US

Proposed Miss. License Plate Would Honor KKK Leader

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A fight is brewing in Mississippi over a proposal to issue specialty license plates honoring Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, who was an early leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

The Mississippi Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans says it wants to sponsor a series of state-issued license plates to mark the 150th anniversary of what it calls the “War Between the States.” The group proposes a different design each year between now and 2015, with Forrest slated for 2014.

Proposed Miss. License Plate Would Honor KKK Leader

“Seriously?” state NAACP president Derrick Johnson said when he was told about the Forrest plate. “Wow.”

Forrest, a Tennessee native, is revered by some as a military genius and reviled by others for leading the 1864 massacre of black Union troops at Fort Pillow, Tenn. Forrest was a Klan grand wizard in Tennessee after the war.

Sons of Confederate Veterans member Greg Stewart said he believes Forrest distanced himself from the Klan later in life. It’s a point many historians agree upon, though some believe it was too little, too late, because the Klan had already turned violent before Forrest left.

“If Christian redemption means anything — and we all want redemption, I think — he redeemed himself in his own time, in his own actions, in his own words,” Stewart said. “We should respect that.”

State Department of Revenue spokeswoman Kathy Waterbury said legislators would have to approve a series of Civil War license plates. She said if every group that has a specialty license plate wanted a redesign every year, it would take an inordinate amount time from Department of Revenue employees who have other duties.

SCV has not decided what the Forrest license plate would look like, Stewart said. Opponents are using their imagination.

A Facebook group called “Mississippians Against The Commemoration Of Grand Wizard Nathan Forrest” features a drawing of a hooded klansman in the center of a regular Mississippi car tag.

Robert McElvaine, director of history department at the private Millsaps College in Jackson, joined the Facebook group. McElvaine said Forrest’s role at Fort Pillow and involvement in the Klan make him unworthy of being honored, even on the bumpers of cars.

“The idea of celebrating such a person, whatever his accomplishments in other areas may have been, seems like a very poor idea,” McElvaine told The Associated Press.

Mississippi lawmakers have shown a decidedly laissez-faire attitude toward allowing a wide variety groups to have speciality license plates, which usually sell for an extra $30 to $50 a year. The state sells more than 100 specialty plates for everything from wildlife conservation to breast cancer awareness. One design says “God Bless America,” another depicts Elvis Presley. Among the biggest sellers are NASCAR designs and one with the slogan “Choose Life.”

The Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has had a state-issued specialty license plate since 2003 to raise money for restoration of Civil War-era flags. From 2003 through 2010, the design featured a small Confederate battle flag.

The Department of Revenue allowed the group to revise the license plate this year for the first of the Civil War sesquicentennial designs. The 2011 plate, now on sale, depicts the Beauvoir mansion in Biloxi, Miss., the final home of Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president.

SCV wants license plates to feature Civil War battles that took place in Mississippi. It proposes a Battle of Corinth design for 2012 and Siege of Vicksburg design for 2013. Stewart said the 2015 plate would be a tribute to Confederate veterans.

Johnson, with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said he’s not bothered by Civil War commemorative license plates generally. But he said Mississippi shouldn’t honor Forrest, who was an early leader of what he calls “a terrorist group.”

“He should be viewed in the same light that we view Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden,” Johnson said of Forrest. “The state of Mississippi should deny any vanity tags which would highlight racial hatred in this state.”

Democratic Rep. Willie Bailey, who handles license plate requests in the House, said he has no problem with SCV seeking any design it wants.

“If they want a tag commemorating veterans of the Confederacy, I don’t have a problem with it,” said Bailey, who is black. “They have that right. We’ll look at it. As long as it’s not offensive to anybody, then they have the same rights as anybody else has.”

___

Online:

Mississippi Department of Revenue, specialty license plates: http://www.dor.ms.gov/mvl/availabletags.html

Comments (129)

1 2 3
  • pwatkins
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:56am

    Propaganda plot to stir up more trouble and that is why Democratic Rep. Willie Bailey has no problem with it bc it is meant to work for his party. I believe it was someone from the democratic party that thought this crap up. Ignore it and it will go away bc like CONSERVATIELDO said (we have more important things to worry about), like voted the crooks out of office

    Report Post »  
  • Malcom0983
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:54am

    You can’t change history. There is a school in TX named after Gen. Robert E. Lee and their mascot is the rebel. They are trying to change the name and the mascot because some people are offended.
    Like it or not, he is an American hero. Same with the other General. They fought for what they believed to be the right thing. Even though, the KKK thing wasn‘t cool and it won’t help his case, if you can name a street after Obama (unindicted criminal, racist, communist, socialist, probably not even American), then I think this should be OK too.

    Report Post »  
  • conservativeldo
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:40am

    Dont we have more important things to worry about rather than a stupid plate of metal on a car.

