Nathan Bedford Forrest statue causing controversy

[GuyPinestra]

Numbers in massacres generally confuse all researchers because of conflicting reports, some less reliable than others. Witness the Bear River Massacre in 1863: somewhere between 60 and 500 plus Native Americans were killed or died in the aftermath.

Yes, many, many men were killed after surrender, many of them African American. Yes, this is execution of POWs, and, yes, Forrest was responsible, particularly if he ordered “no quarter”. At least you know have the Camp Douglas killings down to several. Give us exact numbers using credible evidence.

Don’t say check the OR, because a professor would flunk your paper for that type of nonsense. Your citation was singular, it was not comprehensive, thus it is a hasty generalization from which you were trying to derive a conclusion unwarranted by the evidence.

You know Fakey, according to the testimony of a surviving Union officer there was NO SURRENDER, right?

Why do you insist on perpetuating a bald-faced lie?

 

[Dick Tuck]

bripat knows that 9ID used a false analogy and has also not produced sufficient documents for his case.

Both bripat and 9ID have a right to express their opinions, but that is all that they have, opinions which are not evidence.

A fals analogy huh? Well, try this one. We know that the Garrison at Ft. Pillow was some 557 men of which some 262 (13th Tennessee Infantry) were White, and some 295 USCT, of which number around 20 were White officers. We also know that both Union and Confederate accounts agree that the number of bodies buried was 228-231. That would mean at least 326 survivors from the Union garrison. Accounts of 300+ USCT "massacred" are simply impossible to reconcile wit these numbers. Now, if the guards at Camp Douglas executed around 200 Black Confederates, that would have been more than the number of USCT killed at Ft. Pillow, not to mention that many if not most of the deaths of USCT at Ft. Pillow resulted from direct combat i.e., they were NOT "executed". Yet you call Ft. Pillow a "massacre" for which you blame Forrest, while absolving the command at Camp Douglas of any responsibility for a policy carried out not once, but repeatedly over several years. Who was it who systematically killed Black POWs, again?

By the way, from the compiled Union and Confederate documentation in the OR (no, I am NOT going to put the citation out here again; it's been posted, and you can just go back and find it for yourself!) Forrest had a total force of no more than 1500-1600. Even at that, had Forrest ordered No Quarter, the Confederates could easily have killed the entire garrison. This did NOT happen, because there was no such order given. The entire action took place in fifteen minutes or less, from the initial charge to the end of the shooting by the river.

Forrest's forces killed unarmed, surrendering African-American federal soldiers. That' not in dispute. At least one Southern soldier contemporaneously stated that Forrest gave that order. The issue is, whether Forrest was responsible. He was in command. Did his troops automatically kill black Union troops? What was Jefferson Davis' policy regarding black Union forces? It was to send them to state authorities, where it was a capitol offense for any black person to bear arms. It was only when Lincoln and Grant threatened to execute one for one, any African-American soldier, a rebel POW, that Davis punked.

You seem to forget that the underlying cause for this war was the mindset that human bondage was OK, because of the base white supremacy notion that blacks were subhuman. Not only did these scumbags believe that slavery was OK, but they had the right to expand it wherever they chose.

Lucky for the elite of the day, there were plenty of idiots who would fight their battles, against their individual interests. Sorta like how people like the Koch Brothers lead the Tea Baggers around by their nose today.

The fact remains. No one tried to stop secession. It was the South who attacked US property to start the war, and they did so because they knew that secession wouldn't hold without a war. Your defense of the pig Forrest reminds me of how the right wingers supported Lt. Calley after his conviction in the My Lai massacre.

 

[The Gadfly]

Numbers in massacres generally confuse all researchers because of conflicting reports, some less reliable than others. Witness the Bear River Massacre in 1863: somewhere between 60 and 500 plus Native Americans were killed or died in the aftermath.

Yes, many, many men were killed after surrender, many of them African American. Yes, this is execution of POWs, and, yes, Forrest was responsible, particularly if he ordered “no quarter”. At least you know have the Camp Douglas killings down to several. Give us exact numbers using credible evidence.

Don’t say check the OR, because a professor would flunk your paper for that type of nonsense. Your citation was singular, it was not comprehensive, thus it is a hasty generalization from which you were trying to derive a conclusion unwarranted by the evidence.

I did not cite the OR for that: I cited Levy's "To Die in Chicago" a reputable modern source that uses among other things, original records from Camp Douglass which are NOT included in the OR because they were lost/misplaced. (These HAVE been authenticated , BTW), and most professional historians agree that Levy's work is a fine addition to scholarship on the subject of Camp Douglas.

 

[squeeze berry]

bripat knows that 9ID used a false analogy and has also not produced sufficient documents for his case.

