Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ku Klux Klan Monument

The War wasn't started over slavery....

It goes a little deeper than that....


State's rights was the ostensible reason for the War... but the main right that the States were fighting for was the right to keep slaves, move slavery further west, and to be able to go into "free" states and territories to recover slaves that had escaped. This was a huge issue, which the Supreme Court came down on the wrong side...legally, slave owners had the right to do so, but Northern States became less and less willing to allow bounty hunters to go after escaped slaves as the abolitionist movement gained momentum in the public sector.

It's also important to keep in mind that, although Lincoln's first and foremost objective was to keep the Union, he was definitely anti-slavery. In a lot of ways, he had the same attitude as Jefferson... that slavery was morally reprehensible, but also a "necessary evil". However, as a maneuver in the War, it became more advantageous to free the slaves in the 10 states in question (the EP did not free all states everywhere).

Jefferson wrote into the Constitution the necessary language that could eventually be used to free slaves. At the time, it was impossible to achieve, if one wanted to form the Union in the first place. Jefferson's vision, however, was realized by Lincoln, in the goal to keeping the same Union.

Some might think the reasons were less than pure, but hey, name one thing, anything at all, that sinful human beings have accomplished that was accomplished in a completely pure and noble way....

...can't be done. Human are messy, sinful and extremely complicated. We think we do so well with 20/20 hindsight... in reality, we simply oversimplify complicated matters.

Jefferson, Lincoln and even Forrest were men of their times and it's hard for us to truly judge them when we live in a completely different environment. What can be said with absolute truth though is that we wouldn't have the environment that we do without them having played the roles they did, for better or for worse.
 
I think i'd be ok with this monument if it was accompanied by a plague not just detailing the good he did but the bad aswell. Let people , especially children know what the man was all about.

I don't believe for one second that any of the positive things he did in his life could in any way outweigh the negative.

Now the real question is, should the new monument be hooded or un-hooded?:chin
 
I think i'd be ok with this monument if it was accompanied by a plague not just detailing the good he did but the bad aswell. Let people , especially children know what the man was all about.

I don't believe for one second that any of the positive things he did in his life could in any way outweigh the negative.

Now the real question is, should the new monument be hooded or un-hooded?:chin

Definitely unhooded since he left the Klan after it became violent. Forrest dissolved the first incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan in 1869 and in 1875 he spoke before a black civic group in which he offered his sentiments regarding the reconciliation between the races calling for equality between blacks and whites.
 
Definitely unhooded since he left the Klan after it became violent. Forrest dissolved the first incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan in 1869 and in 1875 he spoke before a black civic group in which he offered his sentiments regarding the reconciliation between the races calling for equality between blacks and whites.

Heh. I was only kidding:thumbsup

True. I read his full biography (admittedly on Wikipedia) earlier. If he was sincere in his attempts then I can respect that.

I still think a fair and balanced description of his actions should accompany the monument though. If anything, to show that if a person who founded the KKK can offer such a hand in friendship then anyone can change.
 
Again, it's more complicated than that. The reconstruction of the South after the war was chaos and lawlessness prevailed. Probably even more hated than the blacks were the carpetbaggers from the North. Klan groups sprang up all over the place, many of the groups were filled with veterans of the war and many were still fighting the war...

This is where Forrest came in... He tried to organize the Klan and create a central headquarters as it were for the Klan so that the groups wouldn't just be wandering and violent vigilantes. However, he was unsuccessful in doing this and Klan violence escalated. This is when Forrest bowed out of the group. He remained sympathetic to the stated purposed of the Klan as far as restoring white supremacy pushing Northern groups such as Loyal Leagues and yes, the Republican Party out of the South. Forrest felt that Southren blacks were being used by these groups... and he's probably right about that, but at the same time, the blacks would hardly fare better under the Democrat "White Man's" Party.

It's easy for us, 150 years later, in an completely different environment, to cast things in black and white, if anything just to make sense out of the chaos... but, it was a incredibly complicated time with few who were pure evil and few who were pure good.