    Report Post »  
    • B-Neil
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:50am

      YES SIR! I’m worried about my wife comming home….Carry on McDuff

      Report Post »  
  • B-Neil
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:34am

    Were only free if they agree. That is the powers thet be. If they didn’t get approval from, the Rev. Al Sharpton or the great Rev. Jesse Jackson not to forget the World President Bill Clinton. then they do not have the right. Thats how I see it….Carry on McDuff

    Report Post »  
  • westy98530
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:27am

    I direct this rant at anybody who defends this guy (and not to the south in general, which is a very dear place to me): You lost the damn war, get over it. The war actually WAS about slavery, not this whitewashed “states rights” BS. You deserved to lose the damn war. The south will not “rise again.” The KKK is an evil terrorist organization, and anybody ever involved in it deserves everlasting shame. Period. Just calling a spade a spade. If you want to tap dance around calling Forrest what he really is, then maybe you should look in the mirror next time you accuse the left of being in denial about islamic extremism. Look at it this way: Suppose someone was to make a plate commemorating Osama Bin Laden as a hero of the Mujahideen that drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, contributing to the collapse of the Soviet Union. How would you respond then? It’s a morally identical argument.

    Report Post »  
    • Whostolemypig
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:40am

      Now explain the morality behind the New Black Panthers calling for the killing of WHITEY and his kids, then Eric Holder turning them loose after intimidating voters. Don’t lecture me on events of 150 years ago when radicals are plotting mayhem in the present day and time.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 12:40pm

      @Whostolemypig
      No body is looking at given honor to the organization with a license plate and it five members. The New Black Panthers are more a creation of Fox News, looking for a scary black man to put on TV. Even W.’s Justice department found no cause for charges regarding their election day actions.

      The issue is a state looking ot honor a racist and a traitor.

      Report Post »  
  • Ronko
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:24am

    Disgusting I can’t believe that Mississippi would do this. Honor somebody who was in the KKK. I mean the original mission of the KKK was to kill Republicans. I would rather they honor Robert Lee then somebody who was a member of the KKK.

    Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 12:33pm

      I agree. Lee was an honorable man and a brilliant soldier, without peer.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • neversaynever
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 2:18pm

      Your an idiot. They’re not honoring him for his ties with the KKK (which he left when they became violent), but rather for his military genius. He was, by all military standards, a brilliant tactician.

      Report Post »  
  • 13thGenerationAmerican
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:22am

    QUESTION:
    Who is the worst traitor in American history?

    A FEW HELPFUL HINTS:
    It is not Barbara Streisand; nor is it George Soros. It isn’t Norman Lear, and it isn’t the Kennedy family. The answer to this question is not “Dan Rather”, and it’s not “Keith Olbermann” – and it definitely isn’t “Benedict Arnold” (That’s too easy).

    ANSWER:
    The worst traitor in American history was a man by the name of Jefferson Finis Davis.

    Think about it! Here was a guy who raised an army of millions in order to destroy the United States of America. It doesn’t get more treasonous than that, does it? States rights? Bull! It was all in the name of White Supremacy. This man actually believed that he and his fellow owners of property had the “God-given right” to hold human beings as cattle. His were not only sins against his country, they were sins against the human race. When it comes to pure treason, they don’t get much worse than old Jeff Davis – although Barbara Streisand is a close second. That gal’s an absolute rascal.

    Some nameless jackass once declared, “The south shall rise again.” What he should have said was, “The south needs to wake the hell up!” A little less than a year from now will mark the seventieth anniversary of the beginning of World War Two. Call it a hunch on my part, but I seriously doubt there will be much whooping it up in Munich next December the seventh. I don’t imagine that there will be a heck of a lot of partying in Tokyo either for that matter.

    Oh, I know that there will be historical observations on the part of the German and Japanese people, but I would expect that those observations will be somber and subdued. I doubt very much that some Hitler impersonator (Do such people really exist?) will be giving a recitation of der fuhrer’s speech to the reichstag, declaring war on the United States. And I really don’t think that there will be thousands lined up, dressed in period costumes, doing a reenactment of the Battle of the Bulge. The German people figured out a long time ago that embracing a lost and evil cause is not very good form.

    Report Post » 13thGenerationAmerican  
    • westy98530
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:29am

      Well said.

      Report Post »  
    • code green
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:32am

      Does that mean you won‘t be celebrating Davis’ birthday June the 3rd ?

      Report Post »  
    • Bullcop34
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 12:50pm

      You need another history lesson. Jefferson Davis was not a criminal. The war was over states rights due to unfair taxes being levied by the north on the cotton being grown in the south. The northern states were trying to take away monies from the southern states for their own profits. The constitution gives states the right to seceed if they so desire. It isn’t written in code either, it is in black and white.

      By your logic, George Washington should be the supreme traitor of all times for breaking away from england and commanding an army as well. Not smart logic on your behalf but to each his own ignorance.

      Report Post » Bullcop34  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 1:50pm

      You are simply a fool. Both Davis and Hitler were far greater men than you can ever imagine. They were both men among boys and one day they will get their proper respects.
      We live in a weak disgusting decaying world. Under a Jewish Apartheid that has left the average American brain dead through their 24/7 bombardment of filthy propaganda but it will soon be over and maybe a strong America a moral America may rise from the ashes..