Both bripat and 9ID have a right to express their opinions, but that is all that they have, opinions which are not evidence.

A fals analogy huh? Well, try this one. We know that the Garrison at Ft. Pillow was some 557 men of which some 262 (13th Tennessee Infantry) were White, and some 295 USCT, of which number around 20 were White officers. We also know that both Union and Confederate accounts agree that the number of bodies buried was 228-231. That would mean at least 326 survivors from the Union garrison. Accounts of 300+ USCT "massacred" are simply impossible to reconcile wit these numbers. Now, if the guards at Camp Douglas executed around 200 Black Confederates, that would have been more than the number of USCT killed at Ft. Pillow, not to mention that many if not most of the deaths of USCT at Ft. Pillow resulted from direct combat i.e., they were NOT "executed". Yet you call Ft. Pillow a "massacre" for which you blame Forrest, while absolving the command at Camp Douglas of any responsibility for a policy carried out not once, but repeatedly over several years. Who was it who systematically killed Black POWs, again?

By the way, from the compiled Union and Confederate documentation in the OR (no, I am NOT going to put the citation out here again; it's been posted, and you can just go back and find it for yourself!) Forrest had a total force of no more than 1500-1600. Even at that, had Forrest ordered No Quarter, the Confederates could easily have killed the entire garrison. This did NOT happen, because there was no such order given. The entire action took place in fifteen minutes or less, from the initial charge to the end of the shooting by the river.

Forrest's forces killed unarmed, surrendering African-American federal soldiers. That' not in dispute. At least one Southern soldier contemporaneously stated that Forrest gave that order. The issue is, whether Forrest was responsible. He was in command. Did his troops automatically kill black Union troops? What was Jefferson Davis' policy regarding black Union forces? It was to send them to state authorities, where it was a capitol offense for any black person to bear arms. It was only when Lincoln and Grant threatened to execute one for one, any African-American soldier, a rebel POW, that Davis punked.

You seem to forget that the underlying cause for this war was the mindset that human bondage was OK, because of the base white supremacy notion that blacks were subhuman. Not only did these scumbags believe that slavery was OK, but they had the right to expand it wherever they chose.

Lucky for the elite of the day, there were plenty of idiots who would fight their battles, against their individual interests. Sorta like how people like the Koch Brothers lead the Tea Baggers around by their nose today.

The fact remains. No one tried to stop secession. It was the South who attacked US property to start the war, and they did so because they knew that secession wouldn't hold without a war. Your defense of the pig Forrest reminds me of how the right wingers supported Lt. Calley after his conviction in the My Lai massacre.

and you keep forgetting that slavery was common in that era. All races were guilty.

You have an obvious agenda to bad mouth republicans and blame ****** while ignoring all the sins of everyone else

 

[Dick Tuck]

A fals analogy huh? Well, try this one. We know that the Garrison at Ft. Pillow was some 557 men of which some 262 (13th Tennessee Infantry) were White, and some 295 USCT, of which number around 20 were White officers. We also know that both Union and Confederate accounts agree that the number of bodies buried was 228-231. That would mean at least 326 survivors from the Union garrison. Accounts of 300+ USCT "massacred" are simply impossible to reconcile wit these numbers. Now, if the guards at Camp Douglas executed around 200 Black Confederates, that would have been more than the number of USCT killed at Ft. Pillow, not to mention that many if not most of the deaths of USCT at Ft. Pillow resulted from direct combat i.e., they were NOT "executed". Yet you call Ft. Pillow a "massacre" for which you blame Forrest, while absolving the command at Camp Douglas of any responsibility for a policy carried out not once, but repeatedly over several years. Who was it who systematically killed Black POWs, again?

By the way, from the compiled Union and Confederate documentation in the OR (no, I am NOT going to put the citation out here again; it's been posted, and you can just go back and find it for yourself!) Forrest had a total force of no more than 1500-1600. Even at that, had Forrest ordered No Quarter, the Confederates could easily have killed the entire garrison. This did NOT happen, because there was no such order given. The entire action took place in fifteen minutes or less, from the initial charge to the end of the shooting by the river.

Forrest's forces killed unarmed, surrendering African-American federal soldiers. That' not in dispute. At least one Southern soldier contemporaneously stated that Forrest gave that order. The issue is, whether Forrest was responsible. He was in command. Did his troops automatically kill black Union troops? What was Jefferson Davis' policy regarding black Union forces? It was to send them to state authorities, where it was a capitol offense for any black person to bear arms. It was only when Lincoln and Grant threatened to execute one for one, any African-American soldier, a rebel POW, that Davis punked.

