Imagine walking into the Idi Amin Public Library, taking the kiddies to the Ted Bundy National Park, or driving across the Adolf Hitler Memorial Bridge. Uncomfortable just to think about, right? Generally, we don’t celebrate the legacies of soulless war mongers or despicable mass murderers. Ergo, it’s hard to understand why the city of Selma, Ala. is supporting a statue venerating Nathan Bedford Forrest, famed white supremacist and leader of that abject ethnic cleansing machine known as the Ku Klux Klan.
A lauded lieutenant general in the Confederate army, Forrest has been credited as a gifted tactician and military strategist. However, he has also been accused of war crimes at Fort Pillow when soldiers under his command slaughtered dozens of Union army prisoners—some white, but most of them black. All that killing innocent people business aside, the one-time slave trader has more monuments and edifices named in his honor in Tennessee, for example, than the three U.S. presidents who lived in the state.
There’s something to be said about the people some of us Americans build into heroes. And this one right here is a humdinger. Thankfully, Selma community leader Malika Sanders-Fortier has launched a petition against the monument.
He’s not the first or only person to treat human beings like livestock. Not by a long shot. He’s not even the first to abuse his authority in order to purposely target and rub out a particular group. But he was a Klansmen, and it seems like the most glaring of contradictions to have a trail that commemorates a famous march in one part of a city that played such a pivotal role in the civil rights movement and allow another part to house a tribute to a man who, if he could’ve had his druthers, would’ve kept those unruly negroes on the plantation.
A monument to that dude is an insult to not just black folks, but other minority groups who stumbled into the Klan’s crosshairs just for having the audacity to be non-white Protestant southerners and everybody who believes in racial equity and fairness. Granted, history isn't always pretty, but it's also not always worth building a monument for. Besides, Forrest doesn’t need a statue. His legacy lives on in the fact that the KKK is still alive and kickin’.
Two summers ago, my mother dragged me to an outdoor farmer’s market in Rising Sun, Md. Anyone familiar with Cecil County and the enclaves in the northern part of the state knows that Rising Sun is Klan country. But there we were, shifting through tables of Avon products, produce, and unimpressive antiques, and stepped back outside to find ourselves maybe 20 feet from three Klansmen, decked in full pointed-hat regalia. They were handing out tracts, unfazed by the black men and women milling around the grounds, peaceful as Mormons but intimidating as snarling Dobermans.
The experience ranks probably in the top 10 most awkward moments of my life. I was insulted and scared at the same time. That in and of itself is a living, breathing salute to Nathan Bedford Forrest. Far more telling of his leadership than a cheesy statue is the ability to help engineer a more than century-old organization still pushing the same agenda it was spewing during the 1800s. Now that’s a testament to his brand of racism.
It’s impossible to accurately determine how many black men and women were harassed, tortured, disenfranchised, financially ruined, and brutally murdered at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan. There are still unaccounted victims and others who just went missing. People found dangling from trees. Homes destroyed. Crosses burnt in the Klan’s signature show of domestic terrorism. How is a man who proudly stood at the helm of such heartlessness based on the color of people’s skin worthy of accolade?
Here’s to hoping Sanders-Fortier’s effort is effective.
Do you think honoring Forrest is insulting?
Image via Newtown graffiti/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Comments 13
Forrest was considered a great general and yes he did found the KKK. But you also need to realize that when the KKK was first founded it wasn't what it is today (or in years after it's founding). It primarily was a group that would punish people that violated the law (wife beaters, thieves, etc.) but got away with it. Remember, this was 150 years ago so our current judicial/legal system was not the same. I'm not saying it's right and that it didn't participate in other activities, but it was different tahn today. War is hell and the "enemy" is killed (black or white). Forrest rode with several black confederates (yes there were many of them) and treated them as equals. The Union army segregated their black soldiers and if you want to talk about civil war atrocities look up Sherman's March to the Sea where southern women and children were killed just because they supported the confederate cause. Bottom line, if Selma, AL wants to erect a statue and the majority of their community support it, we don't have a right to tell them what to do.
I think perhaps many forget just how many of our nations leaders were involved with what we now view as less than savory ideals or groups of the times they lived in.
I think it would be prudent to also keep in mind that the Ku Klux Klan was a much different thing in the 1860's than it is now. Like most vigilante groups, over time the initial cause of its formation was forgotten and skewed until it became the perverse creature that it is today. Also note that there have been at least three different emergences of the klan in this country since the first was initiated. It has fallen at different periods in our history, into and out of popularity.
In fact a few of our presidents/politicians have at one time been members of the klan, although not many details are available.
It just goes to show that at certain points in history things or groups that are viewed as acceptable to be associated with may not be viewed that way in the future, as is the case here. Our country's views have evolved or changed and we now view this group in a very negative way. Which is why a statue of a man known to be a member of this group should not be errected in a public goverment funded place. However I find this article to be poorly researched and inflamatory.
Okay I am not familiar with the Klan's history but even if it started out as something else, we know what they represent today. I think it is a skeleton in your closet you can never really separate from, especially when it comes to politics or monuments. I don't think it should be put up, but I understand that decision is up to the citizen'where it will be erected. People decisions with this kind of thing never surprise me though, like Robert Byrd for instance. I don't think he should have ever served in our Congress even if he says he regretted the choices he made when he was younger.