Home / General / Fort Pillow Massacre

Fort Pillow Massacre

Comments
/
/
/
115 Views

Battle_of_Fort_Pillow

On April 12, 1864, Confederate troops under the command of Nathan Bedford Forrest massacred black Union troops attempting to surrender after their defeat at Fort Pillow, Tennessee. In a war of horrible things, this was probably the worst, as angry southerners got their revenge on their slaves leaving them by dyeing the river red with their blood. Of course, the same Southerners who prefer not to talk about Fort Pillow or even defend Forrest love to hate on William Tecumseh Sherman, whose troops engaged in no such activities on their march through Georgia and the Carolinas. The preeminent historian and Grant biographer Brooks Simpson:

When it comes to Forrest’s responsibility (or culpability), I’ll simply note that one cannot claim that William T. Sherman is a war criminal without accepting that Nathan Bedford Forrest is a war criminal. After all, Sherman did not issue orders calling for the raping of women or the destruction of property outside the laws of war. Nor did he issue orders for the destruction of Columbia in February 1865. One can hold him accountable for (a) the orders he issued and (b) his actions (or inaction) in punishing his own men for violations of the law of war. One would have to hold Forrest to the same standard, unless you think the destruction of property is a greater crime than cold-blooded murder … or whether you think crimes against white people bother you more than crimes against black people, especially those wearing the uniform of the United States armed forces. Once you say that Sherman must be held responsible for the actions of his men, you must say the same for Forrest.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Hogan

    I look forward to your new illustrated series “Dead Freed Slaves.”

    Also, fuck a bunch of Nathan Bedford Forrest.

    • BubbaDave

      I have proposed renaming Nathan Bedford Forrest State Park after Benedict Arnold, on the theory that if we’re going to honor a traitor we might as well pick one who served America valiantly before his turn to treason….

      • Colin Day

        Yep, if it weren’t for Arnold, there might not have been a nation to betray in 1780.

        • bad Jim

          Saved the army after its disastrous attack on Canada, saved the day at Saratoga. A far better general than that buffoon Horatio Gates.

          • Colin Day

            And don’t forget Valcour Island.

            • jefft452

              “And don’t forget Valcour Island”

              Heaven forbid!

              Valcour Island was a lot more important then its size and current obscurity would indicate

              I put it as more important then Saratoga

        • Halloween Jack

          Hence the Boot Monument. (The Wiki article linked to also introduced me to the term damnatio memoriae.)

  • Aimai

    Don’t the southerners who complain about Sherman basically keep NBF compartamentalized in some other part of their minds?

    • Popularly, I don’t think they know about him much. The Sherman hatred, especially in Georgia, is a popular hate. It’s just what you do as a Georgian. For those who do know about him, I think some see his actions as a hero or they downplay it.

      • Unhinged Liberal

        Once you say that Sherman must be held responsible for the actions of his men, you must say the same for Forrest.em>

        I can accept that.

        So, where’s your post on the atrocities by Sherman?

        • There were no atrocities under Sherman, or certainly none directed by Sherman. Of course since you are a racist, I’m sure the freeing of blacks is an atrocity for you.

          • Lee Rudolph

            Conversely, the killing of blacks was exactly equivalent to Sherman’s men’s actions—mere destruction of property!!!

            • Sherman’s men destroyed railroad track! Fixed capital belonging to corporations!

              Those monsters.

              • DrS

                So, we don’t have high speed rail in this country due to southern spite?

                Actually, that describes an awful lot.

          • Origami Isopod

            Sadly, there were.

            The more Indians we can kill this year the fewer we will need to kill the next, because the more I see of the Indians the more convinced I become that they must either all be killed or be maintained as a species of pauper. Their attempts at civilization is ridiculous…

            • Unhinged Liberal

              The more Indians we can kill this year the fewer we will need to kill the next…

              Damning, really damning. How *does* Professor Loomis, our resident professor of history, explain this? Here’s his quote:

              “There were no atrocities under Sherman”

              Again…how does one reconcile this statement?

              • cpinva

                “Again…how does one reconcile this statement?”

                geez, talk about low-hanging fruit. very easily, since you’re talking about two entirely different military actions, the civil war, and the indian wars. the claim is that Sherman allegedly committed, or condoned the commission, of atrocities, during his army’s march through GA, on the way to savannah. yet, you’ve not identified any.

                the comments quoted above, were made well after the civil war was over, and were in reference to the native americans, in the west.

                • Origami Isopod

                  True, that. The context should have been obvious, but then again this is JenKnob we’re talking to, who isn’t the most intellectually honest player out there.

          • Unhinged Liberal

            Of course since you are a racist…

            What the readers don’t know (and probably don’t care about) is I have addressed Mr. Loomis in a very respectful way, but he has decided that suppressing all opposition to his opinions is the way to go.

            Again, I wouldn’t let my dog take a history class from him. His hatred of those he disagrees with would be detrimental.

            • wjts

              This is because you, sir, are an idiot.

            • DrS

              All he’s done is properly identify you as a racist based on words out of. Your own postings.

              You’re just a straight up racist. Sorry you don’t like being called one. Try being less of a racist.

              • Aimai

                Its not suppression if your revolting opinions are left up on the blog.

                • Anonymous

                  Its not suppression if your revolting opinions are left up on the blog.

                  Mmmm….what Erik doesn’t tell you and you’re unaware of is he tries very hard to suppress any opposing viewpoints.

                  Not only mine, but many dissenting posts are deleted if they don’t meet the “Loomis standard” of promoting his agenda.

                  The readers are largely unaware. Don’t think he’s interested in fairness or ‘diversity’.

                • KmCO

                  Mmmm….what Erik doesn’t tell you and you’re unaware of is he tries very hard to suppress any opposing viewpoints.

                  Not only mine, but many dissenting posts are deleted if they don’t meet the “Loomis standard” of promoting his agenda.

                  And what a loss for the world.

              • Unhinged Liberal

                You’re just a straight up racist.

                Let’s take your opinion and go with that.

                In a democracy, how does suppressing me serve democracy?

                • DrS

                  You’re not a victim. Noting that you think that certain types of people shouldn’t be considered people, while socially inconvenient to you is no crime against democracy.

                • DrDick

                  Nobody has suppressed you or your views. They have been left up on full display for everyone to see and laugh and point at. The fact that everybody here knows, and points out, that you are a raging racist in no way suppresses you.

                • In a democracy, how does suppressing me serve democracy?

                  One less vote from a stupid person, arguments over facts as opposed to lunacy, asshole behaviour out of the mainstream. Next question.

                • Unhinged Liberal

                  So…if you disagree…you should have no voice?

                  That pretty much it?

                • No, you asked about YOU. There are multiple advantages to you not existing. Mileage for others may vary.

                • Anonymous

                  One less vote from a stupid person…

                  that’s how those who disagree with you feel.

                • that’s how those who disagree with you feel.

