Posted on 07/13/2019 6:16:58 AM PDT by conservative98
Tennesse Gov. Bill Lee was under fire from Republicans and Democrats alike Friday after signing a proclamation designating Saturday, July 13 as Nathan Bedford Forrest Day, a state "day of special observance" honoring a Confederate general and early leader of the Klu Klux Klan.
"I signed the bill because the law requires that I do that and I haven’t looked at changing that law," Lee said Thursday according to reports by the Tennessean.
Senator Ted Cruz, R-Tx., took to Twitter to demand that the state "change the law."
"This is WRONG. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a Confederate general & a delegate to the 1868 Democratic Convention. He was also a slave trader & the 1st Grand Wizard of the KKK. Tennessee should not have an official day (tomorrow) honoring him," Cruz said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Pinging you, as this may be of interest.
EXACTLY. Fly-specking historical icons will leave us with no history which is the left’s objective.
If Karl Marx was a slave trader, it would be no big deal.
Sherman, Sheridan, and Custer were worse than Forrest. Different demographic target which remained valid (because they fought back sporadically) yet took heavy losses and are still enslaved to this day. Shameful really.
I’m with Governor Lee on this; now who is the RINO? It is simply not any of Cruz’s business with his senatorial duties to be dictating policy to TN.
I wonder too if Cruz has even heard of Nathan Bedford Forrest, not a household name in TX.
This was, and continues to be, in dispute.
Shortly after the battle, northern propaganda began the “massacre” theme.
After the war there were inquiries by federal authorities into the battle and claims that Forrest was a “war criminal.” Federal authorities certainly had the power to punish Forrest for any wrongdoing.
Either federal authorities couldn't find evidence that Forrest should be punished - or federal authorities decided to ignore the war crimes because . . . because why?
Because no southern jury would convict at that time???
“... heard of Nathan Bedford Forrest...”
Ted’s a brilliant guy; there’s zero doubt in my mind he knows who Forrest was. I like Cruz a lot, always did.
But being brilliant and having the sense to tell which Hill is worth fighting for, and seeing what the more immediate threat is, are two different things.
Nathan Bedford Forrest is long gone. He can cause no damage nor harm.
The dems are the enemy now; they’ve made themselves that way. They want to tear this country apart.
I suggest that you read about him before you make open statements.
For instance, he had very little formal education, but became rich trading slaves. He was successful in selling slaves because he treated them well and only sold them to "good masters." By treating them well and selling them to good masters, the slaves knew that they were not going to be abused, so they didn't run and gave good service. So the new masters ended up getting good slaves. So the slave got a good master, the owner got a good slave and Forest got a good reputation; which ensured a premium for the sell of a slave. There are documented cases where Forest told a slave, "go walk around town and find your future owner." So the slave would walk around town and talk to the other slaves and find out who was a good master and was able to purchase a new slave. In some instances, the slave would interview for his future owner.
Make no mistake, Forest was a very harsh man. His troops did not "love him" but they very much respected him. His battles are still studied today, because he figured out how to set up a battle to maximize his combat power and minimize the Union combat power. Additionally, he was a master of the "follow up." If he succeeded in getting the other side to run, his forces were relentless in pursuit, even if the other size was much larger. He was so successful in the these two things that the opposing Union forces were always"certain" that Forest's forces were always much larger than they really were.
When I was in Iraq, I was surprised to find out that all of the officers in our coalition had studied at least one of Forest's battle (LtCols from UK, Australia, Poland, Ukraine, South Korea, etc... .). It became a joke- "Hey, I've run out things to say, so let's talk about Gen Forest's battle at.... ."
If we judge historical figures based upon current standards all will come up short.
Are you speaking of slave-owner Nathan Bedford Forrest or slave-owner George Washington?
Or a U.S. President that dropped an atomic bomb on a city that included men, women and children?
All are quite controversial these days.
To Forrest’s credit, late in life he rejected racial violence and became a sincere public advocate for racial reconciliation. This led to denunciations of Forrest by his former Klan allies. I suggest though that whatever Forrest’s virtues may be, official commemoration of his life is no longer in order — if it ever was.
So was Thomas Jefferson.
Now what?
...and Andrew Jackson
Cherry picking historical icons for disposal is swinging a double edged sword on a slippery slope.
One supposed southern “war criminal” - Henry Wirz, commander of the Camp Sumter POW facility near Andersonville, Georgia - was tried and convicted by a military commission in Washington D.C. shortly after the war. He was killed by union authorities.
There is no reason to believe victorious union authorities did not have the same power over Forrest.
Jefferson’s political party:
Democratic-Republican
Yep. The democrats lost the civil war.
The irony is that the fascism which today assumes the name progressivism or even socialism is on the march and the defenders of the center who are praying it will hold are evermore beleaguered, much as was Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest. That is not to equate the struggles rather to note the obvious irony and how slippery the righteousness of the self-righteous can be.
“Cherry picking historical icons for disposal is swinging a double edged sword on a slippery slope.”
I agree.
And I’m worried that when Senator Cruz learns that Tennessee law requires that February 12 be a “day of special observance” for Abraham Lincoln that he will want that repealed too.
He will, no doubt, justify the snub of Lincoln because the Father of the Republican Party was at one time an infamous advocate of white supremacy - and authorized the largest mass execution of American Indians in history.
No need to apologize. The shortcomings of Cruz are well known and have been discussed for years.
As to trust...the man lives in DC, works in a government building so trust is pretty much out the window. Loving our constitution, he still is willing to ignore when necessary.
Was a fan, a fan no longer but will give him a nod when deserving.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.