      GB is somewhat conservative but after the past two weeks I think it should be obvious to everyone why he is allowed a slot on a major news network. But I doubt that his oath to the Jew will keep him on for much longer simply because he’s upsetting the apple cart.

      techengineer11  
    • SoonerBorn68
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 6:05pm

      Great, another blow hard yankee that only read his 8th grade history book.

      Report Post » SoonerBorn68  
  • Nepenthe
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:17am

    So, with one of the worst legal and educational systems in the United States, they now add to that with this idiotic story.

    Report Post » Nepenthe  
  • tweetybirdtwopointO
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:13am

    HAHAHAHAHAHAH

    You GOP knuckleheads try to get the KKK some street cred…. how does ***** the new speaker in da house feel to ya now

    Report Post » Sarah Louise Palin - Part Time Politician, Full Time Parasite  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:10am

    How many government buildings bear the name of Robert Byrd? Oh, he was a Democrat so it’s OK.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
  • Notorrius
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:05am

    Hud look it up. http://www.answers.com/topic/nathan-bedford-forrest#ixzz1DZV1FsPr

    I just think that the left needs to get the facts and stop the all of this bull hockey they spew.

    Report Post »  
    • hud
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:10am

      Brother, you’re trying to hit them where they live. Fat Chance

      Report Post »  
  • dpselfe
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:55am

    Robert Byrd needs a plate in West Virginia.

    Report Post » dpselfe  
  • marcellucci
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:52am

    For the love of God….Stop with these stupid commemorative license plates….
    It can’t be free to retool the machines every year …….and the states are dying….
    Legislators have to approve designs…..commitees have to review them….
    Money flushed down the toilet…..which would make a perfet State license plate….
    Do you realize how much harder it is to tell the State origins of a license plate now?
    This only benefits the drivers of getaway cars.
    STOP THE WILD SPENDING CULTURE!!!
    Pick ONE plate and be proud of it……and move on to real business…..

    Report Post » marcellucci  
  • Beware of Romans
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:50am

    Why are all the comments linking the democrats (Byrd) with the KKK being removed?

    I thought Glenn Becks guys were against censorship?

    Report Post »  
  • Notorrius
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:49am

    Wonder how the libs will explain this

    Nathan Bedford Forrest (July 13, 1821 – October 29, 1877) was a lieutenant general in the Confederate Army during the American Civil War. He is remembered both as a self-educated, innovative cavalry leader during the war and as a leading southern advocate in the postwar years. He served as the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, a secret vigilante organization which launched a reign of terrorism against blacks and Republicans during Reconstruction in the South.

    Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/nathan-bedford-forrest#ixzz1DZV1FsPr

    Report Post »  
    • hud
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:03am

      If this is true, you’d think that blacks would be Republicans.

      Report Post »  
  • Beware of Romans
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:43am

    Democratic Senator Richard Byrd was a founder of the KKK and despised Abraham Lincolns Republicans for freeing thier slaves.

    Obama, and his black caucus members are SELL OUTS to their own race.

    Report Post »  
    • code green
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:09am

      No N.B. Forrest was one of the founders back in the mid 1860s. Byrd was just a recruter for the Klan.

      Report Post »  
  • DashRipRock
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:27am

    FORGET BYRD

    Lets atlk about

    Albert Arnold Gore Senior

    you know the man that did his all mighty best to stop
    the CIVILS RIGHTS ACT

    Report Post »  
  • techengineer11
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:17am

    Before long they will be honoring Vladamir Lenin… Ah never mind they already do. The DNC!
    Seriously why do so many people feel that they should control what someone thinks? That they should act as our continual gate keepers? Who the hell do these people think they are? I personally believe the South was correct and I believe the North were a bunch of animals and there is not much that Big Brother can do to change my opinion.
    No the Civil War has been co-opted by the likes of the very same people which have co-opted WW2. One can’t even engage in rational conservation without kicking and screaming over slavery or holocaust.. Very convenient for some I suppose.

    Report Post » techengineer11  
  • code green
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:16am

    Someone remind me of what the NAACP thought of Sen. Byrd (D) West Virginia ,because he was a Klansman.
    Seems to me since Gen. N.B. Forrest was a Democrat that everything would be forgiven.

    Report Post »  
  • GeauxAlready
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:13am

    .
    Funny ain’t it. Try to Honor a White man and they go Nuts………………

    Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
    • encinom
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:51am

      No, they are attemp to honor, a traitor.

      Report Post »  
    • Untameable-kate
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:26am

      He wasn’t a traitor to the south, which is the side he was on. The southerners probably felt the North were the traitors.
      Slavery was a horrible thing, but I don’t have first hand knowlege as to how the men in the South really felt or how they thought. If you don’t live in that time there is no way to know how anyone really thought. We would NEVER allow slavery in this day nor would we allow anyone to be treated unfairly because of their skin color. Then, however, slavery was accepted in the south. Of course we don’t understand their thinking then because it is alien to us now. You don’t have to be offended by history since there is no changing it, To forget history condemns us to repeat it.
      Also ENCINOM, I feel that liberals and socialists are traitors to the republic. How do you like that?