                  Duh. I’m not on their blogs making an ass of myself by not knowing stuff and being a Klansman though, am I?

                • KmCO

                  In a democracy, how does suppressing me serve democracy?

                  This blog is not a democracy, moron. And suppressing your voice in this context would do us all a service.

                • In a democracy, how does suppressing me serve democracy?

                  Society is always improved when psychopaths and racists are kept locked up.

            • Scotius

              Yes, because your user name is so polite and respectful.

              • Faggot Bill

                …how does suppressing me serve democracy?

                A question that no one has been able to address.

                • DrDick

                  We have done so repeatedly. You are not being suppressed. Ridicule and derision are not suppression. Your comments are still here, on full display, for everyone to marvel at for their quintessential stupidity and racism.

            • cpinva

              “Again, I wouldn’t let my dog take a history class from him.”

              I’m guessing your dog is smarter than you, since he/she has wisely refrained from commenting on this thread. you might want to consider following that sage example.

          • Anonymous

            Of course since you are a racist…

            From Unhinged Liberal:

            What the readers don’t know (and probably don’t care about) is I have addressed Mr. Loomis in a very respectful way, but he has decided that suppressing all opposition to his opinions is the way to go.

            Again, I wouldn’t let my dog take a history class from him. His hatred of those he disagrees with would be detrimental.

            I have posted this many times and each time, Mr. Loomis has decided that any opposition to his big brain opinions is just not acceptable….

            • DrDick

              Bull.

              • Unhinged Liberal

                Ask him.

                • DrDick

                  I do not have to, as I am a regular here who is all too familiar with your “contributions”. You have never been anything other than an obnoxious and toxic racist, homophobic, misogynist troll who revels in hate speech.

            • EthanS

              I have posted this many times and each time, Mr. Loomis has decided that any opposition to his big brain opinions is just not acceptable…. deleted my hate-spam

              FTFY

        • Hogan

          the atrocities by Sherman

          Please continue, Governor.

        • Anonymous

          Here’s a nickel, buy a hinge.

        • cpinva

          “So, where’s your post on the atrocities by Sherman?”

          more’s the pity, there weren’t any. perhaps, had Sherman ordered his men to destroy every single thing in and to the sides of their path, including the civilians, leaving nothing but a charred, post-apocalyptic wasteland in their wake, the south just might have gotten the hint. instead, he acted well within the accepted rules of war. leaving the traitors to bemoan the “horrid” treatment they’d received at his and his troop’s hands.

        • Hanspeter

          atrocities by Sherman

          Sherman’s only atrocity was not visting [insert one’s town here] during his Heat a Peach tour.

        • MAJeff

          I’m reminded of a couple conversations with a friend of mine who moved from MN to ATL. I guess the biggest one was one day when we were chatting and he just said, “You know, Sherman didn’t burn enough.”

          • Anonymous

            MN ??

            It must really chap your ass that Texas has no debt and has BILLIONS in the ‘rainy day fund’, its savings account.

            • wjts

              You, sir, are an idiot.

            • The only problem is it’s full of Texans.

              • And the weather.

              • cpinva

                “The only problem is it’s full of Texans.”

                that can be fixed.

            • MAJeff

              Cracker is nonresponsive. Shock.

            • Walt

              Atlanta is in Texas? Mind. Blown.

        • Colin Day

          One of Sherman’s corps commanders, Jefferson C. Davis (not to be confused with Jefferson F. Davis), once had a bridge cut behind his army, leading to the death or capture of newly freed slaves who were following Sherman’s army.

          • rea

            Davis was quite the piece of work. Earlier in the war, he shot his commanding officer dead–and had the politcal pull to get away with it.

            • Aimai

              Woah! History is amazing. Not only is Jefferson C. Davis a pretty awful fellow during the war but after the war he is instrumental in ending the St. Louis Strike about which I knew nothing before I googled Davis:

              Generally accepted as the first general strike in the United States, the 1877 St. Louis general strike grew out of the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. The general strike was largely organized by the Knights of Labor and the Marxist-leaning Workingmen’s Party, the main radical political party of the era. When the railroad strike reached East St. Louis, Illinois in July 1877, the St. Louis Workingman’s Party led a group of approximately 500 people across the river in an act of solidarity with the nearly 1,000 workers on strike.[1] The party transformed, through speeches and organization, an initial strike among railroad workers into a strike by thousands of workers in several industries for the eight-hour day and a ban on child labor. One speaker was noted to say,

              “ All you have to do, gentlemen, for you have the numbers, is to unite on one idea – that workingmen shall rule the country. What man makes, belongs to him, and the workingmen made this country.[1] ”
              At another large rally a black man spoke for those who worked on the steamboats and levees. He asked, “Will you stand to us regardless of color?” The crowd shouted back, “We will!”[1]

              The St. Louis strike was marked by a bloodless, efficient and quick take-over by dissatisfied workers of commerce and transportation in the area. By July 22, the St. Louis Commune began to take shape as representatives from almost all the railroad lines met in East St. Louis. They soon elected an executive committee to command the strike and issued General Order No. 1, halting all railroad traffic other than passenger and mail trains. John Bowman, the mayor of East St. Louis, was appointed arbitrator of the committee. He helped the committee select special police to guard the property of the railroads from damage.

              The strike reached the business sector by closing packing industry houses surrounding the National Stockyards. At one plant workers allowed processing of 125 cattle in return for 500 cans of beef for the workers. The strike continued to gain momentum, with coopers, newsboys, gasworkers, boatmen, bakers, engineers, cabinetmakers, cigarmakers, brewery workers, millers, and workers of various factory jobs all joining the general strike.[1] Though the East St. Louis strike continued in an orderly fashion, across the river there were isolated incidents of violence with one speaker stating, “The workingmen intend now to assert their rights, even if the result is the shedding of blood…. They are ready to take up arms at any moment.”[1]

              The strike was ended when some 3,000 federal troops and 5,000 deputized special police killed at least eighteen people in skirmishes around the city. On July 28, 1877, they took control of the Relay Depot, the Commune’s command center, and arrested some seventy strikers.[1] With the leadership imprisoned, the strikers surrendered, the wage cuts remained, and 131 strike leaders were fired by the Burlington Railroad.[2

              • Judkins Major

                If memory serves, he was also the first American governor of Alaska, and performed as well there as he did in his other endeavors (pissed off the local Russian and native communities so badly that he was recalled). I remember seeing his name in one of those Time-Life “Old West” books and doing a double-take.

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      sure. there’s the ‘brag about our fighting capabilities’ side and the ‘we were victimized by people with better fighting capabilities’ side

    • Colin Day

      The Confederates seized the arsenal at Alexandria, LA, and turned over part of the haul to the Louisiana Military Academy (now LSU). The superintendent who had to sign for it? William Tecumseh Sherman, who was none too pleased about it.

  • Anonymous

    The civil war was the only war America ever lost on its own soil. People say the north won, but the south lost, and last i checked they’re still a part of the usa. Factor in the loss of life on both sides, and the fact that the north had to rebuild the south straight after fucking it right up, and yeah, you can file this one under the loss category. K.

