View single post by TimK
 Posted: Mon Sep 14th, 2009 05:40 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
TimK
Member
 

Joined: Thu Apr 10th, 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 311
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I realized when I started this thread that it was probably a little touchy, and it might make more sense to leave it alone, but I was looking for a little civil conversation. I received it, and thanks for not ripping me too hard. The fact is, I cannot disagree in total with what most are saying, hence the conundrum. But I would like to respond to a few points.

1) I can't quite bring myself to make a comparison to what JFK did and what Forrest did. Womanizing and objectifying women, in my opinion, does not fall in the same category as buying and selling people. I can't defend his or MLK's actions in this area, but I can't relate this to slave trading. Even though slave trading was legal, many recognized it was not quite the same as buying and selling coffee or horses. Yes, we all have warts, but not all of us have warts like this.

2) True, Fort Pillow has never been totally proven. However, from most accounts, including some from Confederates, something bad happened. And if I were part of the USCT and tried to surrender with no recognition of such, I would pick my arms up again also. Enough has been written for me to believe that there was a Fort Pillow massacre, and Forrest had a part in it.

3) I can't argue with the genocide of American Natives being just as or more evil than anything Forrest did. This also sickens me quite a bit. But I also think that many names have been changed where they can be. An example would be that when inaugurated in 1946, Little Bighorn Battlefield NM was named Custer Battlefield NM. The name was changed in 1991. Certainly not enough, but at least there is some recognition of trying to right a poorly named monument.

4) Maybe I'm naive, but I have never felt threatened in Forrest Park. I have been there more than once, and the last time with my young children and my mother in-law. I did find it ironic that at times, I was the only person with white skin in the park dedicated to a man that possibly bought and sold some of the ancestors of the people enjoying the park.

So, yeah, I whole heartedly agree that Forrest should be respected for his tactical genius and deserves the military recognition he has received, even if he was considered a terrible subordinate. But, with all due respect to people that consider Forrest one of their heroes, I am going to stick with my gut feeling that all the monuments, parks, counties, etc. dedicated to Forrest may not be proportionate to his military achievements.

This is all my opinion and posted with respect to all.

 Close Window