GOP/KKK: The Ted Poe Affair
Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) really, really, really supports the Iraq War. And in really, really, really supporting the war (and the troops) on the floor of the House, he quoted, of all people, one Nathan Bedford Forrest, a “successful Confederate general”.
Forrest was indeed a Confederate general, and quite a celebrated one, a “wizard of the saddle” (according to this bio), but what Poe neglected to mention was that Forrest was also a slave trader, a war criminal (see: Fort Pillow Massacre), and the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. For more on the real Forrest, rather than the one held in high regard by modern-day sympathizers and apologists, see this report by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Think Progress has the video/transcript of Poe’s remarks.
Eugene Volokh is right that Poe was quoting Forrest’s “famous military advice”. And he is also right that many highly quotable historical figures, such as Napoleon and Mao, Luther and Stalin, did or said or believed horrible things. And Ed Morrissey makes good points about “glass houses”.
All of which is to say: This is, in my view, much ado about not very much.
It was insensitive and perhaps stupid of Poe to quote Forrest, but he was not, in quoting him, endorsing his racism or the Klan. If anything, he was just exposing his own ignorance for public view.
Furthermore, this episode hardly proves that the Republican Party is racist.
Still, it was my good friend Steve Benen who started what has become a blogospheric maelstrom, linking to the original piece in Roll Call and providing the initial commentary. I must disagree with his assertion that this should “be a bigger deal,” that it is all “rather scandalous”. I must also therefore disagree with another friend, Melissa McEwan, who agrees with Steve. However, Steve and Melissa are quite right to mention the Republican Party’s “race problems,” with Melissa reminding us of the specific problems of the GOP’s recent past. This is precisely why I found Poe’s remarks insensitive and perhaps stupid, if not nearly as meaningful as Steve and Melissa found them.
This episode is getting quite a bit of attention at the moment, but what I take from it is that some politicians are amazingly ignorant and that Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a truly reprehensible man. That’s about it.
Genuine bigotry is to be found elsewhere.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
39 Responses to “GOP/KKK: The Ted Poe Affair”
This exemplifies the degeneracy as well as the stupidity of the Left.
“He said, ‘Git thar fustest with the mostest.’”
There’s nothing wrong with quoting any general who said such a thing, particularly in support of the “surge” in Iraq, and you losers on the Left are pathological when you engage in such stupid politics, mischaracterization of the GOP, and just plain idiocy by obscessing about the KKK and trying (and failing) to taint the GOP by association.
You aren’t intelligent enough to make intelligent criticism, such as to state it’s awfully late to claim we’re getting there “firstest.” That and other intelligent issues are over your childish heads. You’re too busy with more stupid, scummy matters.
*scowl*
Even though he is in the senate, perhaps the honorable Mr. Byrd could introduce legislation condemning all past and current members of the KKK. That would show ‘em!
This should be illegal! It should be banned! The instructor is racist!
http://mason.gmu.edu/~fdillon/military.htm
> perhaps the honorable
> Mr. Byrd could introduce
> legislation condemning
> all past and current
> members of the KKK
Without mention of his past, and co-sponsored by St. Barack Obama. *snicker*
What seems to be even more interesting about this subject is how defensive confederate apologists get. Mentioning the fact that people like Forrest were traitors to their country seems to be a violation of a sacred cow for apologists.
Ashen Shard wrote:
> how defensive confederate apologists get
You assume mistakenly. This is far from the first time you’ve been wrong.
> sacred cow for apologists
Worthless BS…
DLS, how am I wrong?
With his hit and run tactics NBF kept a very large army at bay for a long time. Regardless of the motivation or reprehensible character of the man his tactics are studied by many military organizations to this day. The same thing applies to Nazi generals like Rommel. If Poe had quoted something similar form Rommel I am guessing that would make him a Nazi. I guess if you’re a Republican from the south you ‘have†to be a racist. What he really needs to understand is that he needs a list of politically correct generals that he can quote to avoid this situation in the future.
> I guess if you’re a Republican
> from the south you ‘have†to
> be a racist.