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      I imagine the descendants of the slaves would chalk it up as a win

      • Aimai

        I agree with Jim. Also the principle destruction wrought by the war to capital/property was in the freeing of the slaves. The South then couldn’t exploit the freed black population and its principle form of agriculture took a hit. But we shouldn’t have felt responsible for rebuilding that and there was nothing we could do to make up to the South for having to rely on paid labor. Their “loss” was not our “loss” as a country, but would have been very much to our gain if we hadn’t botched reconstruction.

        • Manny Kant

          How likely do you think it is that a very racist north wouldn’t botch reconstruction? I think it’s much more surprising that Reconstruction went as far as it did than that, eventually, northerners decided they weren’t going to maintain an indefinite occupation to preserve the rights of Black Americans in the face of Southern White resistance.

          We’re pretty lucky we got the 14th and 15th amendments out of it, to be honest.

          • Aimai

            I don’t think it was very likely at all that a “very racist north” wouldn’t botch reconstruction. But I can still mourn it.

            • Manny Kant

              Sure, I suppose. In that case, why not allow people to mourn the idea that it took a gigantic and bloody war to abolish slavery, rather than being done without bloodshed?

              It seems as though unrealistic thoughts like that are typically dismissed as neo-confederate wankery, while unrealistic thoughts like yours are just everywhere in any comment thread on a liberal blog about the Civil War.

              Both options seem like, if they could have happened, they’d have been better than what we got. But neither of them seems plausible at all. There’s a lot of plausible outcomes that seem like they’d be worse to me. For instance, if Seward had been the Republican nominee in 1860, as he very nearly was, it’s possible we’d have President Breckinridge in 1861. Fort Sumter could easily have ended up surrendered right after secession. One could easily imagine that Lincoln as president would have managed to remain in control of Reconstruction and proposed more moderate Reconstruction policies than the radicals did. Horatio Seymour might have won the 1868 election, ending reconstruction in 1869 (before the 15th Amendment) instead of 1877. If Clay had won the 1844 election, it’s quite possible there’d have been no Mexican-American War, which could indefinitely delay any Civil War over slavery. If McClellan had taken Richmond in 1862, the Civil War might have ended with slavery still basically intact. The Confederates might have held out long enough in 1864 to get McClellan elected, with who knows what consequences.

              I’m certainly not going to say we’re living in the best of all possible worlds, but I do think it’s very hard to see how Reconstruction could have plausibly gone much further than it did, while it’s rather easy to see how things might have been worse. It seems strange to me that so much of the focus is on a “what might have been” that really could never have been.

              • Aimai

                Not a lot of focus at all. I don’t see what your grievance is. I’m not writing an alternative history. But the fact of the matter is that African Americans and some Northerners fought hard to prevent Reconstruction from going down the tubes–it was not at all a forgone conclusion for them that the North was going to go for a soft focus reunion with the south. There were many points at which history could have gone another way.

                Discussing this or alluding to it isn’t some crime of fantasy–its a rebuttal to the insistence by the neo confederates that they were abused ruthlessly by the North. People like me who feel Reconstruction was botched and that we forgave the white south at the expense of the workers and the black freedmen are making an entirely different kind of argument–we are denying another legend of the South that it was forced to suffer like the Germans suffered after Versailles. We are denying them another myth of the lost cause.

                • Manny Kant

                  I don’t really disagree with any of this, but I do get rather sick of the frequent trope whenever the Civil War comes up on liberal blogs of people talking about how the North should have “gotten tough” with ex-confederates and hung them all, or whatever, which seems totally facile to me. The fact that we had to wait a century after the end of the Civil War for African Americans to be given full civil rights is a tremendous tragedy, but I do think it’s rather hard to see how things could have turned out significantly better.

                  I also think that this line of thought has a tendency to excuse the North of its very significant racism, and to identify us, good liberals of the early 21st century, with 19th century people who are really very different from us. In spite of the completely admirable efforts of African Americans and a small group of white northerners to ensure civil rights for Blacks, it seems to me that we should really recognize how unlikely that outcome ultimately was. That obviously doesn’t mean we should buy into Lost Cause narratives, but we should also be wary of narratives that act as though there’s some “but for” without which we could have had a much better outcome.

                  I’d add that German suffering after Versailles is almost as much of a myth as Lost Cause nonsense.

    • Since you are a horrible human being and a racist, I am not surprised you see the Civil War this way.

      • Anonymous

        Since you are a horrible human being and a racist…

        That is such a pantsload.

        • DrDick

          No, you are the pantload.

        • trollhattan

          Hey there, Jonah.

    • Hogan

      the south lost, and last i checked they’re still a part of the usa.

      Despite their best efforts to change that. So no points.

      • Davis X. Machina

        Half of that statement is right, to be sure.

        But as we race into a low-wage, low-social provison, low-tax, low-regulation future based on extractive industries, with those of us still working as badly-paid, non-organized, workers providing personal services to the wealthy, I’m not sure which half.

        Eventually the result will be the entire nation winding up a half-empty strip mall in the far Atlanta exurbs.

        • Manny Kant
          • Davis X. Machina

            That’s perfect. But then, it’s the Onion. They’re like that.

            • Manny Kant

              Read it while listening to that Los Lonely Boys song and its perfection increases to the breaking point.

      • Unhinged Liberal

        Despite their best efforts to change that.

        Please explain why, if the Southern states are sooooo…..horrible, why liberals fight so hard to keep them from seceding from the union?

        • Kingfish

          Those sweet tariffs, of course.

          • Colin Day

            Those sweet tariffs potatoes, of course.

            FTFY

        • Colin Day

          So that the Southern states don’t screw over American citizens. You did know that citizenship is a federal matter, didn’t you?

        • Seitz

          Everyone makes mistakes.

      • Anonymous

        Despite their best efforts to change that.

        It the South is soooo….horrible and terrible, why in the world would you fight so hard to keep these states in the union??

        • EthanS

          For the 55% Democratic majority in those red states. Everyone who is prevented or inconvenienced from voting. The disenfranchised, the waiting voters, the harassed voters, the felons, the immigrants, the young adults, the children… All the people you’d like to ignore.

    • I think you need to think harder about what “civil war” means. And the government that was in charge of the country at the beginning of the war, and represented the majority of citizens, was in charge of the country at the end of the war.

      You might want to look up “won” and “lost” while you’re at it.

    • BubbaDave

      Not nearly enough loss of life. If we’d tried every rebel officer for treason and hanged the lot of them, maybe Reconstruction would have worked and the South wouldn’t be the backwards quasi-feudal parasite on real (productive) America that it is today.

      (Granted, I might not be here either, since I’m not sure whether great-great grandpa would have produced great-grandpa before his hypothetical hanging, but America would be a better place nonetheless.)

      • Murc

        This.

