Nathan Bedford Forrest massacred black Union troops at the Battle of Fort Pillow, and aside from slaves which served as camp servants there is no historical record of actual black troops (with weapons now, I'm not talking about cooks and farriers etc) serving under him, much less in this personal body guard BS.
The 1865 Klan and the 20th century Klan were two totally different and unrelated organizations. If you are equating the two, then yes, you are misunderstanding them.
Well tell us how they were so different. Cuz the only difference I see is that the 20th Century group burned crosses. They both wore the funny costumes. They both dealt with fear, violence and intimidation.
OK, I did make a mistake and I'll own up to it. I said that he recruited 28 slaves and all but 1 surrendered at the end of the war. It was 45 slaves and all but 1 remained with him.
http://www.nathanbedfordforrest.net/biography.htm This pretty much tell me that those slaves did not fight. Or they were the best soldiers EVAH!!! Not one died. NOT ONE!!! Dang!!
You wanna see some real slant....go to those links that Muad Dib posted. Its like fucking Harry Turtledove wrote that shit!!
Teams as in wagon teams (where the name 'Teamster' comes from). In other words they were REMFs, not some kind of special forces soldiers.
Fine. You go tell a truck driver or a cook in today's army that they're aren't soldiers. Let us know how that one goes. The SF is a reference to his escort.
False equavalency there. You telling me that these black slaves doing support duty held rank, bore arms, and were as much a part of the military structure as white soldiers? No one is saying that black slaves weren't used by the Confederate army as servants and support. When people call BS is when you start saying large numbers actually fought for the Confederacy. The historical record is pretty clear that that did not happen. And yes there is a large difference between trusting a black slave to wash your clothes and trusting him with a rifle or musket. Aside from a few possible exceptions there simply weren't 'Black Confederate Soldiers' only "Black Confederate Slaves.' There is certainly no historical documentation that NBF had any serving underneath him. As I said originally: [A]side from slaves which served as camp servants there is no historical record of actual black troops (with weapons now, I'm not talking about cooks and farriers etc) serving under him, much less in this personal body guard BS.
They are in the top ten of the most despised, mocked, and ridiculed and rightly so. When I was a kid and had to split wood for winter heat, I wish I had a wedge for those hard oak logs as good as the wedge these guys use on the racial divide. Typical "men of the cloth" who can't get a real job so they wet their beak in the grievance industry. These type come in all races. Whites have these clowns too, but ours don't even try to look like they are performing a needed social justice function. They just get old ladies to send in half their food money as a "love offering."
Really? The Official Records contain accounts of federal soldiers being fired on by black Confederates. Maybe they were wrong.
For the sake of argument, let's give Forrest the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that had he lived, he would have been MLK's biggest fan. It is not what he's known for. Rightly, or wrongly, he's known for his actions during the Civil War and for starting the KKK, and there has been little effort to change that in the years since. His image is tainted by that, the same way that the Christian symbols of the upside down cross and the pentagram (both versions), have been tainted by folks who've equated it with Satan worship and paganism. (There's another religious symbol which has acquired equally unsavory connotations, I don't think I need to mention which one it is.) Trying to salvage Forrest's reputation isn't merely "tilting at windmills," its a Sisyphean task. You're better off doing almost anything else. A quiet name change to something as vanilla as you can get, say "Public High School Number 5," is the best option for everyone here.
Just go back to what it was before it was changed to Nathan Bedford Forrest back in 1959 as a backlash to integration. I mean, that right there says it all doesn't it? Whites angry that their children had to go to school with blacks picked Nathan Bedford Forrest as a 'fuck you uppity negros!' statement for a reason. And it wasn't b/c he he was some civil rights crusader.
With no formal military training, Forrest was one of the most brilliant generals the South had and he did not start the KKK.
This again? As a Pacific northwesterner, I feel so completely disconnected from the Civil War and its aftermath. A war fought thousands of miles away, over a century and a half ago. Having never been to the south before, and knowing only what I've read in history books and what I've seen on the Tele, "The South" conjurs images and thoughts of a negative nature. I remember almost throwing my remote through the TV screen the first time I watched the movie Rosewood, I couldn't believe that was real, that it actually happened. Luckily, I've met a great deal of cool as hell southerners that break the frankly silly stereotypes in my head. I'm baked, I apologize if this makes litte sense.
Nothing wrong with being baked, but you've never been down South? Actually I've never been to the Pacific Northwest, so I don't have a dog in this fight.
Or to use an example we're all familiar with, Zimmerman saved a family form their car, but all anyone will remember him for is shooting a black kid for getting skittles.