I don't want to whitewash Forrest... he was a man of his time, which, by definition means he was racist and bigoted... but, we should also note that he was trying to bring order to chaos, and do what he genuinely felt was the best thing for the society in which he lived... including the blacks, which he, being born and raised in a society that taught that a black person was fundamentally incapable of taking care of himself, genuinely believed restoring blacks to subservient roles would be best for all concerned.

Since at the end of his public life, he went on record stating that he believed that blacks could be doctors, teachers and other professionals, it's apparent that Forrest was a very rare kind of man... one who could admit and learn from his past mistakes.
 
Again, it's more complicated than that. The reconstruction of the South after the war was chaos and lawlessness prevailed. Probably even more hated than the blacks were the carpetbaggers from the North. Klan groups sprang up all over the place, many of the groups were filled with veterans of the war and many were still fighting the war...

This is where Forrest came in... He tried to organize the Klan and create a central headquarters as it were for the Klan so that the groups wouldn't just be wandering and violent vigilantes. However, he was unsuccessful in doing this and Klan violence escalated. This is when Forrest bowed out of the group.

Exactly, Forrest simply centralized the Klans efforts of terrorism.

He remained sympathetic to the stated purposed of the Klan as far as restoring white supremacy pushing Northern groups such as Loyal Leagues and yes, the Republican Party out of the South. Forrest felt that Southren blacks were being used by these groups... and he's probably right about that, but at the same time, the blacks would hardly fare better under the Democrat "White Man's" Party.

There was effectively no Republican party in the Southern states before the end of the civil war. During Reconstruction, state Republican parties were established primarily by blacks. The Republican Party of Texas, for example, was started by 60 white men and 120 black men. That isn't to say that the KKK didn't use the Republican party to further their agenda of white supremacy in some instances.

It's easy for us, 150 years later, in an completely different environment, to cast things in black and white, if anything just to make sense out of the chaos... but, it was a incredibly complicated time with few who were pure evil and few who were pure good.

Agreed. It's usually unintended consequences that harm the most.

I don't want to whitewash Forrest... he was a man of his time, which, by definition means he was racist and bigoted... but, we should also note that he was trying to bring order to chaos, and do what he genuinely felt was the best thing for the society in which he lived... including the blacks, which he, being born and raised in a society that taught that a black person was fundamentally incapable of taking care of himself, genuinely believed restoring blacks to subservient roles would be best for all concerned.

Sorta like the Democratic Party of today.

Since at the end of his public life, he went on record stating that he believed that blacks could be doctors, teachers and other professionals, it's apparent that Forrest was a very rare kind of man... one who could admit and learn from his past mistakes.

Of course. Truthfully, I believe that as long as no public funds are being used, such a monument should not be prevented from being erected. My point was that although Klan violence didn't originate with Forrest, it certainly didn't end with him either.
 
The Klan was founded out of a reaction to the oppression of the northern states which sought to exact punishment rather than reconciliation from the South. Interesting that since that time, the US has always sought nothing short of reconciliation and a helping hand to rebuild the land of the defeated in its wars, but in the case of the Civil War, the victor chose instead to hold his boot to the throat of the defeated South.

While the KKK objected strongly to being forced to accept the 14th Amendment as the rule of law, it was equally defiant in the economic sanctions placed on the South, including essentially being an "occupied territory" divided into five military districts beginning in 1869 when Johnson was voted out of office after having survived an impeachment trial by a mere one vote in the Senate. His fellow Republicans quickly forgot the example of the legend of their party from the 19th century, Abraham Lincoln, and decided Johnson wasn't punishing the South enough. Thus began the "waving of the bloody shirt" as the more sane northern newspapers wrote of the sociopolitical bludgeoning of the South.

Klan violence escalated through 1871, prompting the passage of The Ku Klux Klan Act, which suspended the writ of habeas corpus, allowing accused individuals to be arrested and held incommunicado without trial. The Act was enforced with such rigor and violence (President Grant sent armed troops into literal battle to put an end to the Klan in South Carolina, for example) that it outraged Democrats and even alarmed some Republicans for its blatant violation of constitutional rights and effective new state of war, undeclared as it was, against the South.

