Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was talking to Easy E

@sirlynchmob
Where have you seen the family agree?

sirlynchmob wrote:


Memphis voted to move Forrest, and his descendants agreed, so he's being moved.

His descendants agreed? I think not.

The fact that they're exhuming his (and his wife's) remains is despicable.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@sirlynchmob
Where have you seen the family agree?

Ok I might have been confused about that, I saw that they needed to consult with the family about the decision so since it was decided I assumed they had. But after looking again I can find no statements from named descendents of forrest saying anything. The sons of the confederate are claiming the forrest family is against it though.


http://fusion.net/story/163286/memphis-to-dig-up-confederate-general-and-ku-klux-klan-leader-buried-in-city-park/
Tennessee court and the state historic commission. Some news reports have suggested that the Forrest family also has to approve the move, but Lowery said he didn’t believe that was correct. Mayor A.C.

http://www.localmemphis.com/story/d/story/council-votes-to-move-nathan-bedford-forrests-rema/12440/x-aa6bzx80iy91LMR_yQ-g
"The Forrest family is solidly opposed to digging up the graves and moving them any place," said Lee Millar with the Son’s Of Confederate Veterans.

who is this Lee Millar and has he even consulted the family? But he is the one saying the family is against it, and that claim needs some fact checking.

sirlynchmob wrote:


who is this Lee Millar and has he even consulted the family? But he is the one saying the family is against it, and that claim needs some fact checking.

As would your claim they did agree.

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


who is this Lee Millar and has he even consulted the family? But he is the one saying the family is against it, and that claim needs some fact checking.

As would your claim they did agree.

If the city needs their approval, and the body is moved, that's a good indication they got approval even if it wasn't made publicly.

On another note, He has no living family today to disagree with anything.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/forrest.htm
Thanks to Russell P. Dodge II and historian-author Shelby Foote, I have learned that he was the only son of the only son of of the only son (grand grandson) of Confederate Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest. According to Mr. Foote, he had no children and his sister had two daughters. Therefore the line came to an end with his death in the skies over Germany!

so as there's no family to disagree, he's as good as moved.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@sirlynchmob
Where have you seen the family agree?

Ok I might have been confused about that,

No no, you're not confused.

You're wrong.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


who is this Lee Millar and has he even consulted the family? But he is the one saying the family is against it, and that claim needs some fact checking.

As would your claim they did agree.

If the city needs their approval, and the body is moved, that's a good indication they got approval even if it wasn't made publicly.

And yet, you claim the family approved. Back that up.

The city counsel can vote to launch the remains into a black hole. They can vote to turn the grave into a manure dumping site. They can vote for whatever they want. A vote being passed means nothing if there are other steps, such as the family needing to approve. Even Wade, in his 2013 opinion trying to justify moving the bodies admits this. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2111054/forrest-opinion-revised.pdf

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


who is this Lee Millar and has he even consulted the family? But he is the one saying the family is against it, and that claim needs some fact checking.

As would your claim they did agree.

If the city needs their approval, and the body is moved, that's a good indication they got approval even if it wasn't made publicly.

And yet, you claim the family approved. Back that up.

The city counsel an vote to launch the remains into a black hole. They can vote to turn the grave into a manure dumping site. They can vote for whatever they want. A vote being passed means nothing if there are other steps, such as the family needing to approve. Even Wade, in his 2013 opinion trying to justify moving the bodies admits this.

Why did you ignore the fact he has no living family? Why did you ignore me already stating there are no quotes from the family? the family is making no claims one way or another as they are all gone. If you want to produce a descendant that says anything, feel free.

bodies have been moved before, its not some new thing. I would guess this one will be moved as well in the near future.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


who is this Lee Millar and has he even consulted the family? But he is the one saying the family is against it, and that claim needs some fact checking.

As would your claim they did agree.

If the city needs their approval, and the body is moved, that's a good indication they got approval even if it wasn't made publicly.

