman

    > But my inability to prove a negative doesn’t amount to a “lie”.

    It is when you claim you did prove the negative.

    I would add that your sources were inconsistent with how you described them:

    > widely accepted accounts

    except then you cite a bunch of random web pages. i don’t think any of them are lying, but they are not exactly “widely accepted.”

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)

  112. I have lurked here for quite a while. I know of Kman’s reputation. However, I am also familiar with argumentum ad hominem

    So, as both KMan and I have asked, please show ANY source for the claim that there were two referendum votes, other that a handwaving toward a book authored by an avowed Communist who is not even a professional historian, but rather a historical fiction writer. Such a citation certainly should include the date of the vote and the vote count. No refereces to past disputes will suffice.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  113. prowler

    i have answered that ad hom on korngold. again, the book is well documented. i would link to the page if it existed on the web. alas, not everything is on the web, yet. feel free to prove korngold a liar, but i have dealt with history depts. korngold is a respected historian because he is a straight shooter. you can either accept that, or not.

    And while i don’t know if he wrote historical fiction as well, what does that have to do with the issue of whether his non-fiction is reliable?

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)

  114. OK, so you all claim to be arguing in good faith. So prove it. I have laid out my claim in opposition to yours. I have cited my sources. Thus far, all I can see is an unverifiable claim to the contents of one book by one author, and a quotation from Lincoln, who is neither a primary source on these events (he wasn’t there) nor an unbiased one.

    I personally find the arrest of duly elected representative by the federal government to prevent any possibility of that legislature voting against the desires of the ruling class in DC to be more offensive as a free man, but that’s just me. You are, of course, free to pick your own heros.

    I also saw many parallels with the current Arizona kerfuffle when reading GA’s articles of secession:
    http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

    I mean, substitute slavery with illegal immigrants, and there are many parallels. Special interest groups draining tax dollars away from AZ to service the “needs” of these intersts (think unfunded mandates), other states offering refuge and refusing to enforce the law (sactuary cities), the funding and support for those who seek to violently overthrow the will of the people (rent-a-mobs from the usual suspects. I daresay that if the federal government sent troops into Arizona prior to a vote concerning opposition to federal policies, you might well be opposed to such an action. However, in this case, you are supporting the precedent that makes such an action supportable.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  115. I love it when someone drops in and assumes bad faith, when they are talking to someone that will discuss things at length with people who demonstrably come in bad faith.

    JD (ae44dd)

  116. OK AW, I don’t have access to a copy of his book. Could you be so kind as to relay what he states in the book regarding these referendums? Dates, numbers, text of the resolution, perhaps? Can you provide HIS citations? Perhaps they might be available. ANYTHING? You are asking me to prove that something that never happened didn’t happen. What can I show, other than sources that clearly outline every minutiae of the proceedings (down to the makeup of subcommittees and the number of resolutions considered by the convention), but don’t mention either the existense of a first referendum, nor the “in military camps at bayonet point” claim.

    And I am still waiting on your refutation of MY facts.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  117. feel free to prove korngold a liar, but i have dealt with history depts.

    “Dealt with history depts”? What does that mean?

    korngold is a respected historian because he is a straight shooter. you can either accept that, or not.

    Seems to me that if he was a “straight shooter” historian, he would be acknowledged by his peers as one. And occasionally, something he wrote would be agreed upon and written about by OTHER historians.

    But no Civil War historian that I am aware of — and I’ve read quite a few — has ever said that Lee was instrumental in getting Virginia to secede. Nor is there any account of a “first” referendum for Virginians to secede.

    It’s the second one that is particularly troubling. Either 200,000+ people went to the polls or they didn’t. That’s the kind of thing where, one would think, there would be an historical record of it existing outside this one guy’s book. And yet, it doesn’t exist.

    If the tables were turned, I would be calling you a liar or some other name. As it is, I’m going to take a higher road and assume that your recollection of Korngold’s book is, er, flawed.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  118. I am assuming nothing, JD. I have seen, in this thread, moderation and banning threats based on what, to an honest outside observer with no emotional baggage from past dustups, seems to be non-offensive. I mean, calling someone a liar because their sources don’t EXPLICITLY say that something DIDN’T happen (when, in fact, it did not) seems a stretch worthy of ANSWER (Bush lied, people died). I don’t think asking if I will be moderated for making the same points is in any way wrong or unjustified. I was hoping the answer would be “No”, but no sense getting into a discussion if the end result is simply banning.

    I also love how, based on just a few posts where I lay out the FACTS, you have determined me to be “of bad faith”. You know SQUAT about me, but you presume to know everything.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  119. Your lack of knowledge, and apparent lack of curiosity does not change my prior position. Kmart would not know good faith if it crawled out it’s weenerhole and punched him in the face. I was referencing kmart’s bad faith, but don’t let that get in the way of your ALL CAPS !!!!!

    JD (ae44dd)

  120. Prowler

    you mean debate the wiki article? well, besides the fact that wiki is tricky to trust in general (for instance, condi rice was once referred to in a wiki piece as a “concert penis [sic]”), the article itself doesn’t purport to be complete. For instance at one point it says:

    > With Virginia still in a delicate balance, with no firm determination yet to secede,[citation needed]

    So i don’t consider it solid enough to presume it covers the whole issue.

    > However, in this case, you are supporting the precedent that makes such an action supportable.

    well, bluntly immigration is primarily a federal concern, although i believe arizona’s law did not impact it. i think the decisions against arizona is, so far, incorrect.

    but as for the deeper point, the fact is that it is never “legal” to take up arms against your country. what it can be, is justified under first principles. that is what the founders did, for instance. they declared we had a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And then they said something alot of people overlook: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” So government’s job is not just to avoid violating those rights, but to actually secure them. A government that randomly murder civilians is illegitimate. But so is one that does nothing to stop its citizens from being murdered.

    That is where immigration reform and slavery are different.

    Slavery violated those inalienable rights. A rebellion to fight slavery, therefore, was illegitimate.

    By comparison, the problem of illegal aliens is a violation of our rights. increasingly, for example, mexican drug lords are coming into this country and killing americans. they have caught islamofascists trying to sneak in–and like cockroaches, you have to assume for each one we found, there are like 10 we haven’t. the border is a continual threat to our lives and the government’s inability to control it is, to a degree, a delegitimizing failure.

    Now like Dr. King when faced with the violation of african americans’ inalienable rights, i believe that non-violence is the path to fixing that. we should have an electoral revolution, like the revolution of 1800 or 1860 (electing Jefferson and Lincoln, respectively), rather than a violent one. but if you imagined a nation where there was not a democracy, and the government failed as continually to protect its border as ours has, this would be rightfully put on their list of just causes for rebellion.

    does that make sense to you?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  121. On Lee’s forcing VA to secede, I offer this:

    “But the North should remember that Lee acted only for himself when secession forced the issue, and did not seek to organize a conspiracy against the government he had sworn to defend.”

    http://www.civilwarhome.com/leesoath.htm

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  122. AW, I simply said I found similarities, not exact congruence. It was a throwaway remark that came to me as I read through things linked here, and linked at some of THOSE links. You mention drug lords killing citizens. Note the similar claims of citizens being killed by anti-slavery mauraders who are protected and not prosecuted by federal and state authorities, even though their acts are illegal. I also see similarities between John Brown and La Raza or NBPP.

    And, I am still waiting for something, anything, that can be used to support the “two referendum” claim.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  123. Oh, there’s tons more:

    “As an army officer, Lee was against secession and never entertained the idea of a revolt against the government to which he had sworn an oath. Only if Virginia would secede would he then have to make a decision.”

    Gettysburg National Park website

    Not to mention…

    “As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and her institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution.”

    — Lee letter to son, January 23, 1861

    Kman (d30fc3)

  124. Prowlerguy, not only are you not being banned, but you’re getting a polite and drawn out discussion of your claims. Even though the way you made your claims was hysterical shrieking and ad homs, insistence that your opinion was allcaps ‘FACTS’ and documented history ‘NEVER HAPPENED!!!!OMG!’

    You also said you were familiar with Kman’s history, and so you know he’s acting in bad faith. I don’t see any reason why you would be worried about being banned, since you admit you’re familiar with the blog, and so you obviously are aware that people don’t get banned here unless they do something egregious.

    So perhaps you owe Aaron an apology, since he’s responding to your comments sincerely and politely, and you’re just dismissing his rudely while accusing him of censoring disagreement (which is completely untrue). I don’t think I’ve ever seen a blogger put up with jerks and liars as nicely as Aaron does, and I think he deserves more respect.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  125. Kman

    > “Dealt with history depts”? What does that mean?

    Wait, is English not your first language?

    > he would be acknowledged by his peers as one.

    Hans Louis Trefouse and Fawn Brodie did, off the top of my head. Ah, but that would require some… what do you call it… READING. Every single author who approached stevens after Korngold acknowledges Korngold as contributing valuably to the scholarship of that man’s life.

    Fawn Brodie, by the way, is semi-famous for making the case for Jefferson getting with Hemings, long before the DNA tests were in. And as much as I don’t like her method of analysis, she is a great researcher.

