Whether or not he changed his ways down the road, and no matter how you feel about what should or shouldn't be allowed, it's just not a good idea to do this. Sometimes it's best to remember that just because you can doesn't mean you should.
It was war, people did bad things and if its true that Forest abandoned the KKK when it was still young then he shouldn't be held accountable for every atrocity they committed after he left. Just my opinion.
Sherman burned everything between him and the coast including homesteads and plantations. I wonder how many slaves died in those infernos. Sherman targetted civilians and we name a tank after him.
All I'm saying is bad things happened on both sides and if a guy establishes a group, that group becomes a violent racist organization, then the guy leaves the organization, then clearly he wasn't happy with what it had become.
It's like holding George Washington responsible for the Viet Nam War. He was gone but he established the US so anything that the US did after he left was his fault. Isn't it?
In short, Sherman targeted everyone and everything fighting for the enemy. Forrest targeted a specific skin tone and then, after the war, became a prominent member of an organization that went on targeting that skin tone. Different. Very.
I will say, you make a good case and so I'll agree that the KKK was not a benevolent organization and so it could be expected to become more violent as time passed. One point I would like to make is the black regiment were soldiers and the people of Atlanta were civilians so yes. Different. Very.
We shouldn't laud racists.
Hrm... thought crime isn't a big enough crime, if you ask me. Beyond just what they thought or said, what they did, above and beyond what was the "norm" of the time, is what should be closely examined.
Which still, ya know, makes me question the wisdom of this commemorative plate. But hell, the DMV in the south isn't exactly known for fair play.
I could go on a long spiel about George Washington and most of the founders being slave owners and therefore racists but I won't.
I will say, you make a good case and so I'll agree that the KKK was not a benevolent organization and so it could be expected to become more violent as time passed. One point I would like to make is the black regiment were soldiers and the people of Atlanta were civilians so yes. Different. Very.
Different in that he didn't seem to massacre white troops, yes. Civvies caught in the path of a division with the goal of removing all elements of comfort to the enemy are caught in the path of war. Soldiers, while active participants, are also expected to be afforded certain luxuries - like life when they're defeated rather than execution. You must also remember that killed black soldiers only. He didn't massacre every group of men he defeated, just this group of black soldiers. As we've already gone over, Sherman didn't pick on a specific group of people due to the color of their skin. You can argue that both acts were merciless and unnecessary but you cannot argue that only one had racist elements to it.
Your point about the founding fathers has a lot of merit, too, and it should be more popularly known that they did do these bad things. The fact that some are on our money does show a double standard between that and the license plate as well, but only to a certain point. To my knowledge, none of the founding fathers massacred a group of blacks and then went on to join an organization based on racism.
This is not about slavery. It is about freedom.
There's a rather big difference between saying something is a bad idea and probably shouldn't be done and saying that someone should stop them.
And until someone crosses the line from disapproving to stopping, it's not about freedom either.
Oh, dear God, please let's not go down that road. Orwell showed us a little slice of where that road leads in 1984. Do you really want to go down that road?
I'll grant that thoughts lead to actions, but let's not make thoughts into crimes. It's enough that physical crimes are punished.
I think you and I are closer to the same mind on this than we appear. Forest maybe doesn't deserve a commemorative liscence plate. I can agree with that. That you can see the double standard is what I was trying to get across. You're right though there is a difference between the founding fathers and Forest but I think our disagreement is how big that difference is.
Hrm... thought crime isn't a big enough crime, if you ask me. Beyond just what they thought or said, what they did, above and beyond what was the "norm" of the time, is what should be closely examined.
Which still, ya know, makes me question the wisdom of this commemorative plate. But hell, the DMV in the south isn't exactly known for fair play.
All I meant was that we shouldn't praise racists. I agree that thought crime isn't big enough. Meh, I agree with all ya wrote.
This is not about slavery. It is about freedom.
Again, just because you can doesn't mean you should. That's the gist of the arument - at least here. As far as I am aware, nobody in this thread said that anyone shouldn't be allowed to do something. What we're saying is maybe they shouldn't do what they're allowed to. Big, big difference. No freedom impinged here. Just a call for common sense and courtesy.
@ZB
I think you and I are closer to the same mind on this than we appear. Forest maybe doesn't deserve a commemorative liscence plate. I can agree with that. That you can see the double standard is what I was trying to get across. You're right though there is a difference between the founding fathers and Forest but I think our disagreement is how big that difference is.
Yeah, I can see it as well. We're close enough, IMO.
Thought crime?
Oh, dear God, please let's not go down that road. Orwell showed us a little slice of where that road leads in 1984. Do you really want to go down that road?
I'll grant that thoughts lead to actions, but let's not make thoughts into crimes. It's enough that physical crimes are punished.
... So you're just going to ignore that I pretty much said the same thing and latch onto one phrase, eh? Good on you.
I'm not trying to argue that Forest was any kind of good guy but we've had several threads where almost everyone who posted in them said "slavery was the cause of the war". (...)
Actually many posters provided some evidence that the "free the slaves" thing was a propaganda maneuver (like the fact that Lincoln abolished slavery only in the states that seceded; Proclamation of Emancipation? I wasn't taught American history in detail you know). But it got the thread locked, so let's keep to the license plate topic, on which I agree with ZB: just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Sometimes it's best to remember that just because you can doesn't mean you should.
This is what I have been saying for years about pockets on kilts!
As for Nathan Bedford, I would hardly hold the Fort Pillow massacre against him. There was enough atrocity to go around on both sides of war. As for honoring him, that is most definitely a mixed bag. His military exploits cannot be denied, but it is well nigh impossible to separate the general from the klan leader. I say that the entire honoring the civil war be left for the history books, wargamers, and re-enactors.