And yet, you claim the family approved. Back that up.

The city counsel an vote to launch the remains into a black hole. They can vote to turn the grave into a manure dumping site. They can vote for whatever they want. A vote being passed means nothing if there are other steps, such as the family needing to approve. Even Wade, in his 2013 opinion trying to justify moving the bodies admits this.

Why did you ignore the fact he has no living family? Why did you ignore me already stating there are no quotes from the family? the family is making no claims one way or another as they are all gone. If you want to produce a descendant that says anything, feel free.

bodies have been moved before, its not some new thing. I would guess this one will be moved as well in the near future.

Why do you ignore what the legal opinion by the guy wanting to move the bodies says?

Any interested person, which essentially means any surviving spouse and children or the nearest relative or relatives by consanguinity of any one or more of the deceased persons whose remains are burried in a burial ground, must be made a party to any such suit.

It does not have to be a direct descendent. So again, back up your claim, or admit you are talking out of your ass.

 CptJake wrote:

It does not have to be a direct descendent. So again, back up your claim, or admit you are talking out of your ass.

You have to remember he's just confused. Not wrong.

 sebster wrote:
You know, while I side with people who oppose removing historic symbols on this issue, I'm left suspicious of many of them because they've been so quiet when the historic myths go the other way. How many people who defend Forrest's memorial have mentioned spent any time at all talking about the awful things he did?

It just seems a very one way street - revel in Confederate myths, but if anything is done to push the opposing political slant on to history, then suddenly they're all for the sanctity of the historic record.

If you have enough history you're bound to revel in myth. Technically the founding fathers set the situation in motion with their get rich quick with the least effort approach. Worrying about every perceived flaw gets you nowhere. Noboby is living in the past or suffering from Bedford, nor George Washington. Do we remove all slaver-loving dead people? Sleeping dogs? Do I have to question everything about history and live in panic b/c somebody might disagree with my lack of giving a damn about their perceived suffering? I'm not suggesting you recommend that., just springs to mind.

Don't mind me, I'm bored.

EDIT: er, makes a difference

Well, Obama is in Oklahoma and we had many groups of protesters meeting him with confederate flags to stand up to him and send a message. I'm sure the message they think they were sending and the message most people got is different, but at least my state managed to put on their best possible show again...

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


who is this Lee Millar and has he even consulted the family? But he is the one saying the family is against it, and that claim needs some fact checking.

As would your claim they did agree.

If the city needs their approval, and the body is moved, that's a good indication they got approval even if it wasn't made publicly.

On another note, He has no living family today to disagree with anything.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/forrest.htm
Thanks to Russell P. Dodge II and historian-author Shelby Foote, I have learned that he was the only son of the only son of of the only son (grand grandson) of Confederate Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest. According to Mr. Foote, he had no children and his sister had two daughters. Therefore the line came to an end with his death in the skies over Germany!

so as there's no family to disagree, he's as good as moved.

Ah, no, that's more a sign that the city is moving ahead with the exhumation in violation of the family's wishes, which is within the city's power to do (there's no magic shield around the grave that requires a family member to unseal), even if not necessarily legal. Also, even if your family only ever has daughters, and your daughters only ever have daughters, you will still have a long line of descendants. It is not "who carries the family name" but "who can trace a line back through their family tree".

This is America, our cities (and states) like to do things in violation of the law all the fething time.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, Obama is in Oklahoma and we had many groups of protesters meeting him with confederate flags to stand up to him and send a message. I'm sure the message they think they were sending and the message most people got is different, but at least my state managed to put on their best possible show again...

Well my forward-thinking state is ahead of the curve. Somebody rammed a minivan* into a confederate soldier statue in Reidsville NC about a year ago. I'm sure they would ram any other trace of history if O showed up in the great southern state of NC.

*if I recall correctly.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


who is this Lee Millar and has he even consulted the family? But he is the one saying the family is against it, and that claim needs some fact checking.