    And to pull out only a few citations:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=XY4Xzitc470C&pg=PA254&dq=%22ralph+korngold%22&hl=en&ei=3IlVTf33JcL38Aaa4uGaBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=%22ralph%20korngold%22&f=false

    http://books.google.com/books?id=v5aZrAuKt0wC&pg=PA244&dq=%22ralph+korngold%22&hl=en&ei=3IlVTf33JcL38Aaa4uGaBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=%22ralph%20korngold%22&f=false

    http://books.google.com/books?id=HzHorlMiLpMC&pg=PA265&dq=%22ralph+korngold%22&hl=en&ei=DIpVTcnuLcGC8gaFkInsBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=%22ralph%20korngold%22&f=false

    To name a few. You guys are trying to pretend that Korngold is some kind of pariah. Nothing could be further from the truth. I mean it would be like me pretending Tribe is not considered a giant in constitutional law. He is. I disagree with much of what he says, but I can’t deny the fact of his stature.

    > But no Civil War historian that I am aware of — and I’ve read quite a few

    Bwahahahahahahaha…

    No, you haven’t, Kman. Who exactly do you think you are fooling?

    > And yet, it doesn’t exist.

    You say, based on one google.

    > If the tables were turned, I would be calling you a liar or some other name. As it is, I’m going to take a higher road and assume that your recollection of Korngold’s book is, er, flawed.

    Lol, except you did call me a liar. And that went bye-bye. Which is why you are taking the high road, now, because you don’t want a third strike.

    Prowler

    > you have determined me to be “of bad faith”.

    Well, I consider you to be in good faith, fwiw.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  126. Prowler, just to be clear, are you actually denying the Virgina held a vote on April 4 and April 16th, with different results regarding secession?

    Is that what you want to see documented?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  127. prowler

    waiting for something to support?

    Why don’t you see what korngold cited? sheesh, get off your behind.

    in my experience, the internet is a pretty spotty way to prove anything about the past, especially over 100 years ago.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  128. btw, i think we are waaaay overdue for a sockpuppet thread.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  129. So, based on your claim here:

    “Slavery violated those inalienable rights. A rebellion to fight [for] slavery, therefore, was illegitimate.”

    I take it that you are a firm believer in the Constitution as a “living document”. I mean, slavery was codified there, and there were Supreme Court precedents that affirmed it. The only way you could justify your position is to takt the same position advocated by liberals today; that is; the Constitution should simply be re-interpreted to reflect the enlightened morals of our superiors. Absent an amendment, I don’t see how you can argue that the founding documents of our country justify

    I also still don’t see how secession is to be considered “aggresive” in any way. Simply saying “No thanks. I’ll just be leaving now” is vastly different from, say, fighting a war to make slavery legal everywhere (or nowhere).

    But again, please show some support for your claims of two referendums and the vote only being held in military camps.

    And can someone address the valid, supported points raised by retire05 regarding the Battle of Fort Pillow? Where, other than popular art, do the claims of “women and children” come from? If the Union flag was still flying and if weapons and cartridges were found at the rear, and if offers of surrender were spurned, when did these troops “surrender”? I’ve seen nobody address these points, except with profanity and ad-homs.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  130. I take it that you are a firm believer in the Constitution as a “living document”. I mean, slavery was codified there, and there were Supreme Court precedents that affirmed it. The only way you could justify your position is to takt the same position advocated by liberals today; that is; the Constitution should simply be re-interpreted to reflect the enlightened morals of our superiors. Absent an amendment, I don’t see how you can argue that the founding documents of our country justify

    Slavery is wrong, no matter what the Constitution said. And some of the authors were plainly aware of this. Regardless, they communicated true principles, but did not apply them perfectly (and we never will, I suspect).

    The fact that our government rests on the idea that all men are created equal, or that our natural right to liberty cannot be taken without due process, is, in fact, obviously incompatible with slavery.

    I don’t understand why you say this proves Aaron believes in a living constitution, except to ad hom his POV away. After all, it took constitutional amendments to live up to some of our Deceleration of Independence.

    The fact remains that slavery was wrong if you accept the founding principles of this country.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  131. Dustin:

    [A]re you actually denying the Virgina held a vote on April 4 and April 16th, with different results regarding secession?

    Is that what you want to see documented?

    We’re not talking about the delegation at the secession convention in Virginia. We’re talking about referenda put to the people of Virginia, in which the people of Virginia voted.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  132. Snap to it people. prowlerguy is waiting for answers. Don’t make him go all CAPS again!

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  133. “I take it that you are a firm believer in the Constitution as a “living document”.”

    prowlerguy – I take it you just blew your cover claim of lurking here.

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  134. Prowler

    > I take it that you are a firm believer in the Constitution as a “living document”.

    Not in the slightest. You are confusing the constitution with natural law. The two interact, but the constitution, prior to the 13th amendment allowed for a profound violation of natural law, i.e. God’s law.

    But at the same time rebellion for any cause is illegal, period. no government can, as a practical matter, legalize rebellion, although our does the next best thing, my legalizing free speech, assembly and the right to bear arms. So you can air your grievances, get together and get armed, but the moment you start shooting you have to find your justification in natural law, not the constitution, because it doesn’t support that part.

    > Simply saying “No thanks. I’ll just be leaving now” is vastly different from, say, fighting a war to make slavery legal everywhere (or nowhere).

    The constitution doesn’t allow you to just leave because you don’t like how the election turned out.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  135. Dustin: The votes on April 4 and 17 (I assume that the date you meant) were NOT referendums. They were votes taken at the secession convention by the representative there. They took place at the Richmond Mechanics Institute located at Ninth and Main Street in Richmond. Further, the second vote was only a provisional vote for secession, pending a referendum of the people, which was held.

    The claim made by AW was that that there were two referendums; the first being a free and fair election that did not support secession, and the second one being held “held in military camps, where the bayonets are all on one side of the question voted upon.” He further ties this to his claim that Lee, through some sort of shadow, secret army that nobody has ever documented before, coerced that vote and forced VA to secede. In order for this claim to hold water, then there must have been 170,000 men under arms, since that was how many votes were cast. Doesn’t seem likely that such a large army could be kept a secret, does it?

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  136. daleyrocks: I am fully aware that AW does NOT believe that. However, since I did not appreciate that he was refering to God’s law since he invoked the founders, it seemed to be a conveiniently contradictory position.

    AW: Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your explanatory post fully.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  137. But don’t most of the claims for rights for illegal immigrants rest on the left’s variation of natural law, ie “human rights”. By what right do you oppose the use of tax dollars to feed, clothe, care for, and educate these poor human beings?

    {for those quick to judge, that is not an endorsement of that position. it is simply a reflection of the argument being put forward by others)

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  138. I’m sorry if my use of caps offends you Dustin. I am simply trying to avoid malicious misinterpretation by making clear what I am emphasizing. I’ll try to avoid that in the future since your delicate senses can’t take such offense.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  139. Lol, except you did call me a liar. And that went bye-bye. Which is why you are taking the high road, now, because you don’t want a third strike.

    You have no idea what I want, and every time you put words in my mouth or purport to speak for me, you are (under your definition) “lying”. How many strikes against you?

    Anyway, when all is said and done, I predict that you will not be able to back up your claims, or even supplement them with more complete information (the date of the “first” referendum, etc.)

    Kman (d30fc3)

  140. kman

    blah, blah, blah, do your own homework, for once in your life.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  141. I’ll try to avoid that in the future since your delicate senses can’t take such offense.

    Comment by prowlerguy

    thanks! Trust me, it will really help you come across as worth talking to if you can avoid looking hysterical and being rude to people who are trying to be nice to you.

    The initial impression I got of you was that you were here in good faith, but also hypersensitive on this issue (as so many are).

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  142. prowlerguy, for what it’s worth, use of all caps has been considered obnoxious in online fora for at least nineteen years.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  143. Dustin:

    I just saw this post of yours:

    “You also said you were familiar with Kman’s history, and so you know he’s acting in bad faith.” I know his history. In this thread, however, I see no bad faith, only censorship and threats to ban him. Of course, this is not my blog, so the rules are not mine. I simply prefer blogs where the discussion of facts reigns supreme, not constant rehashes of old grudges.

    “I don’t see any reason why you would be worried about being banned, since you admit you’re familiar with the blog, and so you obviously are aware that people don’t get banned here unless they do something egregious.” I agree. Except here, I could see nothing egregious in what KMan said /in this thread/, and I definately saw him threatened with banning. So I asked, to avoid much rancor and wasting of time, because I have not participated here before. A simple “No” would have answered by simple and reasonable question. To then be attacked for daring to ask,simply for asking shows that, in fact, my question was well founded.

    “So perhaps you owe Aaron an apology, since he’s responding to your comments sincerely and politely,” Thus far, he has not truly responded to any of my points nor my questions, other than to say that I must read this one single book by this one single author.

    “and you’re just dismissing his rudely[sic] while accusing him of censoring disagreement (which is completely untrue). ” I have not dismissed him. I have not been rude. And I have only questioned him regarding his own threats /in this thread/, and whether they would apply to me if I posted the exact same information as KMan.

    “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a blogger put up with jerks and liars as nicely as Aaron does, and I think he deserves more respect.” I believe I have been respectful. I have not insulted anyone, called anyone names, used profanity, nor any other thing which I consider to be disrespectful. Of course, if challenging the assertions and claims of AW is rude, then I have been exceedingly rude. I have also shown him the respect of reading his replies and even acknowledged that I misinterpreted one of his posts. If you could direct me to my disrespectful verbage, I will consider that apology. Otherwise, not so much.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  144. Prowlerguy: the situation with kman is such that his reputation precedes him everywhere on the site he posts, meaning that when people respond to something he says in a given post, they’re actually responding to their perception of him based on his entire history, not just what he’s saying in that context.