      Report Post » Untameable-kate  
    • Whostolemypig
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:34am

      Traitor? What about that POS in the whitehouse, Barry X?

      Report Post »  
    • biggreenboo
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 12:15pm

      @ Encinom

      Well don’t honor George Washington or any of the founding fathers… ALL traitors and rebels in England’s eyes… at the time.

      Report Post »  
    • danieljersey
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 12:25pm

      It appears you have the Blaze confused with StormFront. Go post your racial nonsense where it belongs.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 12:51pm

      biggreenboo
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 12:15pm
      @ Encinom

      Well don’t honor George Washington or any of the founding fathers… ALL traitors and rebels in England’s eyes… at the time.

      —————————————————————————————————————————–

      Only I am American, not British. The southern army was a traitor’s army tha fought against the United States. Are you an American or a Confederate, you can’t be both.

      Report Post »  
  • Whostolemypig
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:12am

    This is just more misdirection by the liberals. Mississippi is not wanting to honor Forest for being a KKK leader. They are wanting to honor him as a former general in the army that defended the state during the civil war. It’s all about southern heritage not racism. If you want to talk about people being mistreated and abused, then lets talk about the reconstruction period after the war. All southerners were abused by the northerner. Where do you think the term carpet baggers came from?

    Report Post »  
    • mrlogan3
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:50am

      Think on a national level. Is it ok to say “We’d like to honor this man for trying to help perpetuate the divide of America?” Even if the plate isn’t celebrating him as a KKK member, it is celebrating him as a rebel against America.

      Report Post » TRUTH  
    • encinom
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:53am

      The state is lookin got honor a traitor to the nation and Klans man.

      Report Post »  
    • Hoosier Daddy
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 12:58pm

      Encinom: If you don’t like who Mississippi honors move out of Mississippi. If you don’t live there, your opinion means nothing…just like mine. I’m a Hoosier, born in Illinois and never lived in the south. Who they choose to honor or how they regard the civil war doesn’t impact my life one tiny little bit and I refuse to be so small as to try to deny them their memories or memorials.

      Report Post » Hoosier Daddy  
    • kaydeebeau
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 2:09pm

      Don’t tell anybody but there is a Nathan Bedford Forrest – Forest preserve in West Tennessee

      Report Post » kaydeebeau  
  • TexasHillsPatriot
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:08am

    There are an awful lot of roads, buildings, etc. named after Robert (KKK) Byrd!!! Were people as upset when those were named?

    Report Post » Texas Hills Patriot  
  • SirAnthony
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:07am

    If you’re offended by this license plate design, just get a different one.

    Report Post »  
    • Cobra Blue
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:15am

      SirAnthony

      Can’t do that. To do that would fall under personal responsibility and common sense. Someone must be offended so they can push the racist agenda. Must follow the template.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:46am

      The offense is that a State is using tax payer dollars to honor traitors to America. The offense is a State is using tax payer dollars to honor men that considered others property and fought a war to keep this “tradition”.

      Report Post »  
    • SirAnthony
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:02am

      @encinom –

      Not everyone believes that the Confederates were traitors; not everyone believes that the War Between the States was simply a defense of slavery.

      My point is that your view is not the only one with merit. Why not leave those alone who differ from you?

      Report Post »  
    • Clive
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:23am

      sir anthony,
      it doesn’t matter what you think. the union won, get over it. theres no excuse for honoring the confederacy, or slavery. its idiots like you that give dems ammo. grow up.

      Report Post »  
    • mrlogan3
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:32am

      Who doesn’t think that the Confederate states were traitors to the Union? They should repeat history class, that’s not even debatable. No, the civil war was not all about slavery, but it was an act of rebellion that can’t be honored now.

      Report Post » TRUTH  
    • SirAnthony
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:58am

      I don’t want this to become an argument about whether the South was right. You can decide that for yourselves. But I want to give you a little food for thought.

      Many Confederates do deserve honor. General Lee, for instance, was fighting against an overbearing government, just as George Washington had done almost 100 years earlier. So it’s not logical to call one a traitor and the other a hero. Think about it.

      Report Post »  
    • neversaynever
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 12:16pm

      Nathan Bedford Forrest was a brilliant military tactician and leader and did amazing things during the war. He can be honored if people feel he should be and it gains enough support. Robert E. Lee was also an amazing General, and even better man. An exemplary christian, he’s honored with statues throughout the south. I don’t see honoring Forrest with a vanity plate as any different. All the yankee’s on here calling them traitors are lookng at them wrong. They werent fighting for slavery, they were fighting for states rights. A fight that should be maintained today (through diplomatic/political means-I do not want another civil war). I look at it this way, if a President were to make gun ownership illegal, they would have to pry them from many people’s “cold dead hands”, and there would be another war on their hands.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 12:47pm

      SirAnthony
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:02am
      @encinom –

      Not everyone believes that the Confederates were traitors; not everyone believes that the War Between the States was simply a defense of slavery.

      My point is that your view is not the only one with merit. Why not leave those alone who differ from you?

      —————————————————————————————————————————————-
      The Confederate army, officers and political leaders to up arms against the United States, by definition they were traitors. The issue of slavery is central in all the constitutions and document the confederate states produced to justify their rebellion.