        The fact that Jefferson Davis and assorted others didn’t… I’m against the death penalty on moral and practical grounds, so I don’t want to say “swing”, but they should never have looked upon the sun as free men for the rest of their lives. (Davis was almost returned to Congress, for gods sake, and would have been if he’d been less prideful.)

        • Lee Rudolph

          Davis was almost returned to Congress, for gods sake, and would have been if he’d been less prideful.

          Do you think the House would have seated him?

          • Alexander Stevens was returned to Congress and the House did not seat him, nor any of the other ex-Confederates the South sent in December 1865.

            • Anonymous

              Alexander Stevens was returned to Congress and the House did not seat him, nor any of the other ex-Confederates the South sent in December 1865.

              Exactly!

              They said they wanted to keep the union together, but gave them no voice in congress.

              Yeah…that.

              • Unhinged Liberal

                democracy’s a bitch!

              • Kingfish

                Yea, it’s almost like they expected the defeated traitors to act in bad faith and return Congress to it’s pre-Civil War antics.

                Or something.

                • Anonymous

                  yeah, let’s give them NO VOICE and call it democracy!!

                • Kingfish

                  Tell you what, I’d be perfectly willing to give all neo-Confederates a voice in our democracy, equal to 3/5s their population.

              • Nietzsche

                If the leaders of the South didn’t like being losers, maybe they should have tried winning the fucking war.

                • Or they could have been smarter and less evil and not committed treason to defend slavery.

                  I’m just spit-balling here.

                • Jennifer Steele

                  They just wanted out.

                  Pretty much all they wanted…

                  The North could have avoided more than three quarters of a billion deaths of breadwinners simply by allowing them to leave.

                  …bu NOOOOOooooooo…..

                  Say it ain’t so…

                • 750 million people totally died in the Civil War.

                • How did their slaves feel about it, you pathetic piece of shit?

                • N__B

                  I don’t know how Erik’s comment snuck above mine, but I wasn’t responding to him. Check the time stamps and the kerning.

                • DrS

                  I don’t know how Erik’s comment snuck above mine, but I wasn’t responding to him.

                  Just one more example of how Loomis ruthlessly crushes the commentariat.

              • Walt

                Dude, what’s wrong with you that you’re going to defend traitors? People who committed treason in the defense of slavery, at that.

                • Murc

                  To be overly fair, I myself got no beef with traitors. This country was founded in a massive, concerted act of treason.

                  But the southern states committed treason in a fit of pique in order to continue being evil. Even if secession had been legal and not an act of treason, it still would have been wrong because of those facts.

                • Aimai

                  I’ve got a beef with traitors. Under the British we didn’t have democracy–by the time the South was trying to secede we did, however imperfect. The South were traitors to democracy itself. They took an oath to the country, they participated in the elections and in the taxes of the country as a whole, they wanted to use the military that belonged to the country as a whole–and they then pulled out of the compact because they didn’t like the direction the country as a whole appeared to be going in.

          • Murc

            The Senate, actually, not the House. And they might have seated him; the way I hear it, the votes were there to remove his 14th Amendment ineligibility to hold office if only he’d have made some public statements of contrition.

            He declined the position, however, so moot point. But still.

      • Anonymous

        Not nearly enough loss of life.

        What an ASSHOLE

        • BubbaDave

          Most of my closest friends would agree that I am capable of being not only an ASSHOLE, but an ASSHOLE. And yet, I don’t find myself defending treason against the United States. Or slavery. Or treason in defense of slavery. Or racism in general.

          So frankly, I may be an asshole, or even an ASSHOLE, and I’m still a better person than you.

          Maybe suicide is your best option at this point. Just sayin’.

    • bexley

      On this side of the Atlantic, I heard a bunch of insurrectionists were put down by the US government. I’d call that a win for the US and a loss for the traitors despite their subsequent whining.

    • UserGoogol

      Ignoring the potential subtext to your comment, that’s not entirely true anyway. During the American Revolution there were plenty of Loyalists who weren’t especially happy with how the Revolution played out. That side of the war was largely “The British” but plenty of Americans lost too. And of course Native Americans lost quite a few wars on American soil. They weren’t formally tied into the political structure of the United States in the same way as the Confederates and the Loyalists, but they certainly lost and they certainly weren’t happy about it. The Civil War was unique in a lot of ways, but it wasn’t the only time a subset of Americans found themselves unhappy with how a war fought on American soil ended up. And if the Civil War was a loss for America, what war isn’t? Even with wars fought overseas, we can get immigrants coming over afterwards.

      • A full 20% of colonists were Tories.

        • DrS

          Fortunately, we’ve mostly whittled that down to just Andrew Sullivan.

        • Anonymous

          I’m pretty sure you take it up the ass.

          • MAJeff

            Bobby’s getting himself worked up before heading to the rest area.

            • Anonymous

              This from someone that has calluses in his rectum…

              • MAJeff

                You should get that checked out, Jenny.

                • Anonymous

                  this coming from someone that brags about taking it up the rear.

                  Great!

                • Nietzsche

                  Why would a moderator ever, ever delete a comment from such an erudite ray of sunshine and good cheer?

                • MAJeff

                  this coming from someone that brags about taking it up the rear.

                  I don’t recall ever saying anything about anything I’ve ever done sexually.

                  Your fantasies are getting the best of you again.

                • Anonymous

                  Great. Mr. MAJeff…

                  This is your opportunity to tell the world that you’re not a homosexual.

                  The floor is yours, Sir….

                • Manny Kant

                  So Anonymous is suggesting that “being openly gay” is synonymous with “bragging about taking it up the rear”?

        • Bloix

          Perhaps low if “colonists” means free whites. John Adams thought that a third of the colonists were Loyalists. Definitely low if you’re looking at all the inhabitants. Free blacks appear to have been Loyalists, and although nobody asked the slaves their objective interests were with the British.

          A few decades ago, I was bicycling in Nova Scotia and needed to ask directions. Go straight 3 miles, I was told, and then left up Nigger Hill. I did a little research when I returned home and discovered that thousands of black soldiers had fought with the British and many after the war became refugees in the Maritime colonies, in order to avoid re-enslavement.

          • Aimai
          • Bruce Vail

            It’s my recollection that one point in the war the British offered freedom to slaves who would join in the fight against the Revolution. At war’s end, many pro-British Americans, black and white were evacuated.

            • Aimai

              Yes, the book I linked Black Patriots and Loyalists covers the revolutionary period issue very thoroughly and tracks down, as much as can be done, the diaries and letters of the slaves who fought for the British in the expectation that they would be granted freedom.

              • Bloix

                And right on point, today’s Pulitzer winner in history:

                “The Internal Enemy: Slavery and War in Virginia, 1772-1832,” by Alan Taylor (W.W. Norton), a meticulous and insightful account of why runaway slaves in the colonial era were drawn to the British side as potential liberators.

                http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2014-History

    • cpinva

      “Factor in the loss of life on both sides, and the fact that the north had to rebuild the south straight after fucking it right up, and yeah, you can file this one under the loss category. K.

      please elucidate on this. specifically, what reconstruction-era “Marshal Plan” was put in place, paid for by taxes drawn from those states that constituted the union states, during the war? I ask, because I don’t recall ever having read/heard/seen of any such federal programs.