    I think to some degree it’s unfair, but it’s also I think a natural human reaction, and I can’t rail against it too much, as I’m occasionally the beneficiary of the same kind of response-to-entire-history behavior. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  145. aphrael: Use of nothing but all caps is indeed, the equivilent of shouting and is considered rude. However, since I only used it for emphasis of certain words, I don’t think your statement applies to me. In any case, if this forum prefers bold or italic, I will be happy to apply those tags if someone will give me guidance as to local customs.

    I also apologize for not properly using blockquote in my last post. I will be sure to use it in the future.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  146. Trust me, it will really help you come across as worth talking to if you can avoid looking hysterical and being rude to people who are trying to be nice to you.

    I’ve not been hysterical. I have not been rude. And absolutely nobody has been anything approaching nice to me.

    I’ve been accused of posting in bad faith. I’ve been mocked for simply asking that someone provide any support for the wild claims of Lee’s secret army rigging VA’s second referendum on secession. I’ve been called a liar (the “your cover is blown”) and dishonest.

    How about this, AW? How about a citation from the book you are referencing? A page number, perhaps a quote? Feel free to give us the references he relies on. Or do I have to buy a book written by a communist and read the whole thing, searching for a section that may or may not be there in order to challenge it?

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  147. The situation with kman is such that his reputation precedes him everywhere on the site he post

    The reputation was forged through threads not unlike this one, i.e., just repetitive ad homs, not-so-subtle attempts to recast what I said, followed by claims that I “lie” (sometimes, even when I merely state my opinion, I’m told my opinion is a “lie”).

    It stuck, and I know it stuck.

    But I presume there are people out there who weigh my arguments and others’ arguments on their merits (or lack thereof), rather than obvious attempts to attack me personally. Those people know the difference between an honest debate and a free-for-all, and they know who they are. Those people I respect, even if I strongly disagree with their politics. And I wish there were more of them here.

    The only way I can be humiliated here is by being shown to be wrong — not by CALLED wrong, nor by insults.

    [Cue snark…. three… two…. ]

    In any event, I still don’t expect AW to provide the date of the “first” referendum, or any other source for the things he’s stated here.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  148. btw, i think we are waaaay overdue for a sockpuppet thread.

    AW: For the record, is this a snide claim that I am a sockpuppet?

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  149. daily, Dustin, JD-

    The latest kerfuffle began when AW claimed that rather than being the reluctant defender of his native Virginia, Lee was instrumental to Virginia’s secession and the Virginia military forced the vote for secession at the point of bayonets. AW has maintained this is true based on his reference to one particular book. We have been unwilling to accept this claim as the final word on the issue, and for some reason things esclated from there.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  150. Remember, prowlerguy, you are just one of the fauna in the fora …

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  151. Also left unaddressed are the claims raised in the OP regarding the Battle of Fort Pillow. Other than hysterical headlines from the NYT, and propaganda paintings, there is no support for the claims of murdering women and children. There is also significant disagreement on whether the Union forces surrendered. None of these have been addressed, other than by hand-waving.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  152. Alasdair: I’m sure that means something, but it went right over my head. Sorry.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  153. Prowler

    > In this thread, however,

    Well, excuse me a second, here, but why on earth should I consider his conduct in isolation? Am I supposed to ignore that this is the 100th time he has cited something claiming to support his claims and proven to be wrong? Or am I supposed to notice a pattern?

    Why on earth should I wipe the slate clean with him in every thread and ignore his continual dishonesty going on several months now? And I think tolerating a man who has stalked me through four sites and over 9 years is pretty tolerant, too.

    > I simply prefer blogs where the discussion of facts reigns supreme

    Agreed, so when someone constantly asserts something to be fact when they are lying, over and over again, even denying that they previously said what they said, then the blog gets bogged down in proving this person is a liar for the 504th time.

    We have documented where the guy critiques my discussion of a court’s decision, claiming i am mischaracterizing it… without reading the decision. he has been caught respondign to a post without actually reading it, either. how on earth does that contribute to a discussion? it amounts to “i think you are wrong because i always think you are wrong.” its bizarre.

    > Thus far, he has not truly responded to any of my points nor my questions, other than to say that I must read this one single book by this one single author.

    Well, that “other than” is a pretty big thing. Its a citation for more information. I prefer all my information to be right at my fingertips too, but what can I tell you?

    That being said, I have not been overly offended by anything Prowler has done in this thread. Even all-caps. and I think just for the sake of cooling down, everyone should stop discussing prowler’s behavior, so we can be less personal about our disagreements.

    > How about a citation from the book you are referencing?

    Fair question, but I don’t have it with me. when I get home I can look through some old notes and see if I can at least give you a page number.

    Mmm, someday everything will be on kindle and this whole transaction will be that much easier.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  154. Prowler

    > AW: For the record, is this a snide claim that I am a sockpuppet?

    not at all. my comment was referring to the way that thread allows people to let off steam.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  155. The latest kerfuffle began when AW claimed that rather than being the reluctant defender of his native Virginia, Lee was instrumental to Virginia’s secession and the Virginia military forced the vote for secession at the point of bayonets. AW has maintained this is true based on his reference to one particular book. We have been unwilling to accept this claim as the final word on the issue, and for some reason things esclated from there.

    And there’s no reason why you shouldn’t question him on this. He’s got a source, it seems credible, but it’s not a widely known story.

    And because some (not you, by any stretch) can’t have discussions without getting hyper sensitive, it escalates. It seems like an interesting bit of history. I do know that Virginia did sway mightily from staying or going because they knew the war would destroy them. I’m sure it’s hard to know exactly what the debate was like at the end.

    Anyway, I’m not trying to defend Aaron from criticism of a version of history he accepts. That sounds like a great discussion thread, if people can manage to stay reasonable. I see a people demanding proof of the kind of thing that can’t be proven, and denying evidence based on red scare hysteria. I don’t know what Lee did back then, and I don’t see the great harm in speculating about it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  156. Where was prowlerguy accused of BAD FAITH? I know he claimed I did, when I certainly did not. Did someone else do so? I am often not nice, and I have rough edges, but this new person has been this way from the beginning, and his rewrite of why we should not have kmart’s history taken into account does make him any more pleasant to be around. Apparently his delicate sensibilities cannot handle a little criticism about his tone.

    JD (0d2ffc)

  157. Offered without hysteria, and I believe it bears on the original discussion:

    http://www.tennesseehistory.com/class/Pillow.htm

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  158. And I think tolerating a man who has stalked me through four sites and over 9 years is pretty tolerant, too.

    Four sites?!? This lie gets bigger everytime it gets repeated!!

    We have documented where the guy critiques my discussion of a court’s decision, claiming i am mischaracterizing it… without reading the decision. he has been caught respondign to a post without actually reading it, either

    None of those things actually happened. Rather, those are your “spins” of what happened, AW. Much like the spins you’ve done here claiming that I have “lied” in this thread.

    when I get home I can look through some old notes and see if I can at least give you a page number.

    Awesome. Thank you.

    [Patterico: This is why I have put Kman into moderation. http://patterico.com/2011/02/10/wtf-a-proposed-license-plate-to-honor-a-war-criminal-and-the-founder-of-a-terrorist-organization/comment-page-7/#comment-754090 I warned him to stop lying on the blog, and gave him three strikes. He has lied about what I have said, what courts have said, what kathleen sebelius said, and what he himself has said. And I have run out of patience with him. –Aaron]

    Kman (d30fc3)

  159. None of those things actually happened. Rather, those are your “spins” of what happened, AW. Much like the spins you’ve done here claiming that I have “lied” in this thread.

    Yet another lie. It is in your DNA, kmart.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  160. Fine JD. You have been all sweetness and light. I have been an absolute evil person. I beg your forgiveness, oh great and powerful one.

    But where, exactly, did I rewrite KMan’s history? I’d love to see what you can come up with.

    And, after hours and hours, still nobody can provide anything at all to support the assertion that Lee was instrumental to Virginia’s secession and the Virginia military forced the vote for secession at the point of bayonets (only after being defeated in a previous referendum), except an unknown part of an obscure book by an obscure communist party functionary.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  161. On the one hand, Kman clearly really wants a lot of attention. By no means is he the worst kind of troll, but he is probably the most dedicated I’ve seen.

    I think his psychosis is very interesting. Do we deny enjoying analyzing this weirdo just because he wants us to do that? I think perhaps we are not doing Kman any favors by feeding into his addiction to greifing, but who cares?

    The fact is that Kman has lied about this stalking many times. Any time I have looked into something he said, he was lying about it. His obsession is easy to recognize.

    Anyway, there is an interesting debate about Lee and Virginia, and Kman isn’t part of it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  162. I do not give a rip if you are rude, just that you go all mortally wounded and deny it when called on it. I could not care less what you are arguing about, I just thought it was interesting that you showed up all full of BOMBAST AND ALL CAPS, then go all shrinking violent when someone points it out. AW has responded and said he will defend his position more when he as more info available.

    I guess you are admitting that you have not been accused of bad faith?