As would your claim they did agree.

If the city needs their approval, and the body is moved, that's a good indication they got approval even if it wasn't made publicly.

On another note, He has no living family today to disagree with anything.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/forrest.htm
Thanks to Russell P. Dodge II and historian-author Shelby Foote, I have learned that he was the only son of the only son of of the only son (grand grandson) of Confederate Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest. According to Mr. Foote, he had no children and his sister had two daughters. Therefore the line came to an end with his death in the skies over Germany!

so as there's no family to disagree, he's as good as moved.

Tennessee Historical Society has to agree to the move before they can do anythin actually.

I had heard that the Forrest family had donated the land the park is on to the city, if they would keep his remains there. I haven't found anything at all to confirm that, so it's just hearsay near as I can tell.

Wow, reading this thread....

As someone who's actually written books on the Civil War, quite a few on both sides of this discussion should be ashamed of themselves...



Ok, one, while slavery was one of the issues that started the war, it was part of a set of issues that fell under the broader envelope of states rights. Even the North was fighting about states right until Lincoln made the war about slavery about half way through, to preempt England and France intervening.

Two, might I remind you all that there *is* a first amendment, and, further, digging up dead people to defile their corpses really doesn't solve anything.

Ask Germany.


Three: this does absolutely NOTHING to solve the underlying issues. It just makes it look like your elected officials are doing something, when, in fact, they are doing nothing. You could dig up every dead Confederate solider from the Keys to Maine, and New York to California, and burn every Confederate flag there ever was, is, or will be. And it will do absolutely nothing.

You can't legislate away hate. And by picking out this particular group, you just ensure they are there all the longer.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Wow, reading this thread....

As someone who's actually written books on the Civil War, quite a few on both sides of this discussion should be ashamed of themselves...



Ok, one, while slavery was one of the issues that started the war, it was part of a set of issues that fell under the broader envelope of states rights.

...a state's right to what?

However you want to define it, it's ultimately about the slavery. The side that initiated the war did it to protect that institution. It can be cloaked in whatever guise one pleases, but even if you want to talk about state's rights, you're still talking about the right to hold people in bondage, against their will and without having committed any offense.

You can also look at each of the secessionist declarations, the continuance of the institution of slavery is the central and overriding concern in each, as is explicit anger at the idea of equality with "the negro" in several, and generally implicit in the others.

 Frazzled wrote:
Not when Yankees are telling us what to do.

It’s a good line and also very true. If we’ve learned one thing from the social movements of the last century, it’s that very little gets accomplished when people just come in on a high moral horse. Typically those people are far more interested in making themselves feel morally superior than in actually improving the situation.

Same thing here. It’s up to the South to address this. Given the recent actions it seems progress is being made.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Wow, reading this thread....

As someone who's actually written books on the Civil War, quite a few on both sides of this discussion should be ashamed of themselves...



Ok, one, while slavery was one of the issues that started the war, it was part of a set of issues that fell under the broader envelope of states rights.

...a state's right to what?

However you want to define it, it's ultimately about the slavery. The side that initiated the war did it to protect that institution. It can be cloaked in whatever guise one pleases, but even if you want to talk about state's rights, you're still talking about the right to hold people in bondage, against their will and without having committed any offense.

You can also look at each of the secessionist declarations, the continuance of the institution of slavery is the central and overriding concern in each, as is explicit anger at the idea of equality with "the negro" in several, and generally implicit in the others.

The way I like to say is that states' rights was the cause, slavery was the reason.

Maybe a change is in order to reconcile the parties involved

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Wow, reading this thread....

As someone who's actually written books on the Civil War, quite a few on both sides of this discussion should be ashamed of themselves...



Ok, one, while slavery was one of the issues that started the war, it was part of a set of issues that fell under the broader envelope of states rights.

...a state's right to what?