      History correctly protrays the south as traitors fighting for the freedom to enslave others, you can argue that there is nobility in being a traitor looking to protect the tradition of slavery, just don’t white wash history.

      Report Post »  
    • neversaynever
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 1:47pm

      Encinom…Your wrong again. Ask any history teacher and they will tell you that the civil war did not begin as a fight for slavery, but slavery only became a big issue after the emancipation proclamation. You also could argue that while the south was fighting the US, it was the south who was truly on the side of the original constitution, so they were fighting for our original United States precedents about states rights. Look where we’ve gone since; While abolishing slavery was a good thing, abolishing states rights was definately not. And now the states have little rights as evidenced in Arizona and the massive pushback against Obamacare. Also look at California and the medical marijuana debate. While they make it legal the fed still busts people because of their laws.

      Report Post »  
    • sWampy
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 3:37pm

      encinom, ignorant clod, the war of northern aggression had nothing to do with slavery, less than 5% of the south owned slaves, the rest of the south would have never fought for 5% of the fat cats that owned them. The war was over states rights and improper taxation, the north had put a outrageous tax on cotton, the main income of the south, mainly because the steam power had been developed and the south no longer needed the north’s rivers to manufacture goods. The cotton gin had been invented, so slaves were being given freedom left and right since it was no longer economically viable to feed and house a slave 12 months a year when you only had work for them for 3 or 4 months. The north feared the increased power of the south since these free slaves would soon be given the right to vote, the south didn’t have to send cotton north to be turned into finished goods they could use steam power to do that in the south. This left the north with no way to grow enough food to eat, and no goods and services the south wanted to buy, and a shrinking representation in government. So what did they do, they tried to tax the south to death, when the south said no, they shipped in criminals from overseas and sent them south to rape the women and children, stole everything they could steal, burned everything they couldn’t. Then the scum took the souths captured solders and stuck them in tents without winter clothing on lake erie to freeze to death.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 3:43pm

      @neversaynever

      Slavery was at the heart of the cause of the war, Southern States, attempted to leave the union to protect their institution. The emancipation proclamation wasn’t signed until after the war had started as a way to punish the south.

      The only State Right the south was protecting was the right ot own slaves. Yes their were other issues but to the traitors in the South, it was slavery that they went to war over, and yes the South fired the first shot.

      Report Post »  
  • DashRipRock
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:05am

    The 150th anniversary of the Civil war begins april 12

    when 150 years ago the war started with the bombing
    of Fort Sumter

    This revision of the Civil war is going to be played
    over and over again for the next four years

    Report Post »  
    • SoonerBorn68
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 3:35pm

      Major Anderson was politely asked to leave. When he didn’t the Rebs decided to help him change his mind. :D

      Report Post » SoonerBorn68  
  • rmblount
    Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:03am

    Mississippi,
    yall don’t need anymore reasons to make fun of you
    And please quit giving the Libs / Northerners more ammo to pick on the South

    Report Post »  
    • Cobra Blue
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:08am

      Course if there was a license plate honoring Malcolm X, or Bin Ladin or Louis Farakan (spelling ?) this would be part of cultural enrichment and be celebrated in the name of diversity. Its OK to honor great progressives, terrorists and/or BLACK racists in this country. Just can’t honor American historical figures if there actions were EVEN PERCEIVED to be against any of these FOOLS, Guess What! It will never change so long as WE THE PEOPLE sit on the sidelines and do zip.

      Report Post »  
    • Dustyluv
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:08am

      The Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has had a state-issued specialty license plate since 2003

      I don’t think they are REALLY veterans…If they are they are really really old…
      Time to end this BS racist crap.

      Report Post »  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:18am

      Let the people themselves decide the issue, if someone feels threatened or wronged by it, the courts exist with means to redress the issue if found to have sufficient grounds.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • hud
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:54am

      The nerve, bring this up during Black History Minute (which endures for a month)

      Report Post »  
    • vegasexcitement
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 10:54am

      I live in the geo region that this article mentions. It is inappropriate to “honor” these individuals. It is equally the same to dishonor them. They lived a long time ago when things were different. I have wonderful friends that live in NYC, Philly, LA, and they so not realize that things are different now. There is a sad cognitive dissonance. People, due to a thinking process issue do not know that New York state at one time…segregated as well. it is an education issue, and a sad past practice.
      He contributed to history, and some of them were not good contributions. Do not honor him. There are more people, seperate from ethnicity, that are more deserving. Honor ~them. Honor life, honor children, honor fathers that stay with the family, honor mothers that raise kids with no father. Honor teachers, gracious Southern buildings, honor good things, …honor “honorable things. But, please, let NBF dissolve into history…largely so that others can develop a better accurate view. They get hung up on past things that are history and forget the present and future.
      Don, in Vegas and Memphis

      Report Post »  
    • vegasexcitement
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:02am

      IMHO, the opportunity for solutions and correct new images are on both sides of the issue. I remember segregation, and realize that this is 2011 and not 1911. I remember the separate water fountains, the separate bathrooms, etc… and can take you to where they were in older buildings.
      If people on both sides of this silly issue would realize that you will not create a better future by screaming over the past we would all be a lot better. I feel sorry for people that are so educated that they cannot look at a calendar, and realize that the social change that has happened in todays world. I am not worried about the grandchildren of people that were in Segregation. I am worried about the grandchildren outside of the South that do not know what year it is. If a person lacks the cognitive thought to know what is past, then I am not worried about what they think in the present. …give it a break.