The leftist critics emerging from the woodwork and from under their works are simply idiotic. Everyone knows the issue was that of military decision making, and nothing else — nothing else to decent, normal people, that is.
He should have scored brownie points by saying we need to build Iraq a new superhighway system, for “after all, we saw that Hitler had a great, even visionary idea back in the 1930s. In fact, Eisenhower was a copycat of Hitler!” My, how that would go over well with the loser crowd.
> DLS, how am I wrong?
Obviously we are not Confederate apologists, no matter how much you firmly believe or obscessed by that myth (which is a lie when you express it aloud).
Gratuituous remedial education provided — you’re welcome.
> With his hit and run tactics
> NBF kept a very large army
> at bay for a long time.
Note the irony regarding Iraq.
DLS,
I never called you or anyone else on here a Confederate apologist. I guess I should clarify … I made that statement recognizing this story is all over the blogosphere and how the mere mention of the fact that the Confederates were all traitors to the United States causes the apologists to get angry and defensive.
That also is a commentary on those who consistently call those who do not support this president or the war traitors. They will quote, celebrate, admire the Confederacy and its supporters without realizing the irony.
Also, if you want to argue the actual irrelevance of Poe’s quote, besides the fact that Forrest never said that, is how relevant tactics from another age with different technology are to the wars of today. Another irony there is that during the Civil War they were using tactics that were outdated considering the relative advancement of technology.
Michael,
You seem to want it both ways. You imply that one can quote an historical personage WITHOUT needing to be said to endorse all of their views, yet Poe quoting Forrest (probably apocryphally) on military matter is “…just exposing his own ignorance for public view.”
That doesn’t strike me as terribly consistent.
If the standard is supposed to be that Poe is stupid because other people will make illegimate rhetorical points about how quoting Forrest means one is a KKK supporter then what we are really dealing with here is simple nonsense, and poltical correctness of a particularly “know-nothing” variety.
Ashen,
So one would be allowed to quote Forrest as long as one also gives a long diquisition about how Civil War southerners were bad? If I quote Thomas Jefferson should I also have to preface every remark by stating how awful being a slave holder was?
You also state:
“That also is a commentary on those who consistently call those who do not support this president or the war traitors.”
Oh, so you were not actually referring to what this case is supposed to be about! You should have said that before! Although it does add a Monty Python aspect about the whole thing.
I was commenting on how unfortunate it is that persons in this country continue to celebrate traitors. It is in fact the moral equivalent of Germans celebrating their Nazi past. Typically I put those who are responsible for the continuation of the myths of the Confederacy as those who support the myth that the Holocaust was a story created by the American and Russian occupiers of Germany.
Ashen – to contrast, compare, and try to equate the Civil War and the Confederacy with Hitler is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?
And how does quoting a Civil War general rise to the level of Holocaust denial?
Forrest was a brilliant and successful leader. Also note that Sherman, who unleashed “total war” on the South investigated Forrest and found him not to be guilty of any crimes at Ft. Pillow.
As for his involvement with the KKK. Yes he did start it, but he started it as an organization to opposed those who were going down to the south to exploit the situation, and to take care of confederate widows and children. When factions of the KKK began to target blacks he told the KKK to disban and distanced himself from it.
People are ignorant of how he acted after the KKK was founded and only look at how it was after he left and got out of his control.
Look, one of my personal heroes in General Nathaniel Lyon, the Union officer who was the first general on either side to be killed during the Civil War (at the battle of Wilson’s Creek, near Springfield, Missouri. ) He is best known for saying, probably apocryphally, “Rather than allow you to dictate to my government on any matter, however insignificant, I would see every man, woman, and child in this state dead and buried. This means war.” So I hold no love for southern apolgetics. Yet this quote, particularly given the context, is in no way a southern apologetic. In the same fashion someone who quotes Erwin Rommel on desert warfare is NOT engaged in Nazi aplogetics. Sure there are some lunatics who do both of those things, but that doesn’t mean we have to turn our minds off and ignore context.