    Your rewrite of the kmart ongoing idiocy relies on a compete lack of knowledge and understanding of it’s history. You choose to not inform yourself of same, which is your right, but your lack of knowledge does not make our position informed.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  163. Prowler-

    FWIW, with this blog, I find using italics, bold, or bolded italics helpful ways of trying to emphasize a point that I think is less irritating than all caps. I’m sure others have their own interpretation and preference for how “loud” something is written.

    As I said up in #86, I’m not believing anything anymore until Patterico finishes his cross-examination…

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  164. And, after hours and hours, still nobody can provide anything at all to support the assertion that Lee

    You went on and on denying the evidence provided. I admit, it’s not proof, but now you say it wasn’t even offered after you railed for a long time about why you don’t consider him a historian because of his politics.

    This is what I mean about not being serious. You insist everything you believe is fact, and if someone can’t prove something to you (while you deny any evidence you don’t agree with), they have ‘lost’.

    You don’t seem to be here to have a discussion. You’re here to rail against ideas you don’t agree with, and set yourself up as a judge.

    And JD’s right. You defended Kman when you suggested there was reason to fear people will be banned for mere disagreement and noted you were familiar with his pattern of BS. That was unfair to Aaron, who has been patiently trying to take your comments seriously.

    Anyway, have you read the book you’re dismissing? Have you checked the basis for its claims? If not, then you are dishonest. You dismiss something on bizarre grounds without sincerely considering it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  165. JD, I apologize. I misinterpreted your sentence to be referencing me as the “people who demonstrably come in bad faith” as I was the only newcomer in this thread (as far as I know). If you were talking about KMan, I would have thought it would read “people who consistently argue in bad faith” or something similar.

    And again, for the record, I made no accusations of bad faith. I was in doubt about whether discussion of this topic would be considered to be outside the boundaries. I simply asked a simple, straightforward question. A simple “No PG, KMan is a special case” would have sufficed. Had I posted “I know I will be banned for this, but…” you would have a point, but I did not.

    I also note that you made the following post:

    Your lack of knowledge, and apparent lack of curiosity

    But I’m the rude one, I suppose. I provide links and sources to support my assertions, but I’m the one that lacks knowledge. And you all just take AW at his word that this mysterious volume supports his wild claims, despite voluminous citations that disagree with it, but I’m the one who is lacking in curiousity. Passing strange.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  166. Kman

    And that would be strike three. Welcome to moderation. That means nothing you write on this site will appear on this site until I or Patrick approves of the comment.

    And for the record the lie that got you into moderation is this one:

    > [me] We have documented where [kman] critiques my discussion of a court’s decision, claiming i am mischaracterizing it… without reading the decision.

    > [kman] None of those things actually happened.

    Except it did, here:

    http://patterico.com/2010/11/03/iowa-voters-to-gay-marriage-justices-%e2%80%9cyou%e2%80%99re-fired%e2%80%9d/#comment-717123

    That is comment 94. Yes, a minute later you claim to have read it, but really what competent lawyer could have read the Iowa supreme court’s decision without noticing that they were talking about state, and not federal, law? I mean bluntly if a lay person missed that point I would be very reluctant to believe them. But if a lawyer claims to make that error…?

    So everyone sing it with me… Nah, nah, nah-nah… hey, hey, hey… goodbye!

    Of course you are free to appeal this decision to patterico. And whatever he decides I will follow, but for now, that is what is happening to you.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  167. Dustin: Why would you deliberately truncate my sentence to excise the part of it that makes your claims about my “denial” false?

    I have not denied that such a book exists. I simply point out that it is not readily available to this discussion, and since it is claimed that it is well referenced, then those references might provide some illumination. But when a single historian makes a claim that is diametrically opposed to all other historians, the bar is a little higher. Heck, I can’t even seem to get a page number from the elusive book out of anyone here. All I asked for was something more that could bring more info into the discussion. After all, if true, then that would shatter much of the pre-war narrative currently held to be true. I don’t consider my questions “bizarre”. In fact, based on the preponderance of the evidence, I would say that the claims advanced here are the bizarre ones. Shouldn’t something that huge need more proof than is available for Bigfoot? At least he has some movie footage and some footprints.

    prowlerguy (fac5d4)

  168. So everyone sing it with me… Nah, nah, nah-nah… hey, hey, hey… goodbye!

    OMG. I’m dealing with children.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  169. It is clear I was referencing your lack of knowledg about kmart’s history, and apparent lack of curiosity to inform yourself of same. That is the second time you have misunderstood what seemed quite apparent, for the opportunity to play THE VICTIM. Curious that. As far as your discussion with AW, he said he will provide more info as to his position when he can. However, you dismissed the author as a communist, so it seems like further info will not prove much to you.

    All this over whether or not to count a vote as a vote for secession? 1 or 2? I think you are all racist.

    JD (109425)

  170. I don’t know if I can say something helpful or not, but I’ll try.

    I am usually one to encourage responding to Kman by ignoring him and typically dismiss anything he has to say.

    Independent of Kman, I am not swayed by AW’s claim about Lee. He may be right, the book he claims may be the definitive history of that conflict in NA in the 1860’s (that I frist referred to, many, many, many years ago as the “Silver War”).

    I appreciate some of the links that Kman or Prowler have provided, especially linking the “official” version at Gettysburg.

    Slavery was bad, yet common in human history. Some blacks owned slaves as well as whites. There had been white slaves at times. Over 600,000 killed was a terrible price, especially given the ongoing problems that existed (or developed) after the war. War is hell. It is hard to determine good behavior in the midst of hell. People do like to take pride in whatever they can, even if it is a limited aspect of the overall picture, and no one likes to be mocked.

    And there will be lots of arguments over “remembering” the Civil War, whether on license plates or elsewhere.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  171. Please, let’s stop discussing each other’s behavior. its almost 5 pm on a friday. and kman has been kicked into the sun. its time to feel good.

    that’s not a “do it or else” kind of request, just a polite request to get some perspective.

    also i will note for the record that when jd calls someone a racist, it is almost always literally a joke. he’s making fun of how the left calls everyone who disagrees with them on anything a racist.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  172. For some reason, my comments still appear if one has Google Chrome. Pass it on to Patterico.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  173. “I guess you are admitting that you have not been accused of bad faith?”

    JD – No, prowlerguy admitted in #135 he made a deliberately false accusation of Aaron after I called him on it.

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  174. MD, I agree with you completely. Slavery is wrong, and the truth is that there are a lot of wrongs, with a lot of wrong doers (be it north or south or black or white, basically any example you want could be found).

    I’m not convinced about this version of Virgina’s secession process either, but it’s fascinating. History is pretty mysterious sometimes, and one reason is that people take a personal stake.

    anyway, Kman’s helpful comments struck me as an attempt to pretend to be on the high road, so he could be a victim. I do think some of what Prowler is trying to say is very interesting, and hopefully this discussion can be a little less personal.

    I don’t think the existence of an account accusing Lee of being a bastard should be dismissed so quickly. It’s one thing to say you’re not convinced, and anther to judge it wrong without reading it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  175. MD

    well, we have strayed pretty far off topic. But imho, Forrest had virtually no redeeming features. he might have owned a dog, and that’s about it.

    Even if i am right about lee (and i recognize a normal desire to see proof), it doesn’t bear on Forrest. Forrest does not belong in any place of honor, period any more than the 19 hijackers on 9-11. And it is not hyperbole to compare the two. what forrest and his followers did was in many ways worse, because they succesfully overthrew democracy across the south.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  176. I cannot believe this. I never thought I would see such a thing. The Gore effect has struck the infernal dimensions. Aaron is being thoroughly irrational while Kman, of all people, has been the voice of reason.

    What strikes me as particularly absurd is that Aaron rejects the attack on his source’s credibility as “ad hom”, while at the very same time conducting an attack on Kman which is entirely ad hominem. Somehow we are supposed to reject Kman’s calm, reasoned arguments because of his past behaviour, but at the same time we’re to accept the arguments of a proven socialist propagandist, unless we can prove them wrong in this instance. A greater contradiction cannot be imagined.

    If Kman has no credibility, then nor does Korngold. Socialists lie; it’s what they do. And the fact that Korngold cites sources proves nothing, unless you have both checked those sources yourself, and assessed their credibility. Bellisles was also a historian looked up to by “history depts.”, and cited sources up the wazoo, but he’s a crooked liar just the same.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  177. Talking about “abducting” a state, though, by making people vote under troops’ bayonets, isn’t that exactly what Lincoln did to Maryland?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  178. By the way, Aaron, I’m still waiting for a quote from Exodus that shows disapproval of slavery. You claim that the whole book is against the institution; surely you should be able to come up with one quote. I tell you that I’m much more familiar with the book than you are, and it not only never breathes a word against slavery, but several times explicitly endorses it, including twice in the Ten Commandments themselves.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  179. PS: Unless a response comes in the next 10 minutes or so, I will not see it until tomorrow night. Sorry to hit-and-run like this, but I didn’t have time to look at the site until just now, and speaking of the Ten Commandments, the fourth is calling.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  180. If Kman has no credibility, then nor does Korngold. Socialists lie; it’s what they do. And the fact that Korngold cites sources proves nothing, unless you have both checked those sources yourself, and assessed their credibility. Bellisles was also a historian looked up to by “history depts.”, and cited sources up the wazoo, but he’s a crooked liar just the same.

    Milhouse, this is an absurd ad hom. And have you proven he’s even a commie? Have you read Korngold’s book?