However you want to define it, it's ultimately about the slavery. The side that initiated the war did it to protect that institution. It can be cloaked in whatever guise one pleases, but even if you want to talk about state's rights, you're still talking about the right to hold people in bondage, against their will and without having committed any offense.

You can also look at each of the secessionist declarations, the continuance of the institution of slavery is the central and overriding concern in each, as is explicit anger at the idea of equality with "the negro" in several, and generally implicit in the others.

The way I like to say is that states' rights was the cause, slavery was the reason.

Maybe? But I don't see the southern states as having been willing to go to war for states rights over anything else. States rights was the argument raised to protect slavery, but it's hard to see where the nebulous and rather cerebral issue of "states rights" would have motivated people to war on their neighbors. The more mundane, money and property, is almost always the real issue.

 Vaktathi wrote:
...a state's right to what?

Right to anything. See, one thing the Constitution did not do well was define the line between State and Federal authority. While slavery was the issue between them, they central crux of it was if the Federal government had the authority to abolish it, or even regulate it.

The southern states felt that Lincoln, a Republican, was going to force the issue militarily, and decided to preempt him.

Something that people don't seem to grasp today was that the average person's national identity was not that one was an 'American' but rather that one was a New Yorker. Or a Virginian, or a Pennsylvanian. and so on. (Picture every state as Texas, if that helps) The US was a lot more like the UN than an actual countryto the average person. I don't think it takes Frazz to tell you what the average Texan would do if the UN invaded.

Slavery was the issue that the Fed was pushing, so, yes, it turns up due to the knee jerk response that the people had.

Technically, by the way, the South was right. The US Federal government, at that time, did not actually have the authority to do most of what it did under Lincoln. Congress voted to grant Lincoln what effectively amounted to unlimited power for the duration, and he more or less tossed out the Constitution, most notably trial by Jury, but also free speech, right to assemble, and so on.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Maybe a change is in order to reconcile the parties involved

I admit
I laughed hard

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Wow, reading this thread....

As someone who's actually written books on the Civil War, quite a few on both sides of this discussion should be ashamed of themselves...



Ok, one, while slavery was one of the issues that started the war, it was part of a set of issues that fell under the broader envelope of states rights.

...a state's right to what?

To leave the union, most specifically. But yes, there were in fact a number of other reasons beyond slavery that the confederates wanted to leave the union. Slavery was a really big one, but not the only one.

JNC wrote:
If you have enough history you're bound to revel in myth. Technically the founding fathers set the situation in motion with their get rich quick with the least effort approach. Worrying about every perceived flaw gets you nowhere.

Noboby is living in the past or suffering from Bedford, nor George Washington. Do we remove all slaver-loving dead people? Sleeping dogs? Do I have to question everything about history and live in panic b/c somebody might disagree with my lack of giving a damn about their perceived suffering? I'm not suggesting you recommend that., just springs to mind.

I’m not suggesting the memorial is moved. I’m opposed to that. History is history, part of that history is the Civil War, and part of it is the effort afterwards to glorify people and the South in general for something they really shouldn’t have been glorified for. Leave it as is and teach people accurate history so they can understand this in it’s proper context.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Ok, one, while slavery was one of the issues that started the war, it was part of a set of issues that fell under the broader envelope of states rights. Even the North was fighting about states right until Lincoln made the war about slavery about half way through, to preempt England and France intervening.

Yeah, see, this is the actual problem. Leave the memorial in place but get people to understand the real reasons the South fought the war.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
...a state's right to what?

Right to anything. See, one thing the Constitution did not do well was define the line between State and Federal authority. While slavery was the issue between them, they central crux of it was if the Federal government had the authority to abolish it, or even regulate it.

The southern states felt that Lincoln, a Republican, was going to force the issue militarily, and decided to preempt him.