    • Unhinged Liberal

      …you can file this one under the loss category.

      It would be extremely difficult for anyone to say that up to 800,000 deaths is not a loss. Especially when you consider that the 800,000 deaths were breadwinners. There was no social safety net. The loss of these soldiers cause the misery of millions who depended on them for support.

      • cpinva

        so, you have no evidence then? I didn’t really think you did, but such an obvious change of topic leads me to believe LGM truly needs to hire a better class of trolls. for less than minimum wage of course, since they are all “free market” kinds of folks.

      • Pseudonym

        And it’s hard to say that liberating 3.9 million people isn’t a win, but you’ll still say it.

        • KmCO

          Why, it’s almost as if JenKnob doesn’t consider black lives to be as valuable as white lives!

          • Walt

            That’s what the “breadwinner” stuff has got to mean.

            • DrS

              I took that to be due to his raging sexism.

              • delurking

                Raging sexism and raging racism.

                It’s clear that he only counts as white males as “real” people — they’re the only ones whose work is real work, they’re the only ones whose lives are real lives.

                Makes you wonder why he thinks the Southern slaveholders fought so hard to hang onto their slaves, if the work those slaves were doing was so empty of value.

                • DrS

                  You know, I had half a sentence I there about how it’s very likely that it falls right in the intersection between his misogyny and is racism, but that half sentence fell at the intersection with bedtime.

                  It’s at least both.

  • Bloix

    Forrest was a mass murderer. Sherman was not a war criminal by any definition, old or modern.

    On the destruction of Columbia, from the North Carolina History Project:

    Sherman claimed the town was already on fire when he arrived… it was likely caused by rogue Union soldiers and retreating Confederates…Pillaging was rampant against Sherman’s wishes, and Sherman spent much of the night protecting citizens, putting out the fires, and arresting disorderly soldiers. Three hundred and seventy soldiers were placed under arrest, two were killed, and thirty wounded. Sherman himself ordered the arrest of a drunken private and had the man shot when he resisted arrest.

    http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/882/entry

    • Anonymous

      Sherman claimed the town was already on fire when he arrived…

      Yeah…they just set themselves on fire as soon as they saw the Union forces coming.

      Who wouldn’t?

      • Bloix

        19th century cities were tinderboxes – wooden structures, most of them with fires burning in them for cooking, and for smithies and engines and all sorts of industrial and commercial reasons. Columbia was more fire-prone than most, with its warehouses stuffed with cotton. When the Union army approached, the civilian and military leadership of the city could have arranged an orderly surrender of the city. They chose to evacuate, leaving no public authority to watch over what was in effect a stack of dry wood and fiber with an open fire every few hundred yards. A larger city, Moscow, had burned under similar circumstances 40 years earlier.

        • Jhoosier

          Thanks for the illuminating comment. Pity it had to come here, but I at least got something useful out of it.

        • rea

          And also, the Confederates routinely burned cotton and other stored goods to keep them from falling into Union hands–which sometimes led to the whole town burning down.

      • DocAmazing

        It’s actually a fairly common tactic in wartiem: retreating forces who don’t give a shit about the local population will burn buildings and crops to deny them to the advancing forces. Kinda takes a bit of the polish off all that Confedrate gallantry feces.

        • Anonymous

          Speculation is….just that.

          But tjhanks for playing, anyway!

          • Bloix

            I don’t think the Confederates intentionally burned Columbia. I think the city burned by itself, perhaps helped along by Union soldiers who were happy to see the cotton warehouses flame into the sky. What is pretty clear is that Sherman did not plan to torch the city and that fire was an obvious risk that could have been avoided if the Confederates had left a skeleton force to surrender, thus allowing an orderly transfer of control.

            • Anonymous

              What is pretty clear is that Sherman did not plan to torch the city and that fire was an obvious risk that could have been avoided if the Confederates had left a skeleton force to surrender, thus allowing an orderly transfer of control.

              Fuck YEAH! It’s all their fault. They just set themselves on FIRE!

              Great stuff!

              • cpinva

                have some pancakes my dear, with some nice, tasty strychnine syrup.

              • owlbear1

                Fuck YEAH! It’s all their fault. They just set themselves on FIRE!

                The South continues ‘set itself on fire’ to this very day.

                • DrS

                  Jennie comes here and sets his hair on fire every day.

                  A man’s gotta have his traditions.

  • wjts

    Your obvious bias is showing. Surely it would be more accurate to say that, “Brave Confederate soldiers – already understandably upset by the abrogation of state’s rights and unfairly high tariffs inflicted on them by northern aggressors – were deliberately and maliciously provoked into defending themselves by the colored troops illegally occupying Fort Pillow.”

    • “Stand Your Ground” revisionism….

      • DrDick

        The Zimmerman defense.

      • Sharon

        It was the banjo rap that set them off.

    • efgoldman

      Couldn’t have snarked it better myself, so I won’t try.

    • Your civil war was of course about slavery. If you fought for the insurrectionists, you were definitely fighting for a so-called country that made the “right” to own your fellow men and women the most protected in the law of the land (emphasis original):

      Overall, the CSA constitution does not radically alter the federal system that was set up under the United States constitution. It is thus very debatable as to whether the CSA was a significantly more pro-“states’ rights” country (as supporters claim) in any meaningful sense. At least three states rights are explicitly taken away- the freedom of states to grant voting rights to non-citizens, the freedom of states to outlaw slavery within their borders, and the freedom of states to trade freely with each other.

      States only gain four minor rights under the Confederate system- the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute “bills of credit.” When people champion the cause of reclaiming state power from the feds, are matters like these at the tops of their lists of priorities?

      As previously noted, the CSA constitution does not modify many of the most controversial (from a states’ rights perspective) clauses of the American constitution, including the “Supremacy” clause (6-1-3), the “Commerce” clause (1-8-3) and the “Necessary and Proper” clause (1-8-18). Nor does the CSA take away the federal government’s right to suspend habeus corpus or “suppress insurrections.”

      • wjts

        Your civil war was of course about slavery.

        Nonsense. This position has been definitively refuted by any number of badly punctuated and egregiously misspelled YouTube comments. And MY civil war (i.e., the only one I’m fairly confident any of my ancestors fought in) was about defending the divine right of kings against the rebellion of the Parliamentarian rabble.

  • Nuh-uh, because it is the War of Northern Aggression, therefore everything the South did was in self-defense.

    Also, WNA — NWA. Coincidence? I. Think. Not.

    • N__B

      NAW.

  • Anonymous

    If it promotes the political agenda of minorities….Erik’s all over it like Oprah on a baked ham!