When I say “this quote” I meant the Forrest quote. Just keeping it all in context here.
AustinRoth,
The similarity I see is that they are both myths to protect those who were complicit in the actions of rogue governments. For Nazi Germany, the myth created was that American and Russian occupiers built the concentration camps etc., that way persons of rank in the Nazi regime could deny any guilt for taking part in the criminal regime. The Confederate myth was a construction to first explain why they lost; it was inevitable due to the superior man power and industry of the North. Why they fought; the Northerners were the aggressors, so they had to defend their rights. Also, to excuse their treachery, they stated that they were defending the true ideals of the founding fathers, when they truly were not. For both these were developed after the wars to excuse disgusting, even criminal behavior.
And the reason it is relevant to someone quoting a civil war general in a political position is because that quote, the message is meant for the type of people who believe and perpetuate that Confederate myth.
I hope that makes sense.
> the mere mention of
> the fact that the
> Confederates were
> all traitors to the
> United States causes
> the apologists to get
> angry and defensive.
No, the fact is that it was neurotic, not merely a form of ad hominem and attempted guilt by association, but neurotic, for a few extremists and others with questionable motives or minds to seize what side Forrest took (as well as his later activities) rather than address the real issue that had been raised in the first place, the validity of the “surge” concept and its timing. Then these people overreact at the response; any normal person would question or be irritated at the neurotic obscession with Forrest’s later political activities (as well as seize the opportunity to throw extra venom at the Confederacy, the South, and at the GOP).
> I was commenting on
> how unfortunate it is
> that persons in this
> country continue to
> celebrate traitors.
You are overreacting and mischaracterizing reality.
Your overreaction is similar to that of someone else who tries as hard to find even the best news about Iraq or anything else in the world positive about, or less negative about, the USA as instead the most negative possible.
> It is in fact the moral
> equivalent of Germans
> celebrating their Nazi
> past.
False analogy, false statement.
> Another irony there is that
> during the Civil War they
> were using tactics that were
> outdated considering the
> relative advancement of
> technology.
I’m aware of that. Lessons not learned in Crimean War learned or not learned during the Civil War (learned again in World War One); lessons not learned in Chechnya being learned in Iraq…
Of course, we’re extra nice. We could solve the urban combat problem Russian style if we chose, such as in Fallujah after the killings and corpse-burnings…but even though the USA and others (Israel) ties their hands behind their backs, they’re still the politically incorrect “bad guy”…
After all, Sherman didn’t tie his hands behind his back and you have no problem with that. We should make our enemies howl.
The KKK was a terrorist organization. Don’t you think the Shiite death squads think they are protected their widows and orphans? The South lost the war- so of course they were going to resent occupation. But that doesn’t excuse terrorism. How many lynchings took place because a black man might have looked at a white woman? Or to show the black community that they had to stay in its place? Talk about moral relativism!
I’m not going to condemn Ted Poe, without more evidence of his intent, but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do.
> Yet this quote, particularly
> given the context, is in no
> way a southern apologetic.
> In the same fashion someone
> who quotes Erwin Rommel
> on desert warfare is NOT
> engaged in Nazi aplogetics.
It is obvious, and shouldn’t require explaining!
[...] TMV’s Michael Stickings, on the other hand, wants to have it both ways: It was insensitive and perhaps stupid of Poe to [...]
DLS,
I’m not mischaracterizing reality. Only pointing out the mischaracterizations made by those who continue to celebrate the Confederacy. It is a problem that those who seem to continue to dismiss the side that opposes this illegal immoral war, which we are losing thanks to the incompetence of this administration and the GOP, celebrate and quote traitors to our country to support their position.
And if my analogy is false, then prove it without just dismissing it because it does not fit into your Weltanschauung. And if you think I am comparing the crimes of the Confederates to the Nazi murder of Jews, among many other groups, then don’t even try because I was not trying to make such a connection.