    BTW, Exodus has God waging plagues in order to soften a heart of a slaveowner to free slaves. Read the bible, as a decent minister for help understanding it. Like any ancient text, there is an interpretation issue, but I’m amazed you demand evidence Exodus can be interpreted as anti-slavery when also claiming some kind of ability to dismiss the entirety of history departments.

    Just about every major anti-slavery movement that was effective in American history has been inspired by Exodus. I grant the bible never specifically condemns all slavery, and even gives rules for slavery (which seems contrary to banning it). I think part of the issue is that there is a distinction between racial slavery and slavery of vanquished war foes, or other forms.

    At any rate, Aaron shouldn’t need to explain this to you. Exodus is commonly interpreted the way he did, and it’s obviously a matter of opinion that is completely common and reasonable.

    [Nick fixed]

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  181. Also, Milhouse, bear in mind that Kman’s more dishonest comments were deleted.

    No doubt, just because Kman’s a liar doesn’t mean everything he said was wrong, and if you reread Aaron’s comments, you’ll see he grants this. In fact, it’s kinda ridiculous how seriously Aaron tends to take Kman’s comments, patiently fisking them, granting points when they are there.

    I don’t think it’s fair to sum this up as Anyone dismissing Kman’s valid points because he’s dishonest. That people are unconvinced about Virginia’s history is an unrelated issue from the fact Kman lies all the time.

    Let me add, I know you’re here in good faith, and hopefully this isn’t interpreted as yet another personal slap.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  182. JD – No, prowlerguy admitted in #135 he made a deliberately false accusation of Aaron after I called him on it

    False accusation?? Really??? Why not throw in libel and perjury, too? It would be just as true.

    I KNEW knew that AW does not see the Constitution as a living document. That’s why I said it, to reframe what I thought (admittedly mistakenly) his argument was: ie that a war to end something that was explicitly allowed in the Constitution, without bothering to ammend it, was A-OK.

    And I conceeded his point when he made it clear he was referencing natural law.

    And JD seems to have a curious notion of “clear” and we apparently don’t see eye-to-eye on what is “clear” about calling someone uncurious and not knowledgeable without identifying any particular subject. Even re-reading it after his protestations, I still see it as a general insult againt me. In the age of digital communications, proper English and clear writing is essential. If one can not manage that, then one should not take offense when confusion arises.

    Regarding Korngold, I don’t think there is much doubt that he was a communist.

    He later settled in Chicago to become the associate editor of the Chicago Daily Socialist. He joined the Socialist Party where he helped to write its platform in 1908; campaigned with Carl Sandburg for the election of Emil Seidel, the first Socialist mayor of Milwaukee, WI; and served as head of the Lecture and Lyceum Bureau of the Party.

    http://www.newberry.org/collections/FindingAids/korngold/Korngold.html

    Or is something besides writing the party platform and working to elect Socialists required to be considered one?

    prowlerguy (efdb32)

  183. dustin, btw, constructive criticism. in another thread you use the word “retard” as in something like “it will retard the development of X.” so you didn’t use it as an insult, or even to talk about mental handicaps, right? You just mean “retard” as in slowing something down.

    But the filter doesn’t know the difference. So i suggest you try to avoid that word in the future. Not anything i am mad about, mine you, just something to avoid.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  184. prowler

    well, as for the “korngold is a socialist point” i responded to that above when retire brought this up.

    bluntly i had no idea that korngold was a socialist and if you follow this blog long enough you will know i oppose all forms of socialism. i probably haven’t said this, but i also dislike marxist historical analysis and put it down regularly. korngold’s approach with stevens is not marxist at all–indeed he was arguing against Current’s hateful biography of Stevens which WAS a marxist analysis. but i repeat myself.

    just scroll up to 89 and think of it what you will.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  185. Still waiting for someone to show where I “defended kman’s posting history” or “rewrote history”. My entire posting history is in this one, single thread. Should’nt be too hard to find if it is true, and shouldn’t be too hard to aploogize if it isn’t. Remember, simply saying that he didn’t commit any offenses in this thread isn’t defending his posting history in general.

    prowlerguy (efdb32)

  186. Well, Dustin asked for proof, and he apparently coluldn’t be bothered to Google it himself. So I provided it, with a link. Not sure how it really factors in since it is a bit of an ad hom, but without anything else to go on, I thought it wise to look up the authors other works. Whether that would color how he views staes’ rights issues is unclear.

    prowlerguy (efdb32)

  187. Comment by Aaron Worthing — 2/11/2011 @ 2:35 pm

    The evolution of the political correctness of language.

    It was moron. Then imbecile (that’s in a Supreme Court decision). Then redarted. Then mentally disabled.

    nk (db4a41)

  188. Learning disability is next.

    nk (db4a41)

  189. Dustin, but he is probably the most dedicated I’ve seen.

    I have been harassed intermittently online by the same individual for more than eight years. He pops up, pesters me for a couple of weeks, and then disappears for nine-ten months before doing it again. He has, among other things, threatened to tell the state bar i’m a child molester.

    My friends in those fora are convinced that what happens is he comes and attacks me every time he changes his meds.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  190. “False accusation?? Really??? Why not throw in libel and perjury, too? It would be just as true.”

    prowlerguy – No thanks. I’m content with what I said. You admitted you commented falsely. Stop whining about it.

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  191. Well, Dustin asked for proof, and he apparently coluldn’t be bothered to Google it himself.

    I’m not clear on what you’re talking about. Define your pronouns and be less hysterical, please. What is it you proved? What does this have to do with my view of states rights in any possible way? You’re leaping madly, and refuse to give anyone the slightest bit of respect.

    do you think I believe Korngold’s account? Do you think I am somehow responsible for proving it to you, or it must be false? I don’t know if he’s right, find it more reasonable to be skeptical, and ask you to prove your claims since you are the one saying you have proof. Have you read Korngold’s book or not? If not, then you are extremely dishonest to claim you have proven it wrong. I don’t have to lift a finger in its defense, and I have no stake in whether he is right or wrong.

    Prowler, this thread if full of you repeating the exact same garbage. You’re not here to have a discussion. RE: Kman, you said you were familiar with his history and then said that moderating him was evidence of viewpoint discrimination. That’s unfair no matter how many times you try to rewrite what you said.

    In comment 111, prowlerguy says he is familiar with Kman’s reputation. And he also said that moderating Kman lying is evidence of unfair content censorship in comment 100. This is despite tons of attempts to explain the situation to him, and Prowler taking on the typical douchey ‘still waiting for proof’ troll.

    It’s on you to be honest, prowler. I can’t force it on you.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  192. My friends in those fora are convinced that what happens is he comes and attacks me every time he changes his meds.

    Comment by aphrael

    that’s a pretty good guess. It’s sad when there’s a situation where someone can’t stay on the same meds because of the difficulty in transition, where the dose has to be carefully adjusted.

    Like I said, I don’t think Kman’s the worst of trolls, but boy he is obsessed. It reminds me of Will Folks’s website, with 30 stories about the same person, 24/7.

    It’s not out of anger with Kman that he should be moderated, but because every thread need not be an obnoxious repetition of the last. In a lot of cases, he’s really good at convincing noobs that he’s being oppressed. I’d just keep his crap in moderation, and release it a day later, so that he can have his say, but it won’t interfere with the legitimate commenters.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  193. nk-

    I thought it was maroon, then ignoranimous, per bugs bunny himself.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  194. Wow, what a wandering-afield has gone on here.

    I was interested in a few things: was Forrest the founder of the KKK or not? And was he infamous for the Fort Pillow massacre?

    Because that’s his infamy, and as someone said elsewhere, honoring Forrest is a way to once again stick it to the North and to African-Americans. The North won the war, and African-Americans are free now, but there seems to be a need among the defeated South to imagine that they didn’t profoundly lose the war and that somehow they can get African-Americans back to their rightful place.

    It’s shameful, especially when it’s gilded by the language of decorum and Christianity.

    steve miller (d0569f)

  195. Everyone

    After all that tumult, I will be a big man and admit to error in my memory. The two referendum votes were in Tennessee, not Virginia. I had scanned much of Korngold’s book into pdf and can literally cut and paste large passages from it, so you can read what it says on the subject.

    On page 250:

    [Andrew Johnson] has received much praise for his loyalty to the Union, but it should be considered that Tennessee, like Virginia, had been plunged into secession by a veritable coup d’état. When in the winter of 1860-61 the question of union or disunion was put squarely before the people, 91,813 voted for union, 24,749 for disunion. Notwithstanding this the legislature ratified the Secession Ordinances subject to another popular vote. With the consent of state officials the state was occupied by Confederate troops. Under the threat of Confederate bayonets secession was approved by a vote of about two to one. There was only one slaveholder to every twenty-seven nonslaveholders in the state. In the mountainous eastern part, where Johnson lived, what few slaves there were, were household servants. Johnson himself owned eight. When the Confederacy tried to conscript the men of that region thousands fled to Kentucky and enlisted in the Union army. Under these circumstances Johnson obviously found himself between Scylaa and Charybdis, and it did not require an exceptional amount of moral courage on his part to remain loyal.