    If it doesn’t….not so much…

    • DrS

      It’s such a mystery why you get labeled a racist

      • Anonymous

        Hey, I’m for fairness…and that includes ALL racists.

        It’s called FAIRNESS and it’s called EQUALITY.

        To do otherwise is biased and racist.

        • Anonymous

          errr…”races”

          Just washed my fingers and can’t do a thing with them…

          • Unhinged Liberal

            Hey…there’s nothing wrong with advocating for fairness of all parties.

            • MAJeff

              Oh, goody, JenBob’s making its conversation with the voices public.

              • Unhinged Liberal

                That’s not me.

                I’m still not going to fuck you.

                • DrDick

                  An nobody is ever going to fuck you.

                • Anonymous

                  I think if he were gay…he could do much better…

                • MAJeff

                  I have.

                • Unhinged Liberal

                  An nobody is ever going to fuck you.we

                  when you grow a vagina….call me.

                • Oh like women are going to have sex with you?

                • Manny Kant

                  JenBob is so hard up for sex that he’d be up for it with DrDick, should the good Doctor unaccountably grow a vagina. Have I got that right?

      • wjts

        Auguste Dupin, Velma, and Snoopy in a deerstalker hat working together wouldn’t be able to crack the Mysterious Case of Why the Racist Racist Who Kept Saying Racist Shit Got Called a Racist.

        • Unhinged Liberal

          If someone that you don’t know and have no ties with, labels you, does it mean that you have no voice?

    • Stinky

      If it promotes the political agenda of minorities….Erik’s all over it like Oprah on a baked ham!

      If it doesn’t….not so much….

      Exactly!

  • DB

    Nathan Bedford Forrest has long had my vote for the most vile, despicable human to ever claim to be an American.

    A pre-war slave trader, he was responsible for the massacre at Fort Pillow and a founder and member of the Ku Klux Klan terror organization. He made his post-war living by trading in the forced labor of convicts.

    No one can match his record for plain evil.

    • Anonymous

      It was a hundred and fifty years ago! It’s called HISTORY.

      Try arguing something that is relevant.

    • Please don’t challenge the creeps.

      • Anonymous

        call me when you’re not on the rag

        • Kingfish

          “call me when you’re not on the rag”
          “when you grow a vagina….call me.”

          I’m sensing a desperate pattern here.

          • MAJeff

            We’ve got a misogynist who’s obsessed with gay sex.

            apparently, Andrew Sullivan has been trolling us for years.

            • efgoldman

              Andrew’s more polite.
              Just as wrong, but sort of civil about it.

          • KmCO

            And yet, you’re posting comment after inane comment in this thread, strongly implying that the history of violence against black people is very relevant for you. Can’t imagine why that is.

            • Anonymous

              I was not alive. I committed no crime.

              Yet Erik Loomis wants me to pay.

              I will not yield to his demands that I should pay for any perceived sins of those who came before me.

              If Mr. Loomis were black, he would be largely labeled by all as a race traitor.

              As it is, he’s just misguided. He sits in a cushy de facto government job and carps at the world because it’s not the way he thinks it should be.

              Has he *ever* had a REAL job?

              • KmCO

                Paranoia will destroy ya.

                • The prophet Nostradumbass

                  Heh heh.

                  Well I fell asleep, then I woke feelin’ kinda’ queer
                  Lola looked at me and said, “ooh you look so weird.”
                  She said, “man, there’s really something wrong with you.
                  One day you’re gonna’ self-destruct.

              • cpinva

                “Yet Erik Loomis wants me to pay.”

                evidence, please.

          • KmCO

            What are the odds that he’s been within a foot of an actual vagina? Apart from his own birth, that is.

            • Now I’m stuck with a mental image of him as Tantalus, chained to a rock so that he can see the vagina but can never slake his thirst.

              • Anonymous

                At least he has a thirst for a vagina!

                • cpinva

                  “nothing could be finer than to be in your vagina in the morr-orr-ning!”

                  well, not yours of course.

          • Aimai

            I think one part of the pattern is that he has a telephone fetish.

            • Kingfish

              “Call me any, any time.”

    • Murc

      Nathan Bedford Forrest has long had my vote for the most vile, despicable human to ever claim to be an American.

      Really? You think he beats out William Quantrill? Because I gotta say, I think Quantrill really has an edge on evil over Forrest. Other Confederates thought he was a vile savage. That’s an impressive hurdle to clear.

      • Quantrill at least died before the war ended, and thus didn’t have a chance to found any terrorist organizations. A lot of Forrests’s infamy comes from his post-war life. It’s a thin slice between one and the other, maybe…

        • wjts

          Quantrill’s bushwackers were pretty damn terroristic.

          • Yes — I hope I didn’t sound like I was minimizing Quantrill. I just meant that Forrest may be considered a worse villain mostly because he was more influential among future terrorists.

            • wjts

              No, I think we’re both more or less on the same page here.

      • Aimai

        Other confederates thought he was horrible because he killed primarily white people.

        • delurking

          Yes. Exactly.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, good things came from the civil war like the end of slavery, but lots of Americans died, and half the country was laid to waste. And of course, southerners did horrible things to freed slaves. That too is part of the high cost of freedom that was paid in American blood. I’ll say it again, the civil war is the only war America ever lost on its own soil. If you count it as a win, thats like burning down your barn to rid it of mice. Sure, you accomplished your goal, but now you need to rebuild your barn and replace the contents.

    • Hogan

      half the country was laid to waste

      Nowhere near half.


      thats like burning down your barn to rid it of mice.

      Heavily armed and belligerent mice who insist the barn and everything in it belongs to them.

      • N__B

        Heavily armed and belligerent mice who insist the barn and everything in it belongs to them.

        When I have this nightmare, it’s roaches not mice.

  • Anonymous

    Really, there are a lot of dead slaves that never tasted freedom because their masters just shot them. To assume that white people only died in the civil war is racist. To insinuate that the freeing of slaves was worth spilling the most blood on American soil since Columbus staggered off his boat is just plain ignorant. K

    • bad Jim

      So what did Lincoln do to make the South secede?

      • Emily68

        He won the election in 1860.

    • Aimai

      Serious question–is there some troll moron factory where Anonymous (K) goes to get his greenstamps where “To assume that white people only died inthe civil war is racist” is a points winning argument? We’ve talked a lot about the right wing attempt to use what they think of as “taboo” or “totemic” words to defend their nonsense arguments but this may take the cake (of course, I should also give props to “Lincoln might have regretted not offering to pay more for the slaves if he hadn’t been murdered by one of the kinds of people he needed to treat with in the run up to the war…”)

      A) No one has argued that only white people died in the war.
      B) Your argument is literally that “some black people were shot by their white masters.” Since their masters had the power of life and death over them prior to the war, its not an argument against the war. Its an argument against masters.

      • DrS

        is there some troll moron factory where Anonymous (K) goes to get his greenstamps where “To assume that white people only died inthe civil war is racist” is a points winning argument?

        vdare.com?