Yes, the Klan was made up of racially bigoted members, but they were motivated to violence and protest by their unfair and equally bigoted treatment by the US government to which Lee had surrendered peaceably six years before. The reality is, had the US government taken a more compromising approach to reintegrating the South into the union, thus not sparking an attitude of blame on the African-American southern population for the treatment the South was subjected to, the animosity of the South toward the North that still exists today likely would have subsided generations ago, as would have the bigotry toward blacks, rather than remaining a dark and terrible memory of mistreatment by the hands of their own government that Southerners still hold today, a memory that coincides in their minds with blacks. That is misplaced, as the blame should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the punishing, angry and yes, bigoted, Northern whites who pilloried the South with their new-found power and strength based on a war they had little to nothing to do with winning.

Forrest made the mistake, for his own personal legacy, of being the first president of this organization, which became known for its violence rather than the legitimate issues it had with Northern hypocrisy and political enslavement. These were issues that Forrest hoped to bring to his Northern counterparts. Unfortunately, their unwillingness to listen and the violent reaction of his membership to that unwillingness caused the genuine political need for discourse to be lost in the rhetoric. It wasn't the first time this had happened in US history, but it has become the norm following the failure of the people to remember what the founders had hoped to teach them.

This is part of American history, a part that has been buried under the falsely created nobility of the Northern efforts. Build the monument. Just make sure it represents the truth so we won't make these mistakes again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Earlier in this thread, Hitler was mentioned... In a lot of ways, the conditions of the South after the War were very similiar to the conditions in Germany after WW1... Where similiar punitive measures were taken against the citizens of Germany. Into the chaos that was the South, the Ku Klux Klan was born... into the chaos that was Germany, the Nazi's were born. Because each were largely responsible for the horrors that had taken place in their homes, a scapegoat was needed to displace blame... for the South, it was the blacks, for Germany, the Jews.

After WWII, the Marshall plan was enacted because the memory of the actions of the first War was so fresh, it was determined not to make the same mistakes again. So, Japan began to flourish after WWII. Germany most likely would have as well, except it got caught up in the Cold War. West Germany and West Berlin still did OK, all things considered.

I agree, thisnumersdisconnect (and excellent post btw)... Forrest's actions after the Civil War are part of American history... both good and bad. If the monument should be rebuilt, it should have all of this history.

Instead of signing on-line petitions, if people really want to voice real concerns about this, folks should write the mayor and the city council of Selma. Frankly, Selma has an opportunity to create a significant historical center, one that would bring out all the complexities of the man and the time....
 
@ handy & thisnumberisdisconected


I agree that the events surrounding the Civil War have been largely misunderstood from a historical perspective. Sorry if I derided the thread with my initial post. The Klan (and racial bigotry towards blacks during the past two centuries) is a bit of a sore subject, considering it is Republicans & conservatives who are painted as "racists", when in fact such prejudice originated largely from the Democrat party during both Reconstruction & the Civil Rights era.
 
KKK's 1st targets were Republicans

Dems credited with starting group that attacked both blacks, whites

The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.


An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.
The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White,†which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.
“Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective,â€



Barton said in his book. “Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings.â€




Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.
“Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party,†Barton writes in his book. “In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

(Story continues below)

“Contributing to the evidences was the 1871 appearance before Congress of leading South Carolina Democrat E.W. Seibels who testified that ‘they [the Ku Klux Klan] belong to the reform part – [that is, to] our party, the Democratic Party,’†Barton writes.


“The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death,†he said. “Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included.â€
Barton also has covered the subject in one episode of his American Heritage Series of television programs, which is being broadcast now on Trinity



Broadcasting Network and Cornerstone Television.
Barton told WND his comments are not a condemnation or endorsement of any party or candidate, but rather a warning that voters even today should be aware of what their parties and candidates stand for.
His book outlines the aggressive pro-slavery agenda held by the Democratic Party for generations leading up to the Civil War, and how that did not die with the Union victory in that war of rebellion.


Even as the South was being rebuilt, the votes in Congress consistently revealed a continuing pro-slavery philosophy on the part of the Democrats, the book reveals.
Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came before Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed it.