      Don, Vegas and Memphis

      Report Post »  
    • FED-UP-AND-READY-TO-TAKE-ACTION
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:15am

      Having ancestors who fought on both sides of the War between the states and also being a reenactor portraying both armies throughout the Southern US I have a strong point of view.

      Just as many talk here today about how they don’t like what “their” government is doing or being ran the same is said for those who decided to separate themselves from the US. States rights was a huge part make not mistake but also like any war there are always special interest who seek to influence the effort for their self gain. While the average confederate solders was fighting to defend what he thought was his way of life there were those who did want to separation to enable them to keep their slave labor. When slavery was outlawed in Kanas they saw the writing on the wall of what was coming.

      This war will never be agreed on by most people now as we think different today than they did in 1860. It is so easy to sit back today and pass judgement over what we think is good and correct. Well keep in mind they were fighting for a way of life just as we all would today should the federal government say send troops to your area to take your guns or maybe take your rightfully owened property? Not so far fetched now is it………………..Never judge a man until you too have walked a mile in his shoes!

      Report Post » FED-UP-AND-READY-TO-TAKE-ACTION  
    • Sheepdog911
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:22am

      Why would the NAACP protest this, dont they side exclusively with the Democratic Party? Until the mid 1900′s, the KKK was an arm of the Democratic Party, just like they are unofficially now. In fact, the early targets of the KKK were Republicans, both black and white. In the immediate post-Civil War era, most blacks were Republicans. What an ironic change of events, proof that forgetting or worse yet ignoring history has consequences. We need to realize that Our Civil Rights “leaders” have sold us back into slavery, or better yet, that We sold Ourselves back into the slavery for government giveaways and false promises of being owed something for past transgressions. Oh by the way, those past transgressions were largely committed by Democrats (Southern whites). The Civil War was largely over States (economic) Rights, but the currency in that economy was black slaves (my racial forefathers). The NAACP represents their own self-interests, not those of black Americans.

      Report Post » Sheepdog911  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:46am

      I am remaining totally non-committal on the substance of this story, but I just think the irony is amazing.

      The KKK was not so much a “racial” organization as it was a political one. It was started to keep Republicans from voting. That’s right…Republicans. See, it was the Republican controlled White House and Congress that put an end to slavery. The white south was all Democrat. After the war blacks were given the right to vote. They were all registered Republicans. The southern Democrats (and the northern ones too) wanted to regain control of Congress to ease the reconstruction laws being enforced and to enact Jim Crow laws to keep blacks “in their place.”

      The irony is that today most southern blacks are Democrats and they call the Republican party racist. The Democrats are the ones speaking out against the very person their political party enabled all those years back.

      Report Post »  
    • Showtime
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 11:59am

      I just might move to Mississippi! Love the Confederate tag!
      “Save your Confederate money boys; the South’s gonna rise again!”

      Report Post » Showtime  
    • Hoosier Daddy
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 12:33pm

      My mistakel. The headline led me to believe they were honoring Robert Byrd.

      Report Post » Hoosier Daddy  
    • Hoosier Daddy
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 12:43pm

      Mistakel?

      Report Post » Hoosier Daddy  
    • Creestof
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 12:46pm

      I’m far from being an expert, but from what I remember, the KKK NBF started was a benevolent organization to aid widows who lost their husbands in the war. It got perverted in later years as a power struggle within the organization came to a head.

      Report Post »  
    • texasfarmer
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 12:53pm

      Mississippi is the poorest and most giving state per capita. Did you see them with their hand out after Katrina? They helped themselves and neighbors, of all colors and didn’t wait for the Yanks to come to the rescue. I am sure they, nor I, care what a Yankee thinks about Southerners. And by the way I left Pittsburgh to join the south and enjoy the hospitality of all Southern people.
      About the war, do some research about who pushed for the confrontation and why slaves were 3/5 of a vote.

      Report Post » texasfarmer  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 1:26pm

      Texasfarmer,

      Slaves were 3/5 of a vote because the founding fathers wanted to end slavery right at the beginning of this country but knew it was a losing battle. They also knew that the number of slaves in the south would allow the slave holding states to elect more representatives. Seeing the problem of counting “property” as population (some northern delegates jokingly suggested counting their cattle and chickens) they struck the 3/5 compromise. This is all recorded history in the annals of Congress:

      http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwac.html

      As far as who “pushed” the conflict, there is no doubt the south did. Ending slavery would seriously damage the southern economy. Make no mistake though, the war was about slavery. Period. Trying to claim it was about “state’s rights” may hold more than a bit of truth but is ultimately disingenuous. In fact, to join the confederacy you HAD to be a slave holding state! What kind of state right is that?

      http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

      “3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of ***** slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

      I am not passing judgment on right or wrong here, you really have to look at history through the eyes of the people living it to fully understand. I was born and raised in the south and proudly flew the Stars and Bars as a youth. I was all into the “south will rise again” culture. But after becoming a born again Christian and studying the Civil War (and yes, I did use the yankee term) I can say I am thankful the Union won and there is no way I can support slavery in any way shape, or form. However, I do recognize the damage Lincoln did to this country by his growth of the federal government and the loss of state’s rights. Beck traces the end back to Woodrow Wilson, but the fact is the civil war is what changed the direction of this country for good. It all went to hell after that war and has been declining since.