  • Anonymous

    Not going to/am not defending the perpetrators of this or any massacre. Simply stating that the civil war was a senseless conflict that cost us way too much in lives lost and American towns being laid to waste. If the north just bribed the south with the money they were about to spend on laying waste to the south and rebuilding it to free the slaves, about the same number of slaves would actually see freedom, and all those confederate and northern soldiers could have lived. K

    • bad Jim

      Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

    • The prophet Nostradumbass

      Shorter you: “The Union is really at fault because they didn’t bribe the Confederates to abandon their treasonous campaign”. You are an appalling asshole who deserves to be shunned everywhere.

    • Murc

      If the north just bribed the south with the money they were about to spend on laying waste to the south and rebuilding it to free the slaves, about the same number of slaves would actually see freedom, and all those confederate and northern soldiers could have lived

      This was impossible. You know why? Because you can’t buy and sell people.

      The many enslaved people in the United States at the time were not an asset to be bought and sold.

      • Manny Kant

        Eh. Plenty of countries ended slavery by paying off the slave-owners. That’s how it happened in the British, French, Dutch, and Danish Caribbean colonies, in most of Latin America, and in Washington, D.C., for instance.

        I have a very hard time with the idea that compensated emancipation is immoral per se. Isn’t it obviously better to pay off some assholes than to get thousands of people killed?

        The reason that Anonymous’s plan is impossible is what everyone below you has said – that there’s just no way the South would ever have accepted that deal. Again, they seceded not due to any actual threat of emancipation, but because they didn’t want people in charge who said slavery was wrong. It’s totally absurd to think they’d have been willing to accept proposals for compensated emancipation.

        • Murc

          Well, the proper response to a slaver is to knock them on the head and force them to compensate those they’ve wronged tenfold.

          “Compensating” them is grotesque. It makes a mockery of the word. If they offer violence because they wish to continue being vile, the proper response is to accept their offer.

          • jb

            Here’s the thing:

            Morally, you are absolutely right. It really is repugnant to compensate not the slaves (who, after all, were the ones who were wronged), but their masters (the very people who wronged them).

            However, practically speaking, the British government was not going to compensate the slaves, or even not compensate the owners. Had that been tried, it is quite possible that it would never even have passed Parliament, let alone been enforced. One could argue that in certain countries, compensating the slave owners was the only politically possible way that slavery could actually be abolished.

            • jb

              And I would say that even the “compensated”(for the owners) emancipation that many places adopted was still better than letting slavery continue.

    • Sly

      If the north just bribed the south with the money they were about to spend on laying waste to the south and rebuilding it to free the slaves, about the same number of slaves would actually see freedom, and all those confederate and northern soldiers could have lived.

      Compensated emancipation depends upon slave owners agreeing to the “sale.” Lincoln spent the entirety of 1862 trying to convince the border states to agree to compensated emancipation. None of them were even remotely interested.

      And this wasn’t states like Mississippi, Georgia, or Virginia, where the slave population rose to near half a million in each state and the slaves made up a quarter to a half of the entire population. This was Deleware, which had less than 2,000 enslaved persons (less than 2% of the state population).

      Republicans broadly understood that the end of slavery would only come out by one of two means; by isolating the slave states and gradually making the institution more troublesome to keep than to preserve, or by military force. Their only mistake was assuming that the slave states would prefer the former to the latter.

    • lillois

      To take you seriously for a moment, what makes you think the South would have taken the bribe? Southerners demonstrated throughout the war, e.g. the union slaveholders of Kentucky and Maryland, that they would refuse offers to compensation for their slaves even in 1865, when the end was clear.

      Slavery wasn’t just an economic proposition for Southerners, it was a value dearly held, the organizing principle of their culture, and why would they have taken money in 1860 that would have changed all that?

      And then of course is the serious stupidity of the idea from a practical standpoint. In 1860 and early 1861 was the North just going to tax itself for this “bribe”? I assume the South would have refused to contribute a dime. And if Northern politicians had been fool hardy enough to tax only Northern states to the amount of 3 billion or so (which was real money in those days) just to pay Southerners to free slaves, then what follows? Would the southerners have treated the ex slaves any better than after Reconstruction, and without the minimum guarantees of 13th-15th Amendments? How long before debt peonage becomes the equivalent?

      So in your theory Southerners would get 3 billion, pretend to free their slaves, trap most of them in regimes even more white supremacist than Jim Crow and then use their politcal weight in congress to block any further amelioration of conditions.

      That’s your idea of how the Civil War ws to be prevented?

      White Southerners would give up their slaves and their slave society only at the point of a bayonet. And that’s what it took, a bloody expensive bayonet.

      • grouchomarxist

        This. The South was far too psychologically invested in slavery to voluntarily end it.

    • Barbara

      Actually, Lincoln floated the idea of compensated emancipation — paying for freeing the slaves. He couldn’t get any political traction for the idea even in Kentucky.

  • Anonymous

    Lincoln freed the slaves after the start of the civil war. They were kicking around the idea of freeing the slaves, the south said fuck that, we’ll secede, the north said fuck that, you can’t secede, a war started, then Lincoln issued the emancipation proclaimation, with the thinking that the south could not wage war without slaves working the fields keeping the economy going. K.

  • Anonymous

    Well someone should have told the south that before they started importing Africans. Someone should also have informed the African slave traders before they sold fellow Africans to be used as farm implements abroad. Seems they thought it was perfectly fine. Their reasons were purely economic, they would like to have someone else work their cotton fields and they would like to not have to pay them anything. Seems to me that talking to them in a language they understood ($) could have achieved the result of freeing slaves, sans millions of dead soldiers. K.

    • lillois

      Is this in reply to anything in particular?

    • LittlePig

      So basically you wanted to set up the existing red state welfare system (i.e. more in from the fed coffers than out paid in taxes) one hundred and fifty years earlier. Then, you say, the Southerners would have cooperated with the federal government.

      This explains the great love of the federal government widely held in red states today – they have been pacified with money.

      Right.

      • N__B

        Sound like a inch of free-loaders to me. I guess the Protestant work ethic only made it as far as Northerners and southern slaves.

  • Anonymous

    If Lincoln had lived longer, he may have, at some point after the war, regretted not offering a higher sum of cash for compensated emancipation, hindsight being 20/20 and all. K.

    • lillois

      Higher than he actually offered the Maryland slaveholders?

    • Aimai

      “If Lincoln had lived longer…” has to go down in the annals of Chutzpah right next to the Menendez Brothers pleading for mercy from the court because they were orphans.

    • KmCO

      And if he had lived even longer, he might have been in awe of those newfangled horseless carriages!

      • If he’d lived longer he could have offered to buy the slaves using bitcoins!

  • Anonymous

    Again, not defending the south, or saying they deserve the cash, but lots of people died. Lots of slaves were shot before they ever even got to think seriously about freedom. What sum of money do you people consider too much to pay to avoid bloodshed that makes all the wars we have been in in the past three decades combined look like a kindergarten slap fight? K.