Something that people don't seem to grasp today was that the average person's national identity was not that one was an 'American' but rather that one was a New Yorker. Or a Virginian, or a Pennsylvanian. and so on. (Picture every state as Texas, if that helps) The US was a lot more like the UN than an actual countryto the average person. I don't think it takes Frazz to tell you what the average Texan would do if the UN invaded.

I get that, I really do. It's still strong in many areas even today. I don't fail to grasp that people saw themselves as citizens of their state not a larger "US". But slavery was the only thing which people were willing to go to war over. They didn't and weren't going to go out and kill each other to defend states rights over any other issue.

Slavery was the issue that the Fed was pushing, so, yes, it turns up due to the knee jerk response that the people had.

Technically, by the way, the South was right. The US Federal government, at that time, did not actually have the authority to do most of what it did under Lincoln. Congress voted to grant Lincoln what effectively amounted to unlimited power for the duration, and he more or less tossed out the Constitution, most notably trial by Jury, but also free speech, right to assemble, and so on.

You're right that they didn't have the authority at the time, but Lincoln and the Federal government hadn't intended to do so either, at least not over any existing slavery territory/state. Lincoln had no plans to do so going into office, and resisted such until doing so became another weapon with which to wage the war, and even that took almost two years of war before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, and two years longer to abolish the institution entirely within the US. The South went to war because they didn't like the election results and assumed that Lincoln would try to abolish slavery, but there's no evidence to indicate he was going to or that the other arms of the Federal government would have followed him in doing so, and only through that action of initiating a war did the South both put abolition on the front-burner agenda (as opposed to control of its expansion into new states/territories) and make it possible.

 DarkLink wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Wow, reading this thread....

As someone who's actually written books on the Civil War, quite a few on both sides of this discussion should be ashamed of themselves...



Ok, one, while slavery was one of the issues that started the war, it was part of a set of issues that fell under the broader envelope of states rights.

...a state's right to what?

To leave the union, most specifically. But yes, there were in fact a number of other reasons beyond slavery that the confederates wanted to leave the union. Slavery was a really big one, but not the only one.

Pretty much they all lead back to Slavery one way or the other. it was not possible to extricate slavery from secession. Leaving the union was only considered to protect slavery. Even the other issues related to trade were intrinsically linked to a slavery based economy. You can look at each state's declaration of secession, slavery was the front and center issue that fed into everything else.

In Austria there’s a museum to the Austrian resistance effort against the Nazis. You walk in and in the first room there’s a very frank statement that resistance was minimal and almost entirely ineffective. It then goes on to explain that this museum was created in the wake of the war when Austrians wanted to distance themselves from their part Nazi atrocities, this was part of building a narrative where they were unwilling participants who bravely resisted where they could. So for a long time this building was filled with exciting and brave stories of resistance to the Nazis. Except those stories were way out of context, and often hid how irrelevant and small scale the operations were. It took a long time but eventually this narrative was undone by the realities of history.

They could have concluded this by removing the museum, renaming it and giving it another purpose, but they chose another way. Admirably they left the museum with its original name, and then used it to not only to remember the Austrian victims, but also to remember the effort to scrub Austria’s contribution to those atrocities.

That seems a very mature and admirable way for a society to understand its history, I think.

Some states had already left the Union peaceably and properly before Lincoln was inaugurated. Shortly after, Lincoln issued a call for 500,000 soldiers to put down "the rebellion".
The war really started when when the federal army invaded Virginia. Virginia had at first voted not to secede, but after Lincoln's call to arms voted again and seceded.

 snurl wrote:
Some states had already left the Union peaceably and properly before Lincoln was inaugurated. Shortly after, Lincoln issued a call for 500,000 soldiers to put down "the rebellion".
The war really started when when the federal army invaded Virginia. Virginia had at first voted not to secede, but after Lincoln's call to arms voted again and seceded.

That peaceable secession involved the attack on Fort Sumter. No-one died, but it's still pretty silly to call bombarding a fort peaceful.