      Report Post »  
    • neversaynever
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 1:51pm

      TrollTrainer…Your wrong. Ask any history teacher or simply read a book. The war was not fought over slavery (though it was an issue), it only became a more major part of the war after the emancipation proclamation that was issued during the war.

      Report Post »  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 2:06pm

      Neversaynever,

      You are wrong and I gave the links to the original documents to prove it! Lol, read the documents!

      Report Post »  
    • GayDem4Beck
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 2:21pm

      Forrest was a slave trader and after the Civil War, Forrest lent his name to a group of enforcers of the “Democratic Party” known as the Ku Klux Klan. There is NO excuse for using this guys name or honoring him outside of his military knowledge as an educational resource.

      But we recently had Democrats like Bill Clinton try to explain Robert Byrd’s involvement in the KKK. They say they are against racism, but when confronted they explain away any prier involvement for there friends.

      Quotes From Democrats On Race & Anti-Semitism
      http://rightwingnews.com/quotes/leftwingracists.php

      Report Post » GayDem4Beck  
    • neversaynever
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 2:22pm

      simply because they included the right to own slaves in their constitution does not mean that this was their only or even main reason for war. The south correctly believed they were being unfairly taxed on the cotton they were making, an that was a big reason as well.

      Report Post »  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 2:22pm

      Neversaynever,

      I am persisting because your statement is simply ludicrous and so easily proven wrong. Just look at the deceleration of secession issued by most states. Take South Carolina for instance:

      “[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding [i.e., northern] states to the institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations. . . . [T]hey have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery. . . . They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes [through the Underground Railroad]. . . . A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the states north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States [Abraham Lincoln] whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common government because he has declared that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. . . . The slaveholding states will no longer have the power of self-government or self-protection [over the issue of slavery]”

      Original documents are here:

      http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

      Taken from the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States ( http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=433) we have these excerpts:

      “We . . . [are] dissolving a union with non-slaveholding confederates and seeking a confederation with slaveholding states. Experience has proved that slaveholding states cannot be safe in subjection to non-slaveholding states. . . . The people of the North have not left us in doubt as to their designs and policy. United as a section in the late presidential election, they have elected as the exponent of their policy one [Abraham Lincoln] who has openly declared that all the states of the United States must be made Free States or Slave States. . . . In spite of all disclaimers and professions [i.e., measures such as the Corwin Amendment, written to assure the southern states that Congress would not abolish slavery], there can be but one end by the submission by the South to the rule of a sectional anti-slavery government at Washington; and that end, directly or indirectly, must be the emancipation of the slaves of the South. . . . The people of the non-slaveholding North are not, and cannot be safe associates of the slaveholding South under a common government. . . . Citizens of the slaveholding states of the United States! . . . South Carolina desires no destiny separate from yours. . . . We ask you to join us in forming a Confederacy of Slaveholding States.”

      Mississippi cites slavery as the cause of its succession. Alabama cites slavery AND the 1860 election of Republicans as cause:

      “the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America by a sectional party [the Republicans], avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions [slavery] and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama”

      Man…I could go on all day. Slavery was the ONLY issue of the civil war, state‘s rights is just the loser’s way of trying to justify the unjustifiable. The only right they were concerned about was holding their slaves.

      Report Post »  
    • neversaynever
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 2:31pm

      Forrest also died an american, and was a brilliant miltary tactician. He left the KKK when they became violent and never ordered that massacre according to most historians. Robert E. Lee is honored with statues in many southern cities, so what is your problem with this vanity plate if Miss wants it?

      Report Post »  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 2:45pm

      Was this directed at me?

      “Forrest also died an american, and was a brilliant miltary tactician. He left the KKK when they became violent and never ordered that massacre according to most historians. Robert E. Lee is honored with statues in many southern cities, so what is your problem with this vanity plate if Miss wants it?”

