[nathanbedford]

When we shut down discussion, when we move to censor political opinion, we move toward totalitarianism and it doesn't matter whether the push comes from the left or from the right.

During the America First Movement, many ethnic Germans in America opposed involving America against Germany, did they do so out of divided loyalty? Is it racist to ask?

In World War II we locked up Japanese-Americans because we feared they had divided loyalties. We locked up some Germans as well.

During the time of the great Irish immigration into America, the Irish opposed Britain and it was the standard practice of big-city Democrat candidates to "twist the British lion's tail" in order to gain votes in the Irish slums. Did those Irish have divided loyalties when it came to World War I or World War II?

When Pat Buchanan questioned the wisdom of America's attachment to Israel, he was attacked from the left. I suppose Pat will now be attacked from both sides, or will the left swap positions and claim their former victim is now their hero?

I think it is necessary to examine the actual words complained of before we stifle speech or crucify the speaker. Meanwhile, I confess to a certain Schadenfreude as I watch the Democrat party tearing at itself.

[jmacusa]

Wow. Guess irony’s lost on you, huh? As well as hypocrisy?

[zeestephen]

Re: “When Pat Buchanan questioned the wisdom of America's attachment to Israel, he was attacked from the left.”

Really?

I must have been napping the day that happened.

I do recall many Conservatives, over many decades, attacking Buchanan for his borderline anti-Semitism.

[Zionist Conspirator]

When Pat Buchanan questioned the wisdom of America's attachment to Israel

What's the difference between Israel and Rhodesia, South Africa, Nationalist China, Franco, Papadopoulos, Stroessner, Salazar, and Pinochet?

Seriously, what is the deal with you people???

[AppyPappy]

In both cases, they were Americans from Germany or Japan.
The vast majority of American Jews did not come from Israel.

[Mr Rogers]

I agree with nathanbedford’s post. FWIW, as a history buff with a particular interest in the Civil War, I think Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the most interesting, intelligent and honest of the Civil War generals. He was a remarkable man. By the end of his life, his views on blacks may have been more enlightened than Lincoln’s.

---

“On July 5, 1875, Forrest demonstrated that his personal sentiments on the issue of race now differed from those of the Klan when he was invited to give a speech before the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association, a post-war organization of black Southerners advocating to improve the economic condition of blacks and to gain equal rights for all citizens. At this, his last public appearance, he made what The New York Times described as a “friendly speech”[172][173] during which, when offered a bouquet of flowers by a young black woman, he accepted them,[174] thanked her and kissed her on the cheek as a token of reconciliation between the races. Forrest ignored his critics and spoke in encouragement of black advancement and of endeavoring to be a proponent for espousing peace and harmony between black and white Americans.[175]

In response to the Pole-Bearers speech, the Cavalry Survivors Association of Augusta, the first Confederate organization formed after the war, called a meeting in which Captain F. Edgeworth Eve gave a speech expressing unmitigated disapproval of Forrest’s remarks promoting inter-ethnic harmony, ridiculing his faculties and judgment and berating the woman who gave Forrest flowers as “a mulatto wench”...

...The Macon Weekly Telegraph newspaper also condemned Forrest for his speech, describing the event as “the recent disgusting exhibition of himself at the negro [sic] jamboree” and quoting part of a Charlotte Observer article, which read “We have infinitely more respect for Longstreet, who fraternizes with negro men on public occasions, with the pay for the treason to his race in his pocket, than with Forrest and [General] Pillow, who equalize with the negro women, with only ‘futures’ in payment”. - Wiki ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest#Speech_to_black_Southerners_(1875) )

---

Forrest lived a brutal life. He was a brutal man. He was also open to ideas many of his genteel fellow generals couldn’t even imagine. I’m not suggesting he was a civil rights activist by his death, but he certainly was open to changing his views. I suggest those who think of him with unthinking, visceral hatred might want to read more about him. He was vastly more complex than the caricature presented by the modern media.