“The records of Congress reveal that not one Democrat – either in the House or the Senate – voted for the 14th Amendment,†Barton wrote. “Three years after the Civil War, and the Democrats from the North as well as the South were still refusing to recognize any rights of citizenship for black Americans.â€
He also noted that South Carolina Gov. Wade Hampton at the 1868 Democratic National Convention inserted a clause in the party platform declaring the Congress’ civil rights laws were “unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void.â€


It was the same convention when Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first grand wizard of the KKK, was honored for his leadership.
Barton’s book notes that in 1868, Congress heard testimony from election worker Robert Flournoy, who confessed while he was canvassing the state of Mississippi in support of the 13th and 14th Amendments, he could find only one black, in a population of 444,000 in the state, who admitted being a Democrat.


Nor is Barton the only person to raise such questions. In 2005, National Review published an article raising similar points. The publication said in 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., schools over the resistance of Democrat Gov. Orval Faubus.


Further, three years later, Eisenhower signed the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats, and in 1964, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd’s 14-hour filibuster, and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats, including Tennessee’s Al Gore Sr., failed to scuttle the plan.
<table align="center" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="396">
dems1%20%282%29.jpg

Dems’ website showing jump in history</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> The current version of the “History†page on the party website lists a number of accomplishments – from 1792, 1798, 1800, 1808, 1812, 1816, 1824 and 1828, including its 1832 nomination of Andrew Jackson for president. It follows up with a name change, and the establishment of the Democratic National Committee, but then leaps over the Civil War and all of its issues to talk about the end of the 19th Century, William Jennings Bryan and women’s suffrage.


A spokesman with the Democrats refused to comment for WND on any of the issues. “You’re not going to get a comment,†said the spokesman who identified himself as Luis.
“Why would Democrats skip over their own history from 1848 to 1900?†Barton asked. “Perhaps because it’s not the kind of civil rights history they want to talk about – perhaps because it is not the kind of civil rights history they want to have on their website.â€


The National Review article by Deroy Murdock cited the 1866 comment from Indiana Republican Gov. Oliver Morton condemning Democrats for their racism.
“Every one who shoots down Negroes in the streets, burns Negro schoolhouses and meeting-houses, and murders women and children by the light of their own flaming dwellings, calls himself a Democrat,†Morton said.
It also cited the 1856 criticism by U.S. Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., of pro-slavery Democrats. “Congressman Preston Brooks (D-S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber.



Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years.â€
By the admission of the Democrats themselves, on their website, it wasn’t until Harry Truman was elected that “Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race and gender.â€


“That is an accurate description,†wrote Barton. “Starting with Harry Truman, Democrats began – that is, they made their first serious efforts – to fight against the barriers of race; yet … Truman’s efforts were largely unsuccessful because of his own Democratic Party.â€
Even then, the opposition to rights for blacks was far from over. As recently as 1960, Mississippi Democratic Gov. Hugh White had requested Christian evangelist Billy Graham segregate his crusades, something Graham refused to do. “And when South Carolina Democratic Gov. George Timmerman learned Billy Graham had invited African Americans to a Reformation Rally at the state Capitol, he promptly denied use of the facilities to the evangelist,†Barton wrote.


The National Review noted that the Democrats’ “Klan-coddling†today is embodied in Byrd, who once wrote that, “The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.â€
The article suggested a contrast with the GOP, which, when former Klansman David Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, was “scorned†by national GOP officials.


Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican, and it was Republicans who appointed the first black Air Force and Army four-star generals, established Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a national holiday, and named the first black national-security adviser, secretary of state, the research reveals.
Current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said: “The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire. He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I.â€


Barton’s documentation said the first opponents of slavery “and the chief advocates for racial equal rights were the churches (the Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.). Furthermore, religious leaders such as Quaker Anthony Benezet were the leading spokesmen against slavery, and evangelical leaders such as Presbyterian signer of the Declaration Benjamin Rush were the founders of the nation’s first abolition societies.â€
During the years surrounding the Civil War, “the most obvious difference between the Republican and Democrat parties was their stands on slavery,†Barton said. Republicans called for its abolition, while Democrats declared: “All efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient [to initiate] steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and all such efforts have the inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people.â€