    Page 341, on Lee. He was discussing whether it was unjust to bar confederates from the vote:

    It had been argued that a loyalty oath should have sufficed. Loyalists leaders, Democrats as well as Republicans, did not think so at the time. Had not Robert E. Lee — that paragon of honor and virtue whose sword is presented annually to the honor student at West Point — as late as March 30, 1861, accepted from Lincoln a commission as colonel in the United States Army? Had he not on that occasion solemnly sworn “allegiance to the United States of America”? Had he not sworn to “obey the orders of the President of the United States”? Yet had he not, less than a month later on April 23, met in secret conclave with conspirators of the Virginia secession convention and with the Vice-President of the Confederacy? Had he not on May 10 — thirteen days before the people of Virginia were to vote on secession — taken command, under an order issued by the Confederate Secretary of War, L. P. Walker, of the Confederate troops occupying the state, so the result of the viva-voce referendum might be a foregone conclusion?

    So my memory is good, but I messed something up and for that I apologize. Returning to what I was trying to show, what we do see is this. In Tennessee before and after bringing the troops in, you saw a dramatic change in the vote. And let’s remember that in that day voting was not anonymous. That didn’t come in until much later.

    And in Virginia, when the referendum arrived, the state was flooded with confederate troops—led by Lee himself. This was done after witnessing how bayonets change people’s minds in TN. So Lee didn’t just follow his state out of the union. He helped engineer its exit. And then a sizeable portion of the state seceded from secession, giving us the state of west Virginia. Which suggests that the people were coerced to secede.

    I don’t have the citations included and if you want to challenge Korngold’s scholarship, well, feel free, but that is as much help as I can give on that.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  196. WHY ARE YOU THREATENING TO CENSOR ME ?!

    JD (d4bbf1)

  197. steve

    you know, i won’t pretend to know their minds, but it could be as innocent as believing that all warriors should be honored.

    And i think alot of southerners feel stereotyped. I mean let me give you an example. my wife is filipino, and one day i was hanging out with her family and i made an imelda marcos shoe joke. OMG that was such a mistake, they jumped all over me trying to explain why it was really unfair to say that about her, and so on. And talking a while what I realized is that a lot of Filipinos have been stereotyped as being like marcos that way, so they feel like they have to defend her, to defend themselves. Does that make sense?

    So I think a lot of times the south feels the need to defend these people because other people assume that they are just like them. Which is wrong, too.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  198. Aaron-

    I appreciate the trouble you went to, but a passage from one book will not easily change my mind about a wealth of previous information, though that information is known to be filled with error and half-truth. It is, after all, the scholarship of one person.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  199. This discussion would fit right in at this Washington & Lee University Summer Program (July 10-15, 2011): 1861: Fortt Sumter, Secession and Robert E. Lee.

    DRJ (fdd243)

  200. DRJ- I actually had already thought that history folk/archives people at Washington & Lee would likely be a good source.

    The problem I have with the idea of scrutinizing Korngold’s scholarship is that I’m not qualified. A non-physician is unlikely to be able to successfully scrutinize medical claims I make. Once you get beyond the superficial first approximation of a topic, you’re pretty much at the mercy of the level of integrity of your instructor.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  201. So, after all that, the grand claims are not, in fact true at all. Not even in Korngold, let alone any reputable historian.

    But let’s consider all the other events that actually occurred, shall we? I would suggest context is needed to understand complex events.

    April 15 – Lincoln (through the Secretary of War) demands VA provide 3 battalions to turn over the the US Army for the suppression of the rebellion in the first 7 states to secede.
    April 17 – Virgina Secession Convention approves the wording of a referendum of secession and calls for a popular vote to approve it.
    April 20 – Robert E. Lee resigns his commission in the United States Army
    April 23 – Nominated by Governor Letcher of Virginia and approved by the Assembly on the previous day, Robert E. Lee assumes command of Virginia’s militia
    April 27 – Lincoln extends the blockade to include Virginia and North Carolina
    May 3 – General Winfield Scott orders troops to seize Arlington Heights, overlooking Washington D. C.
    May 23 – Virginia ratifies the Secessionist Convention referendum by a vote of 132,201 to 37,451
    May 24 – Federal forces occupy Alexandria

    I can not find anyone else who cites this super-secret communication of May 10. Such a document surely would be important, but strangely, I can find no other mention of it. However, let’s say for the sake of argument is exists. Even so, before this date, the US had ordered state militia to be federalized, Lee had resigned his commission in the US Army, VA legislators had voted to secede, Lee’s home had been seized, and VA ports had been blockaded (illegal under the rules of war, BTW). He had taken command of his own state’s militia, but that would hardly be a suprising turn of events and certainly wasn’t secret and didn’t involve Confederate forces.

    I also find no reports of militias from other states or the Confederate army being present in VA prior to the popular referendum. Even if they were there, I find the term “occupation” to be a curious word choice, as there doesn’t seem to be any of the usual hallmarks of occupation, such as was seen in Baltimore (attacking civilians, arresting legislators, suspension of habeus corpus). If they were there, they would seem to have been more of a reinforcement.

    Is it really your contention that Lee’s secret command of a phantom force of Confederates swayed the vote? Really? With blockades, Union forces massing in northern parts of the state and moving to occupy Alexandria, and their elected representatives voting to secede, you really think that a landslide vote of 79% of VA voters was solely the result of intimidation?

    However, I will not argue this further. You are clearly convinced, based on this single author’s work, that Lee was an evil man who engineered a coup d’etat and single-handedly plunged this nation into war. I will respectfully disagree, prefering to rely on the works of every other recognized scholar and historian rather than one socialist.

    prowlerguy (efdb32)

  202. AW – do you think that is an accurate characterization of your position?

    JD (d4bbf1)

  203. Oh, the following claim is a flat-out lie:

    When the Confederacy tried to conscript the men of that region thousands fled to Kentucky and enlisted in the Union army

    http://www.etymonline.com/cw/conscript.htm

    prowlerguy (efdb32)

  204. Okay, I’m lost, why dont we switch to less contentious topics like religion or Palin (or both as it seems)

    EricPWJohnson (598bf5)

  205. I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but the desire to “honor” Forrest stems from direct malice towards a large part (~35%) of the population of Mississippi.

    I am particularly sensitive to this issue because (a) the history of the contumacy of the South and the (b) the dehumanization of African-Americans was never brought to my attention in my education. I mark this as the greatest failing of my public education in the enlightened “West.” Add to that (c) the friends who without fail when the South and slavery are brought up always defend Robert E. Lee and the “way of the South” as honorable and misunderstood. (It’s not just my friends. It’s people I’ve talked to on the bus who trot this out as if somehow they know RELee needs to be defended.)

    Those men chose to fight for a system of government proudly founded on slavery, the ownership of men & women made in the image of God. I can’t find any reason to honor or fondly remember that.

    I don’t see intentions of the SCV to “honor” Forrest et al. as honorable. I see it as malice and hatred and a way to justify their racism towards American citizens.

    And I see the mealy-mouthed desire to continually explain away the nature of the cause Forrest, Lee and others were committed to as simply a way to excuse what was obviously one of the most significant moral failings of the founders and leaders of our country.

    The phrase “a more perfect union” means we can look at the past and say “yes, this was wrong.”

    If we honor Forrest on a license plate, let’s honor W.T. Sherman as well with a statue. In Jackson.

    And don’t get me started on how Jackson deserves to be dug out of his grave and his bones scattered. He stole the southern states from both native inhabitants and freed slaves.

    steve miller (d0569f)

  206. Wow, took almost two cups of coffee to get through all this.

    Let them have their license plate. Really helps me know if I see them broke down on the side of the road if I stop to help or not. That’s of course if the mud cover pickup with the dog cages in the back, the CB whip antenna, the rifle rack, the confederate battle flag in the back window, and the south will rise again bumper sticker didn’t clue me in first.

    Gerald A (a1c8f8)

  207. Prowler

    > I can not find anyone else

    What did you search?

    So far when you wanted to prove something, you go to the internet.

    I don’t even know why you consider the secret meeting to be so implausible. Robert E. Lee was contemplating treason. Until he decided to be fully committed to it, I think it is only naturally he would meet secretly, rather than send a press release to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

    And I get the feeling that what really drives you crazy is it so cleanly undercuts the legend of Lee. Lee was just a reluctant warrior for his state, the legend goes, except this shows that Lee helped drive his state into secession.

    And for the rest of it, I think here’s the confession that you are losing the argument.

    > rather than one socialist.

    What does his belief in socialism, at least at one point in his life forty years and two wars before he wrote this book, have to do with anything? Its just an ad hom. And you know what they say about the first person to make an ad hom…

    > Oh, the following claim is a flat-out lie

    What exactly is a lie about it? Your own source supports the claim that there were southern conscription. And doesn’t say a word to contradict the claim that many people went from Tennessee to Kentucky to fight for the north. And by the way, that is much more frequently mentioned, usually coupled with the fact that a lot of Kentuckyians fled into Tennessee to fight for the South. It was close to being an even exchange.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  208. I don’t even know why you consider the secret meeting to be so implausible. Robert E. Lee was contemplating treason. Until he decided to be fully committed to it, I think it is only naturally he would meet secretly, rather than send a press release to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
    And I get the feeling that what really drives you crazy is it so cleanly undercuts the legend of Lee. Lee was just a reluctant warrior for his state, the legend goes, except this shows that Lee helped drive his state into secession

    If you do not disagree with the time line in #197 it seems to me that Lee has already committed treasonous acts. The Federal government has demanded a military force from Virginia, Virginia has refused, and Lee has taken command of Virginia’s militia which is in defiance of Lincoln. If that isn’t treason, it sure is close. I guess if Lee at that point resigned his command of the militia and turned himself into the Union he might not have been executed as a traitor as sort of a “plea bargain”, but it seems the momentum toward secession was building before any secret meeting on May 10th, as well as Lee having been in open defiance of Lincoln and Lincoln having ordered Union troops into Virginia. There may have been some secret meeting on May 10, but unless the majority wanted to reverse course and Lee talked them into going ahead with secession, it doesn’t seem credible to say that Lee was instrumental in forcing secession. I guess the place for serious historical research would be the May 10th meeting, who was there and who said what, and what documentation do we have of it. Maybe Korngold’s book has those items and they are verifiable outside of his book.