You seem to forget that the underlying cause for this war was the mindset that human bondage was OK, because of the base white supremacy notion that blacks were subhuman. Not only did these scumbags believe that slavery was OK, but they had the right to expand it wherever they chose.

Lucky for the elite of the day, there were plenty of idiots who would fight their battles, against their individual interests. Sorta like how people like the Koch Brothers lead the Tea Baggers around by their nose today.

The fact remains. No one tried to stop secession. It was the South who attacked US property to start the war, and they did so because they knew that secession wouldn't hold without a war. Your defense of the pig Forrest reminds me of how the right wingers supported Lt. Calley after his conviction in the My Lai massacre.

and you keep forgetting that slavery was common in that era. All races were guilty.

You have an obvious agenda to bad mouth republicans and blame ****** while ignoring all the sins of everyone else

You seem to forget that Europe, and even Mexico had already abolished slavery and the slave trade. Slavery was not common at all, and the deplorable conditions of African slaves in the south was horrific. It wasn't the revisionist antebellum with happy singing slaves that were the norm. It was humans being beaten and forced to work in deplorable conditions 16 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Lincoln was a Republican, and I'm not the one badmouthing him. And did I tell you, he was also white? Forrest was a war criminal during the war and a terrorist after it. Forrest was a Southern Democrat, btw. Are you always this stupid?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's better, and I am glad you are improving your scholarship.

Forrest is still responsible for the mass murders.

I did not cite the OR for that: I cited Levy's "To Die in Chicago" a reputable modern source that uses among other things, original records from Camp Douglass which are NOT included in the OR because they were lost/misplaced. (These HAVE been authenticated , BTW), and most professional historians agree that Levy's work is a fine addition to scholarship on the subject of Camp Douglas.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat knows that 9ID used a false analogy and has also not produced sufficient documents for his case.

Both bripat and 9ID have a right to express their opinions, but that is all that they have, opinions which are not evidence.

You're the one who hasn't produced sufficient documents, you stupid turd. All you have produced is hysterical incoherent babbling.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat knows that 9ID used a false analogy and has also not produced sufficient documents for his case.

Both bripat and 9ID have a right to express their opinions, but that is all that they have, opinions which are not evidence.

A fals analogy huh? Well, try this one. We know that the Garrison at Ft. Pillow was some 557 men of which some 262 (13th Tennessee Infantry) were White, and some 295 USCT, of which number around 20 were White officers. We also know that both Union and Confederate accounts agree that the number of bodies buried was 228-231. That would mean at least 326 survivors from the Union garrison. Accounts of 300+ USCT "massacred" are simply impossible to reconcile wit these numbers. Now, if the guards at Camp Douglas executed around 200 Black Confederates, that would have been more than the number of USCT killed at Ft. Pillow, not to mention that many if not most of the deaths of USCT at Ft. Pillow resulted from direct combat i.e., they were NOT "executed". Yet you call Ft. Pillow a "massacre" for which you blame Forrest, while absolving the command at Camp Douglas of any responsibility for a policy carried out not once, but repeatedly over several years. Who was it who systematically killed Black POWs, again?

By the way, from the compiled Union and Confederate documentation in the OR (no, I am NOT going to put the citation out here again; it's been posted, and you can just go back and find it for yourself!) Forrest had a total force of no more than 1500-1600. Even at that, had Forrest ordered No Quarter, the Confederates could easily have killed the entire garrison. This did NOT happen, because there was no such order given. The entire action took place in fifteen minutes or less, from the initial charge to the end of the shooting by the river.

You can't expect Fakey to do the math. It only confuses him, and he isn't interested in the facts anyway. Fakey is only concerned about repeating his propaganda memes. The Lincoln cultists defend the crimes of the union at all costs and blame the Confederacy for all the evils in the world.

 

[bripat9643]

You're an imbecile, Fakey. You prove that with every post. All you've said is that you don't care about the facts. But then, we already knew that.

Numbers in massacres generally confuse all researchers because of conflicting reports, some less reliable than others. Witness the Bear River Massacre in 1863: somewhere between 60 and 500 plus Native Americans were killed or died in the aftermath.

Yes, many, many men were killed after surrender, many of them African American. Yes, this is execution of POWs, and, yes, Forrest was responsible, particularly if he ordered “no quarter”. At least you know have the Camp Douglas killings down to several. Give us exact numbers using credible evidence.

Don’t say check the OR, because a professor would flunk your paper for that type of nonsense. Your citation was singular, it was not comprehensive, thus it is a hasty generalization from which you were trying to derive a conclusion unwarranted by the evidence.

 

[bripat9643]

Guy, Any attempt to provide historical education to these people is rather like trying to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time, and annoys the pig. One can educate the ignorant, but the sort of willful ignorance displayed here is beyond the remedy of education. You just can't fix stupid,, when the mind that exhibits it is utterly closed.