Wallbuilders also cited John Alden’s 1885 book, “A Brief History of the Republican Party†in noting that the KKK’s early attacks were on Republicans as much as blacks, in that blacks were adopting the Republican identity en masse.
“In some places the Ku Klux Klan assaulted Republican officials in their houses or offices or upon the public roads; in others they attacked the meetings of negroes and displaced them,†Alden wrote. “Its ostensible purpose at first was to keep the blacks in order and prevent them from committing small depredations upon the property of whites, but its real motives were essentially political … The negroes were invariable required to promise not to vote the Republican ticket, and threatened with death if they broke their promises.â€


Barton told WND the most cohesive group of political supporters in America now is African-Americans. He said most consider their affiliation with the Democratic party long term.
But he said he interviewed a black pastor in Mississippi who recalled his grandmother never “would let a Democrat in the house, and he never knew what she was talking about.†After a review of history, he knew, Barton said.
Citing President George Washington’s farewell address, Barton told WND, “Washington had a great section on the love of party, if you love party more than anything else, what it will do to a great nation.â€


“We shouldn’t love a party [over] a candidate’s principles or values,†he told WND.
Washington’s farewell address noted the “danger†from parties is serious.
“Let me now … warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects f the spirit of party, generally. … The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism,†Washington said.
http://www.wnd.com/2007/10/44171/
 
Thanks for the history, Lewis....


I've been aware of these facts for quite some time now. I simply have never been able to understand just why it is that blacks seem to overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party due to their historic and even more recent (after all the 1960's and 70's weren't all that long ago) bigotry towards blacks and suppression of their civil rights. Maybe some of our black members here can explain.

I was raised up by Republicans and was a Republican myself for years... I've never witnessed the "racism" of the Republican Party.... the whole idea of the GOP being the "rich white man" party is hooey. I'm not a Republican any longer, but nonetheless, that lie, which I guessed was repeated so often it became "truth" to some people, has no basis in fact.
 
Dora, I found this, it answers yours and my questions. And me being a Republican of color, I understand this guy in this video. This guy in this video is great, he lays it all out with the truth, he totally explains why people of color vote for democrats. And I agree with him.

Examining Black Loyalty to Democrats

[video=youtube;xryXpK042pQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xryXpK042pQ[/video]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dora, I found this, it answers yours and my questions. And me being a Republican of color, understands this guy in this video. This guy in this video is great, he lays it all out with the truth.

Yes! Great post, Lewis. I've been following Alfonzo Rachel on You Tube for almost four years now.

Bob Parks & Kevin Jackson are also indelible "Republicans of color".
 
Yes! Great post, Lewis. I've been following Alfonzo Rachel on You Tube for almost four years now.

Bob Parks & Kevin Jackson are also indelible "Republicans of color".

Yes, he's great, and has been a terrific part of the Tea Party movement right from the start.

I agree with what he's saying, but I think there's something else involved black loyalty to the Democrats. Blacks who grew up in the south during the 50s and 60s, saw the end of discrimination coming through actions of the federal government and resistance to ending discrimination coming through the actions of state governments. The Democrats have intentionally taken on the image of being the party of government power now, specifically activist federal government power. Republicans have taken on the image of limited federal government power, and advocate for states' rights. My black friends of that generation from the south will absolutely not listen to any argument for limiting federal government, and even more hate the whole thought of states' rights, all while being very conservative in their personal lives. The younger blacks are not so tied up in that narrative. Two of the young men I mentor are very accepting of conservative, Republican arguments.

Breaking the loyality of blacks to the Democratic party may depend on the passing of the generation that associates ending discrimination with federal government power.
 
Dora, I found this, it answers yours and my questions. And me being a Republican of color, I understand this guy in this video. This guy in this video is great, he lays it all out with the truth, he totally explains why people of color vote for democrats. And I agree with him.

Examining Black Loyalty to Democrats

[video=youtube;xryXpK042pQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xryXpK042pQ[/video]

Thanks for sharing this Lewis. I finally was able to watch this!

I think the guy hits it out of the park.
 
Back
Top