      I never said I had a problem with it! Forrest was indeed a great general as was Lee who was also one of the kindest Christian gentlemen that ever lived. Both were great men in their own right. I am also not condemning the south for what it did. Heck, had I lived back then I would have fought for the confederacy. It is easy for us to pass judgment as we sit on our cushy couches typing on our laptops in our AC or Heated homes…I will not pretend to do that, I am not self-righteous. Slavery is wrong, I think deep down man has always recognized that even if the economy and culture demanded it. I think nothing less than the war could have settled this issue. It is a sad chapter in our history but I believe it was a necessary one. Like you, I also see the correlation with what is happening today. What if we are called to arms? Our cause appears right to us, but is it worth dividing the union? Hindsight is always 20/20. History is also written by the victor…

      Report Post »  
    • neversaynever
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 2:56pm

      There were many reasons for the civil war. It wasn’t just about slavery

      http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm

      http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/civilwar/a/CivilWarCauses.htm

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

      http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/causes.htm

      The war was about a great many things. To say the war was just about slavery is wrong.

      Report Post »  
    • SoonerBorn68
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 3:02pm

      This is Mississippi’s business. If you don’t live there, butt out–it doesn’t concern you.

      Report Post » SoonerBorn68  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 3:21pm

      “There were many reasons for the civil war. It wasn’t just about slavery

      The war was about a great many things. To say the war was just about slavery is wrong.”

      I will give you that. And most of your sources correctly say that slavery was more of an economic issue than a moral one.

      But you must recognize that slavery was the underlying cause of the conflict. Every other reason listed can be traced right back to the issue of slavery.

      Report Post »  
    • sWampy
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 3:24pm

      NAACP is ten times the terrorists organization the KKK ever was. The KKK grumbled and burned a few crosses, the NAACP took action and incited acts of violence then, just like they continue to now with their sister organizations ACORN, SEIU, Black Panthers, New Black Panthers, Muslim Brotherhood, al qaeda, etc. The guys were worried that their schools and cities were going to be destroyed like those in the north had already been, history has proven they were right.

      Report Post »  
    • avenger
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 3:30pm

      go for it…1st amendment rights. the libs up north burn the american flag.lets unseal martin luther kings fbi file that was sealed(must be really damaging stuff) for 50 years.time to stop this political correctness tyranny from the libs !

      Report Post »  
    • MotherRedDog
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 3:33pm

      Give me a break. The democrats were the party of KKK. By the way, anyone ever heard of Robert Byrd??

      Report Post » MotherRedDog  
    • ForeignWatcher
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 3:44pm

      Just imagine, in 150 years the people will look back to the “ObamaCareWars” and just shake their heads thinking about people that thought that the fundamental right for health was something that had to be fought about…
      Can you be sure that history is on your side?

      Report Post »  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 3:56pm

      “Just imagine, in 150 years the people will look back to the “ObamaCareWars” and just shake their heads thinking about people that thought that the fundamental right for health was something that had to be fought about…
      Can you be sure that history is on your side?”

      Where do you get the fundamental right to health care? Who gives you that right? If you were on an island with 3 other people and the clothes on your back, would you still have that right? How does technology figure into this right? Do you have the right to experimental drugs or just approved ones? Who PAYS for your right? What if everyone refused to pay, what if there are no doctors, do you still have the right?

      Do you really believe there is a “fundamental right” of health care? How about a house? A car? Education? A job? Clothes, food, an I-Pad?

      Report Post »  
    • ForeignWatcher
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 4:58pm

      Thats the point. You dont think this right exists, just like the south thought that slavery was ok, there was no human right of liberty and freedom. Who will be right in the end?

      Report Post »  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 5:34pm

      “Thats the point. You dont think this right exists, just like the south thought that slavery was ok, there was no human right of liberty and freedom. Who will be right in the end?”

      So I don’t think the right to peanut butter and jelly Fridays exists now, but it may just be a basic human right?

      There was ALWAYS the rights of life and freedom and the ability to do as you wanted as long as it did not infringe on anyone else. These are the only basic rights you have, they are natural rights. They cannot be “given” to you, only taken from you. God is the only one who can bestow these rights. Health care might very well be considered a government right, but it is not a basic right, it is not a human right. If you lived in a place with no health care guess what? You get no health care.

      If you want to live in a country where everyone is granted free and equal health care then just vote that way. I do not believe that is where the majority of Americans want to go we see the pitfalls in this Utopian dream. Someone has to pay for it, and when you get enough people trying to ride in the wagon with no one pushing it will collapse. Maybe you are young maybe you do not make much money or are worth anything. This might sound like a great world to you. But the standard of living always drops to the lowest level. It is simply self-imposed slavery.

      Do I think Americans should be taken care of when they cannot afford it themselves? Yes. As do most people. But I think lowering costs to make health care affordable to most everyone is the way to go. Those that need help will get help. But I want to be in control of my health care. That is not what Obamacare is going to give you.

      Of course I am wasting my time here…Whatever…You should move to Europe!

      Report Post »  
    • ForeignWatcher
      Posted on February 10, 2011 at 5:54pm

      But i came from europe. Where healthcare works, mind you…

      But i didnt propose a right for healthcare. I wrote about a right for health. And i just stated that it could be that we see this as absolutly standard and normal in a few years, just like it was wis slavery.

      BTW, tell slaves all over history about there right for freedom they always had. Ask some romans about the freedom of, lets say, israelites… Or some cottonfarmers from the good ol´south.
      No, these rights are new, about the time of the french revolution people began to see them as fundamental rights granted by god to everyone, not just european kings….

      Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love