    • lillois

      Again, how would that actually have happened? At what point in 1860 or 1861 was the Seceeding south ready to give up slavery and the idea of expanding slavery in exchange for cash? What makes you think White Supremacy was purely an economic proposition for them?

    • Pretty much every one of your comments here has been about defending the South. You’re just another Confederate apologist, and like all of them, you should die while on fire.

      • N__B

        I disagree with your second sentence. IMO, it should read “…whilst on fire.”

    • MAJeff

      At the time of the civil war, slaves were the largest source of property in the United States. They were worth more than the entire banking and railroad systems and all of the agriculturally productive land and mines. So, we’re talking about a LOT of money.

      But, here’s the other thing: the slave-owners didn’t want and wouldn’t take the money. They wanted their slaves. They attempted to leave the union not only to maintain slavery, but to extend it.

      You’re just babbling bullshit, and demonstrating how bugfucking stupid you are, yet again.

    • Sly

      Again, not defending the south, or saying they deserve the cash, but lots of people died.

      That you’re not posing the compensated emancipation question to the Slave Power – how much bloodshed was really necessary before they gave up the institution – does not make this statement appear genuine. Why was it the North’s obligation to bribe tyrants who would only accept a price in blood?

      • Aimai

        Also, to Sly’s other point, given that the North did offer to compensate the Slave Owners the onus was on the Slavers to accept–once they rejected the offers, which they did, the burden of guilt for “choosing” war belongs wholly to the South.

  • Judkins Major

    Very long-time reader, first-time commenter (I think).

    It’s interesting and depressing to read the Fort Pillow section in Shelby Foote’s history of the Civil War. He’s so desperate to exonerate Forrest of any stain (even allowing for his ruthlessness in earlier mentions) that his position appears to be “yes, black prisoners were disproportionately targeted, but it wasn’t a massacre.” Honestly, dude.

    I think this is also *by far* the dumbest I’ve ever seen your reigning troll (and that’s saying something). If I didn’t know any better, I’d almost think it was an LGM creation to make neo-Confederates look dumber (with which they need little help). At least K’s making actual points, insupportable as they are.

    • KmCO

      And also, K has enough anger management skills to not leak his psychosexual hang-ups for the entire world to see.

  • mike in dc

    Wiki sez Forrest made a self-serving speech about racial reconciliation a couple years before his death. I’m pretty sure the fond regard for him that some Southern whites hold has little to do with his late-discovered penitence, rejection of racism and message of equality and reconciliation, though.

    • rea

      Forrest later claimed that he tried to stop the massacre–well, he would naturally make that claim. But, it doesn’t matter. Whenever Confederate troops captured blacks in arms against them, a massacre was sure to result. John Breckinridge’s troops massacred black priosners at Saltville in 1864, though to his credit, he tried (and failed) to have subordinates responsible for the killing courtmartialed. Even St. Robert E. Lee’s troops massacred black prisoners after the Battle of the Crater. It’s the nature of slavery–slaveowners can’t tolerate their slaves taking up arms against them. Slavery is genocide.

      • Aimai

        Minor correction. Slavery is genocide with benefits.

        • rea

          Yeah, if you are a kinky-but-brilliant plantation owner, and your wife dies, you can find comfort by sleeping with her half-sister, who you happen to own.

  • Anonymous

    Sherman went easy on the South, adding insult to injury and further inflaming their rage. His farsighted generosity goes a long way in explaining why Lincoln’s admonition in early ’65 to “let ’em up easy” struck such a chord with him. He’d already done just that.

  • Anonymous

    So im to understand that the consensus here is that yes, it was worth the death of 70 million to free 4 million? K.

  • Anonymous

    Either way, being dead sucks way more than being a slave. One is not equal to the other. People died, towns were destroyed, then the north had to fix what they broke. If they had maybe offered the same amount they ended up paying for the war, slaveowners might have taken it. Could have avoided whatever the death toll was, or at least reduce the number of states in the war, thereby reducing casualties. Really, i would find it hard to believe that when faced with the choice of taking more money for their slaves, or going to war in their backyard, that southerners would have gone with the war in the backyard if the offer was high as the total cost of the civil war. K.

    • KmCO

      Either way, being dead sucks way more than being a slave

      Oh, thank you for being the authority to decide that once and for all. Why don’t you talk to people who have been freed from slavery/trafficking situations before deigning to speak for them, asshole?

      • KmCO

        Html fail. Figure it out for yourself.

      • wjts

        “Give me liberty, or don’t, but whatever you do, please don’t kill me!”

        – Patrick Henry K

    • You are a horrible human being whose life is a net negative on the world.

      • Patricia Kayden

        Thanks for this post. Never heard of this event before. My opinion about the US Civil War is that whatever it took to end slavery was worth it. What’s important to remember is that even after slavery ended, Jim Crow pretty much started right away and it took until around 40 years ago for Blacks to get their full citizenship rights.

        I have no tears for those who died in the Civil War who supported the enslavement of human beings.

  • KmCO

    Either way, being dead sucks way more than being a slave.

    Oh, thank you for being the authority to decide that once and for all. Why don’t you talk to people who have been freed from slavery/trafficking situations before deigning to speak for them, asshole?

  • Anonymous

    Yes, slavery sucks, but if being dead was better, slaves would have committed suicide. Really it was in the interest of the slave owner to keep the slaves content, at least so things run smoothly. If your workforce is continually making a run for it and/or killing themselves, you aren’t making any money. K.

    • Walt

      Dude, when you find yourself writing that slavery wasn’t so bad, you need to reconsider the sequence of life choices that led you to it. Most concentration camp victims didn’t kill themselves either.

  • Anonymous

    You can always get emancipated if you’re a slave. You can’t be emancipated back from the dead. K.

    • MAJeff

      Keep on derping for the Confederacy, brother!

  • Anonymous

    Don’t ever get to thinking that i defend the confederacy, the right side won that war. Actually, im against any civil war as a whole. Generally, civil wars don’t do anybody any good. Sure, slaves were emancipated, at great cost of both union and confederate life. Many slaves were executed for “escaping” or just shot before they even heard of emancipation, if they can’t have ’em nobody can was the thinking. If the south was reasoned with longer, and came around to the idea without the bloodiest shooting war ever fought here, more slaves would have gotten to actually see freedom, and less soldiers from both sides would have had to die. Just because someone was a confederate doesn’t mean they owned slaves. If you think about it, the actual soldiers out catching bullets for the confederacy probably weren’t rich enough to own slaves. K.

    • If the south was reasoned with longer

      Before or after they started the war?

    • MAJeff

      For a non-Confederate, you’re certainly hitting every single one of their talking points…and continuing to show that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Just like a neo-Confederate.

  • Pingback: Links 4/15/14 | Mike the Mad Biologist()

It is main inner container footer text