    In one way, if Lee turned out to be an utterly wicked man it would be easier to understand his role in the Civil War than it otherwise is. Of course, if Lee was known to be an utterly wicked man, would he have been treated by Grant as he was? Would he have been willing to surrender himself and his troops? Most scoundrels do not seem eager to be taken captive. Obviously that’s all speculation, but so is Lee’s role in secession even if there was a May 10 secret meeting, unless we have reliable and credible first person accounts of that meeting (as said above).

    Knowing how impossible it is to get a consensus of opinion on the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq in spite of having lived through it and having more information available, it should not be surprising that opinions on wars over 100 years ago are conflicting. Had the South won, Forrest would likely have been a hero, whether or not he lead a massacre, and Sherman would have been tried as a war criminal, whether or not his actions helped the war end sooner and in the overall picture saved lives.

    I don’t think anyone has supported honoring Forrest if indeed he was responsible for war crimes, but others have pointed out that there are reports on the events that substantially differ from the original description given by AW. Of course, one way to defend evil actions is first to say it didn’t happen (that way), and a second is to try to justify it by appealing to other factors, whether true or made up.

    If we, as a nation, can’t agree with at least what the facts are about 5-10 years ago, it is doubtful whether there will be agreement on events 150 years ago. What a mess.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  209. MD in Philly – It seems most historians accept the fact of a massacre at Fort Pillow, but Forrest still has his rabid supporters. Accounts of Union officers from ships who picked up survivors, eyewitness accounts, as well as the conclusions of a commission Lincoln charged with investigating are available. Forrest’s accounts and dispatches regarding the battle are more notable for what they omit rather than what they include. When queried later due to the furor by his chain of command, Forrest responded with outrage rather than address the question of whether a massacre had occurred. Tellingly though, he confirmed his intent to treat Union negro prisoners as property as opposed to white Union prisoners, who would be treated as regular prisoners. That may just have been par for the course, but is useful information.

    The socialism charge is laughable given the percentage of academics who lean in that direction, IMHO.

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  210. Forrest was a nasty piece of work, and Ft. Pillow suggests that his founding the Klan, was not a one off; Lee I put in another category altogether,

    rafael videla (c8ccf1)

  211. What exactly is a lie about it? Your own source supports the claim that there were southern conscription

    Not in 1861, which is the tiemframe under discussion in this passage. Yes, there was conscription much later, in 1864. But fleeing to KY then would have not shielded them from conscription, and if they were actually pro-union, is the claim that they stay in “enemy” territory for three years?

    I don’t even know why you consider the secret meeting to be so implausible.

    Because this is no need for it to be secret. By May 10, Lee had already resigned his commission, accepted command of the VA milita, and VA legislators had voted for secession. To invent an alleged “secret” meeting to accout for the complete lack of verifiable contemporanous accounts sounds more like a Truther fantasy than history.

    So far when you wanted to prove something, you go to the internet

    And you rely on one single book that is out of print. How convienient. At least my sources can be easily verified by anyone reading this thread.

    it so cleanly undercuts the legend of Lee

    Ahh, there’s the real agenda in your newly invented meme about Lee. You wish to destroy what you see as a “legend”. However, you completely hang your entire case on a single author. And when source after source after source of respected historians disagree, you wave you hands and cover your ears.

    For those simply reading this, consider what it would take to convince you that Ronald Reagan was suffering from dementia during his terms as President? Would a single source with an ideological axe to grind change your mind, when there are dozens of contemporaneous accounts and personal papers of Reagan that show otherwise? Of ocurse not. And you wold likely consider anyone who picked up that narrative and proclaimed it as fact to be nothing more than a partisan with limited intellect, or a pathetic liar (or both). So why would someone take a single work by an author with a clear ideological bent, and insist that no other historian is telling the truth? I don’t know, but they certainly aren’t interested in truth or facts.

    prowlerguy (efdb32)

  212. daleyrocks, rafael videla

    Thanks for your comments. I had never heard of Forrest before, nor the Fort Pillow Massacre. I have no problem accepting AW’s account as valid if it is substantiated by other sources, as both of you think it is.

    I am not sure what further discussion, if any, at this point would be helpful. It appears (evidenced by direct statements) that assumptions were made as to the existence of predetermined bias that caused people to reason as they did, instead of listening to the given arguments as valid, but I don’t want to get into anymore pointing out people by name.

    Very few “Legends” (read that as understatement for none) hold up perfectly to severe scrutiny; and objectivity, humility, and a desire to follow the truth no matter where it leads are qualities that most of us (read that as understatement for all) could use more of.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  213. “Yes, there was conscription much later, in 1864.”

    prowlerguy – Wasn’t the first conscription law passed by the Confederacy in early 1862?

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  214. This internet thingy RAWKS!

    daleyrocks (479a30)

  215. prowler

    Prowler

    > Not in 1861, which is the timeframe under discussion in this passage.

    No, bluntly it is NOT saying that. Read it again. It just said that whenever the draft came in, a lot of Tennesseans went to Kentucky. Which is true.

    > But fleeing to KY then would have not shielded them from conscription,

    Did you ever think that maybe they just didn’t want to fight for the confederacy?

    > and if they were actually pro-union, is the claim that they stay in “enemy” territory for three years?

    Because some people stick with their region or state until they are pushed. I mean I remember watching the movie Gettysburg a few years back. My father broke down in tears at one point, at the sight of Americans killing Americans. I find no difficulty whatsoever in believing that Tennesseans who supported the union nonetheless did not want to take up arms against their fellow Tennesseans, until they were forced to choose.

    > Because this is no need for it to be secret.

    Other than the fact that this kind of activity would get him killed. I mean there is that.

    > To invent

    You say without proof.

    > And you rely on one single book that is out of print.

    Beats a crappy site no one has ever heard of. Seriously, as Kevin Butler says, don’t believe in everything you read on the internet. That’s how World War I got started.

    > Ahh, there’s the real agenda in your newly invented meme about Lee.

    By “newly invented” you mean that it has been around for well over a hundred years and I referenced a good written in 1955.

    > You wish to destroy what you see as a “legend”.

    I wish nothing. I was just stating a fact that I believed long before I wrote a word on this blog.

    > And when source after source after source of respected historians disagree

    Which ones? you haven’t cited ANY.

    Here’s the reality of the situation. Southerners love to say that history is written by the victors. but that isn’t true in a free country. in a free country, to some degree the truth wins, but to the extent there is a bias, it tends to gravitate toward the majority of people who are interested. now who is more likely to delve deeply into the civil war and reconstruction in modern america? the south, that is who. So some unpleasant truths are covered up.

    For instance, as yourself, were you ever taught about the fugitive slave act of 1850? And if so, do you believe it was consistent with the constitution, as written in 1850?

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  216. Aaron-

    You seem to be ignoring my posts. Maybe you are reading them, but I am making some of the same points as prowler and you are not responding to them.

    Prowler: Because this is no need for it to be secret.
    AW: Other than the fact that this kind of activity would get him killed. I mean there is that
    As I said up in #204, it seems to me that Lee had already done enough things to make him a traitor and a target prior to the “secret meeting”. Whether there was or was not a secret meeting I think makes no differemce. Lee was already a former US officer in rebellion against the President. The meeting may still have been secret for many reasons, but keeping Lee free from blame was not one of them. it would be important to know who said what at that meeting, if it happened, as I said before.

    AW- And I get the feeling that what really drives you crazy is it so cleanly undercuts the legend of Lee. Lee was just a reluctant warrior for his state, the legend goes, except this shows that Lee helped drive his state into secession

    You are assuming that just because some of us don’t jump to a conclusion based on one historian that you quote, that we are arguing in bad faith out of a predetermined bias. I find that to be in bad faith, and accusing those who do not agree with you to be intellectually dishonest. I don’t know why you’ve been so adamant about this, demanding everyone see things your way based on one reference. Even Moses made mistakes, for crying out loud, and you’re asking us to accept your reference as the true and only authoritative historical account of the Civil War. That is unreasonable to demand. In your dialogue with me, already at #57 you are being snarky without cause.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  217. in a free country, to some degree the truth wins, but to the extent there is a bias, it tends to gravitate toward the majority of people who are interested.

    Has “the Truth” about the Vietnam War or even the War in Iraq won out in the popular culture of the US? As determined by who?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  218. You are assuming that just because some of us don’t jump to a conclusion based on one historian that you quote, that we are arguing in bad faith out of a predetermined bias. I find that to be in bad faith, and accusing those who do not agree with you to be intellectually dishonest.

    Frustrating, isn’t it?

    I don’t mind the positions that AW stakes out. It’s just the underhanded dishonest way in which he supports/defends them.