The point is to educate the lurkers, not the imbeciles who vent their spleens on all things they are ignorant about. Threads like this expose a lot of people to information they've never encountered before.

Have you looked up what the word "cede" means yet?

You're an ignoramus. The term is used all the time to mean to transfer property from one party to another. That's all it meant in the case of the property where Ft Sumter is located. The agreement states explicitly that SC would retain legal jurisdiction over the property.

 

[bripat9643]

You know Fakey, according to the testimony of a surviving Union officer there was NO SURRENDER, right?

Why do you insist on perpetuating a bald-faced lie?

When admitting the truth means altering your entire world view, lies are your only defense.

 

[Unkotare]

Gaypinestra's meltdown is going pretty well so far. Highly entertaining.

I wonder if he's sobered up yet...

 

[bripat9643]

Gaypinestra's meltdown is going pretty well so far. Highly entertaining.

I wonder if he's sobered up yet...

At least he will be sober eventually. Unfortunately for you, stupid and neurotic doesn't go away.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat, the poster without any facts but plenty of unsubstantiated opinion, blathers on.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat, the poster without any facts but plenty of unsubstantiated opinion, blathers on.

ROFL!

You kill me, Fakey!

 

[9thIDdoc]

bripat knows that 9ID used a false analogy and has also not produced sufficient documents for his case.

Both bripat and 9ID have a right to express their opinions, but that is all that they have, opinions which are not evidence.

You really need to learn the definition of "analogy'. I didn't use one, false or otherwise. I asked you why you would consider 200 murdered in one instance to be "mass murder" and not consider 6000 murdered in another instance to also be mass murder for which someone should be held accountable. And I still await your answer with bated breath.

...not produced sufficient documents for his case.

Hey! Get a clue! Nobody owes you a damn thing. This is neither a courtroom nor a classroom. People try to help cure your abysmal ignorance because it is an embassment to the rest of us. Your determination to ignore the sources you've been provided is noone's fault but your own.

 

[Unkotare]

Gaypinestra's meltdown is going pretty well so far. Highly entertaining.

I wonder if he's sobered up yet...

At least he will be sober eventually.

Are you sure? Both of you seem to be permanently affected by whatever you've been cooking up in the still out back.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You did. You used two different incidents to analogize that Forrest could not be guilty of mass murder, when, in his case, he called for "no quarter'. That makes no sense. You need to learn terms. And that your opinion by itself or with poor analysis is worth . . . nothing.

bripat knows that 9ID used a false analogy and has also not produced sufficient documents for his case.

Both bripat and 9ID have a right to express their opinions, but that is all that they have, opinions which are not evidence.

You really need to learn the definition of "analogy'. I didn't use one, false or otherwise. I asked you why you would consider 200 murdered in one instance to be "mass murder" and not consider 6000 murdered in another instance to also be mass murder for which someone should be held accountable. And I still await your answer with bated breath.

...not produced sufficient documents for his case.

Hey! Get a clue! Nobody owes you a damn thing. This is neither a courtroom nor a classroom. People try to help cure your abysmal ignorance because it is an embassment to the rest of us. Your determination to ignore the sources you've been provided is noone's fault but your own.

 

[GuyPinestra]

You did. You used two different incidents to analogize that Forrest could not be guilty of mass murder, when, in his case, he called for "no quarter'. That makes no sense.

You need to learn terms.

bripat knows that 9ID used a false analogy and has also not produced sufficient documents for his case.

Both bripat and 9ID have a right to express their opinions, but that is all that they have, opinions which are not evidence.

You really need to learn the definition of "analogy'. I didn't use one, false or otherwise. I asked you why you would consider 200 murdered in one instance to be "mass murder" and not consider 6000 murdered in another instance to also be mass murder for which someone should be held accountable. And I still await your answer with bated breath.

...not produced sufficient documents for his case.

Hey! Get a clue! Nobody owes you a damn thing. This is neither a courtroom nor a classroom. People try to help cure your abysmal ignorance because it is an embassment to the rest of us. Your determination to ignore the sources you've been provided is noone's fault but your own.

Fake, there was no quarter asked, there was no surrender, the colors were never struck, it was a fight to the finish.

It was no massacre, it was the Union equivalent of the Japanese on Iwo Jima.

 

[9thIDdoc]

" You used two different incidents to analogize that Forrest could not be guilty of mass murder, when, in his case, he called for "no quarter'. That makes no sense."

Wrong. My question has nothing with Forrest's guilt or innocence. That's an entirly seperate issue. And I still await your answer.

" ...he called for "no quarter'

Keep up. That claim has already been refuted