Ashen Shard said:
[false statements and projections, followed by]
> those who continue to
> celebrate the Confederacy
#@#$*(@#$ People are not “continuing to celebrate the Confederacy” [sic] and this remark was not aimed at such people. THE CONGRESSMAN’S REMARK WAS SOLELY ABOUT MILITARY POLICY.
> And if my analogy is false,
It is false as a matter of obvious fact.
> then prove it without just
> dismissing it because it does
> not fit into your
> Weltanschauung.
Now THERE is one hell of a projection of your own problem!
DLS,
If it was about military policy then he could have chosen a better quote. Maybe someone more towards the present since tactics have changed so much. You know, like Patton, Eisenhower, or MacArthur. Someone who is relevant to ALL Americans, not just the ones who perpetuate the memory of the Lost Cause.
Also, if it is ‘a matter of obvious fact’ then you should have no problem providing an actual rebuttal to what I have argued.
Well certainly Washington and Jefferson and Frankling, etc… were traitors to the British crown, but we consider them heroes. Washington, Jefferson, and many foudning fathers had slaves, but we continue to celebrate and quote them. The flag of the United States oversaw the genocide of native americans across the country… yet we honor and celebrate that same flag today. Our founding fathers are celebrated for writing the Constitution… the same constitution that counted slaves as 3/5 of a person and said the issue wouldnt be discussed by the federal government for 20 years.
Also remember that when Lincoln issued his famous Emancipation Proclamation it did NOT affect slaves in norther states or those in states under Union control, such as Tennessee! Now if ending slavery was the nobel moral cause that guided the north then why did Lincoln stop himself there? There were also political motivations to making the war about slavery– that was keeping the European powers out of it… afterall they had banned slavery in the preceding decades and couldnt be seen as supporting it. Now, I am from the north and am quite glad the union won… the north was able to push through ammendments to the constitution banning slavery, and granting the right to vote. However that doesnt take away from that fact that many fought for the south because they believed their homes were under attack.
Racism was not just a southern thing… in fact the highest concentration of Klan members for years was in the northern state of New Jersey!
So recognizing the achievments of southern generals, and the honor of southern generals (eg- Robert Lee) is by no means a disgrace or similar to being a Nazi sympathizer. Just as one can admire Rommel’s ability, or the revolutionary Blitzkreig tactics and not be considered a Nazi sympathizer.
Rugger,
Everything you say is true. I have no problem remembering achievements by either side. My whole point is that apologists try and create the Confederacy into this society, government of utopian ideals, when it certainly was not. Also, even though they were wrong about their assumption at the time, they did secede because they thought Lincoln was going to free the slaves. So for the South it was about preserving a way of life based on slavery, in the North (for Lincoln) it was about preserving the Union. In fact, if the South had rejoined before the issuance of the Final Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln would have allowed the states to decide whether to continue slavery or abolish it.
btw, excluding border states New Jersey had the most slaves in the North (a total of 13 at the time if I am not mistaken).
Also, my point of comparing them to the Nazi regime was a comparison to the creation of the myth to explain their involvement, it in no way compares them to being almost the same during their existence. I hope I’m clearly understood on that.
> Someone who is relevant
> to ALL Americans, not just
> the ones who perpetuate
> the memory of the Lost Cause.
You’re being sick again.
> it is ‘a matter of obvious fact’
Much of what you say is myth is not myth, there is no widespread “celebration” of the Confederacy, there is no widespread “celebration” by Germans of the Nazi past, either (in fact, Germany has frequently been anti-war to the point of being psychotic about its Nazi past), the Nazi government was more evil than the Confederate government, the Nazi government was the official government while the Confederates were traitors to the Union (something you are psychotic about), there was widespread support for German revanchist behavior while opinion was divided about secession (with much support as well as rejection of it among Unionists, as there was reluctance more than excitement among the Confederates)…how many more pieces need be made? …
DLS,
You still are not understanding the point I’m making. I never compared the Confederacy and the Nazi government and said they were the same. I also never stated that the Germans celebrate their Nazi past. I said that after both wars those involved participated in the creation of/latched onto a myth to explain their participation. Unlike Germany which has faced and for the most part accepts its past, however, our country has historically accepted the myth of the Confederacy as fact and has been unwilling to budge, labeling anyone who does as revisionist (by the way, the very act of studying history is an act of revision. It is constant, and there are always debates and new ideas. The story on any specific historical topic will therefore never be completed). Fortunately our country is starting to wake up, for example sites like Gettysburg are restructuring the interpretation of the battle and look at the causes and a more broad story rather than just being a shrine to the memory of the Confederacy.