    Kman (26c32e)

  219. By the way, Aaron, I’m still waiting for a quote from Exodus that shows disapproval of slavery.

    BTW, Exodus has God waging plagues in order to soften a heart of a slaveowner to free slaves.

    One person is told to free some specific slaves he happens to own. He’s not told to free all his slaves, nor told not to acquire more. Nor is he even admonished for having held these special slaves until now; all he’s told is that he is now to let those slaves go, while keeping all the rest. Meanwhile, God immediately gives those freed slaves laws that take it for granted that they will own slaves of their own, and He doesn’t utter a single word even indirectly implying that He’d rather they didn’t. How does any of that translate into disapproval of slavery?

    Suppose God sent a prophet to Donald Trump telling him to donate a specific building to be turned into a homeless shelter, would that imply that there’s something wrong with owning real estate?

    I’m amazed you demand evidence Exodus can be interpreted as anti-slavery when also claiming some kind of ability to dismiss the entirety of history departments.

    Exodus can be interpreted as anti-slavery only in the same sense that the constitution can be interpreted as prohibiting states from banning abortion and sodomy. In other words, it cannot be interpreted that way in good faith.

    Just about every major anti-slavery movement that was effective in American history has been inspired by Exodus.

    And that proves exactly what, besides their own dishonesty or ignorance?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  220. Wow, that is obtuseness beyond measure, Exodus is about liberation, it’s also about the high price
    of same, they wandered in the wilderness for forty years,

    narciso (c8ccf1)

  221. Narciso, who’s being obtuse? Exodus is about the liberation of one nation. It’s about God, having sent His chosen people to experience slavery for a while, rescuing them and setting them up as a free nation in their own country, where they were to own farms, houses, livestock, and slaves, just like any other nation. If you think there’s an anti-slavery message there, feel free to point it out. Merely asserting that it’s there makes you look like a fool.

    Staying in the desert for 40 years was the price they paid for not trusting Him, and constantly second-guessing His orders.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  222. Milhouse

    i am sure the slaveholders circa 1850 or so would have agreed with you.

    But you want to read Exodus as saying what? Slavery is only wrong when jews were involved?

    Yeah, except of pesky little rule demanding equality of treatment. you might even say it is a golden rule. i know, that’s not in exodus, but like the constitution, many Christians don’t believe the bible should be read in isolation.

    Anyway, arguing about faith is pointless. The fact is that millions of Americans have agreed with me. And millions with you. And there is always enough room for interpretation on these kinds of things that it becomes impossible to prove anyone wrong.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  223. Honestly, I feel like I’m in the Argument Clinic
    sketch sometimes

    narciso (c8ccf1)

  224. narc

    not aware of that… is it a skit?

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  225. I agree that Milhouse’s interpretation is completely legitimate. It’s also not the only interpretation.

    not aware of that… is it a skit?

    Comment by Aaron Worthing — 2

    Monty Python.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  226. The socialism charge is laughable given the percentage of academics who lean in that direction, IMHO.

    Comment by daleyrock

    THANK YOU.

    It’s not that I find socialism to be reasonable, but it’s an absurd way to dismiss a historian.

    That’s why I disagree with MD. Prowlerguy was indeed acting in bad faith. Sure, his skepticism weren’t necessarily wrong because of that, but when you have Kman and Prowler harping together, it’s never possible to have a good conversation.

    milhouse and MD aren’t agreeing with Aaron, but that’s great because they are both interesting and good faith types who just want a discussion.

    Also, none of us should feel an intense personal stake in this matter. We weren’t there, and there were bastards on all sides of the conflict.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  227. Painted Jaguar: My mummy (you know she is ever so patient and gracious when she teaches me by the dark turbid waters of the Amazon- but I have not time to remind you of her qualities this fine day) once told me, “Son, there is one more thing you should know.” (When she said this, which was often, she did not mean there was only one more thing I should know and then I would know everything. Not at all. She meant that she was going to tell me one more thing I should know at that moment, not two, or 3, or half a bizillion). She said, flicking her tail ever so gracefully, “Son, there is persistence, and there is stubbornness. Persistence is to be desired and will bring great reward, and stubbornness is foolish (and akin to arguing for the sake of arguing, which is never any good, except some humans think it is when they can make a buck doing it). The alpaca is persistent as it climbs the Andes with a burden on its back, high above the Amazon (which is dark and turbid, you will remember). The llama is stubborn as it stands stiff and refuses to move with a burden on its back. Furthermore, like the llama, those who are stubborn are more likely to spit than an alpaca. This is why some alpacas are not simply beasts of burden, but are treated kindly as part of the family. No llama is treated as part of the family, unless the family can’t live without a particularly obnoxious uncle who can’t make the trip for a family gathering- in which case, as soon as the gathering is over, it’s right back outside, even if it is snowing in the high thin air of the Andes.

    Again, being persistent is a quality to seek, being stubborn makes a mother sad, and you must have the wisdom to know the difference. At some point you will learn the difference, which is this, persistence will lead to a reward, being stubborn is a waste of time. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to learn this but by trial and error, and yes, this learning process is almost as bad as learning how to eat that silly “armadillo” that you imagined.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  228. Let me clarify, perhaps back up, if you will. I give to you, counselors, exhibits A (post #51 by myself) and B (post #57 by AW). I believe you will note my alpaca-like manner of asking a question for clarification, not claiming anything to be true, other than the truth that I understood to be what I understood to be.
    I did not find the response in #57 to be very alpaca-like, but rather I had to duck (metaphorically speaking) so the spit would miss my face.

    I will leave you to judge whether AW was at his best, or perhaps had consummed too much coffee, No-Doz, or had a deadline to meet. I personally have had trouble with AW only once before, and that was over the topic which shall not be named, lest another kerfuffle erupt like a volcano in the midst of the high air of the Andes.

    I do not understand why you think dismissing an opinion of an academician on the basis of being a socialist is not rational. Yes, it is true that most academicians are of the left, hence accusing one particular one of being of the left is likely correct. I am not pursuaded by saying, “But you can not dismiss a historian or other academician for that reason, or you would be dismissing all of them!” Rather, knowing how many young “college-educated” folk voted for Obama, dismissing them all seems a likely good first approximation (half-sarc, there).

    I will not join in the discussion with Milhouse, though it seems interesting. There are many comments in the Torah about how one should treat one’s slaves to be just, but that may simply be an allowance for the people at the time and not necessarily an endorsement of the practice. I do not believe it is taught anywhere in the New Testament that one cannot have a human slave, but there is plenty that indirectly undermines the institution, and certainly requires the “Golden Rule” to be the principle guiding the treatment of slaves as well. In the one well-known situation in the New Testament, Paul does not order Philemon to give freedom to his (escaped) slave Onesimus, not does he give Onesimus approval for running away. Rather, he appeals to Philemon whether it is appropriate to keep another human in bondage when he was set free from bondage to sin.

    That is not to be considered as anything more than a quick observation/comment from what I can immediately recall. I believe if one can successfully make the argument that Exodus was not about condemning all slavery, one still has the theme that cruel treament, “even of a slave”, is wrong.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  229. Mr. Worthing: Tennessee was not half black in 1860. Per the Census of 1860, Tennesse was 26% black. Also, Tennessee did not elect the first black Senator; that was Hiram Revels of Mississippi, which was 55% black.

    I see you have admitted further error and confusion about “the two secession referendums”, they having been in Tennessee and not Virginia.

    It is true that Lincoln asserted (and Korngold wrote) that the final secession referendum in Tennessee was coerced by the presence of Confederate troops. But in fact Lincoln and many northerners had a greatly exaggerated idea of the strength of unconditional Unionism in the South.

    There were conditional Unionists who campaigned vehemently against immediate secession in the Upper South in early 1861. But most of them wanted the crisis resolved on pro-Southern terms, and when Lincoln refused to give in, they joined the Confederacy.

    For instance, Rep. Robert Hatton of Tennessee. He put in a huge effort. He used his Congressional franking privilege to send tens of thousands of Unionist pamphlets to Tennessee voters before the first referendum.

    But when push came to shove, he endorsed secession, became a brigadier general in the Confederate army, and was KIA at Seven Pines.

    Lincoln and other northerners didn’t understand this position. They thought there was a large body of pro-Union sentiment in the South held down by pro-slavery bullies. That some such bullies engaged in such suppression is true, but the Northern press was full of wild and exaggerated tales, and wishful thinking. (There was speculation that Sam Houston might lead Texas back into the Union; Bruce Catton called this the vainest of all vain hopes of the period.)

    prowlerguy: “… the arrest of duly elected representative by the federal government to prevent any possibility of that legislature voting [for secession]…”

    This looks like an allusion to the wholly fraudulent claim that Federal troops arrested or coerced Maryland legislators to prevent a declaration of secession. In fact the MD legislature voted against secession with no Federal troops within 20 miles or so.

    liamascorcaigh: At hurling and Gaelic football matches supporters wave full-scale Battle Flags of the Confederacy to celebrate our “rebel” status

    I’ve seen a similar display in Naples – that is, “southern” Italy.

    Rich Rostrom (95afb3)

  230. Comment by Rich Rostrom

    Thank you for your comments. Are you aware of, or have reference to any meeting on May 10 where Lee, according to Korngold/AW, championed secession? Do you believe that account (as described above)?

    Thanks

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7979 secs.