Rugger: In fact, the Civil War occurred during this nation’s era of expansionism and imperialism, and the Union government resorted to imperialism to retake those states which left it (despite a lot of acceptance of the secession by many in the Union, often happy to say “Good riddance!”), because those who wanted a coast-to-coast nation would not tolerate the loss of any territory. The South’s attempt to leave once it was no longer running Washington and had no future hope of doing so lost to Manifest Destiny. (Note that the reaction was accompanied by the first instance of a grossly oversized government in Washington that often did what it should not have done.) This larger set of facts is lost on those who simply view the South both then and now as politically incorrect and one of two PC exceptions (one is Southern whites, the other is religious people who aren’t liberal and voting Democratic) to the common proscription against bigotry.
> I said that after both wars
> those involved participated
> in the creation of/latched
> onto a myth to explain their
> participation.
You are incorrect as well as neurotic about this.
> a shrine to the memory of the Confederacy.
Same thing. You are almost religious (I’d be more accurate in saying you are than when liberals misuse that term) with a negative religion centered on a demon called the Confederacy and its associated imaginary myth.
Ashen Shard I really don’t know where to start. Almost every “fact” you state is wrong. The thing that made the Civil War illegal was that the North won. While I happen to think that’s a good thing realize that States voluntary entered into the Union and nowhere was there anything that said they could not leave. I don’t think anyone here, there, quoted, or referred to, except in your own mind, has given any indication they think the Confederacy was any kind of utopia. As far as NBF, I personally have never had any empathy for him and have no doubt that he was a very “bad” guy. One question, during the civil war what general wasn’t? Everyone that took part in combat committed what we would now consider to be war crimes. Every one.
Bones,
If one looks at the Constitution from a strict constructionist view, since it did not mention whether or not states were allowed to leave, would that not mean it was not legal? There were abolitionists in the North who argued convincingly that the constitution never said in so many words that slaves were legal, and that therefore the act of holding slaves was in itself a perpetual act of rebellion, thus giving the federal government the power to intervene and destroy the institution of slavery. Which side was right? Or were both wrong in their interpretations of the constitution?
And I’m sorry if I confuse people, I tend to take a position from an academic view and base my arguments and positions on what I’ve recently read. Much better to try and apply learning than let it collect dust.
> If one looks at the
> Constitution from a
> strict constructionist
> view, since it did not
> mention whether or
> not states were
> allowed to leave,
> would that not mean
> it was not legal?
“Yes, but” — the right was obviously retained by each state. However, Congress has (and had) the power “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions” and the secession was seen by the federal government as an obvious insurrection.
> And I’m sorry if I confuse
> people, I tend to take a
> position from an academic
> view
Be careful what you read! There are very few actual so-called unreconstructed Southerners to be found. 99% of the people in this country who pay much more attention to the Confederate Civil War memorabilia are also the first in line to scramble aboard Russian Cold War vehicles and equipment in a museum, rather than the US counterparts.
DLS,
There are probably a few more than you think, but I think there are just as many apologists in the North as in the South. So it is not exclusively a Southern phenomenon.
A greater point is that some of the history of the Confederacy that we take for fact was actually part of what i have been referring to as the ‘myth’ created by former confederates after the war. Typically history is written by the victors, but the American Civil War is an anomaly since former Confederates had a hand in creating how they would be viewed in history by future generations. Now I do not advocate total erasure of this history, only the clarification on a few points. Celebrate the deeds in battle, bravery and honor on both sides… but do not allow that to overshadow the issue of slavery and the abuse within the system.