Memphis Council Votes To Move Nathan Bedford Forrest's Remains
Source: Local Memphis
MEMPHIS, TN (localmemphis.com)--The Memphis City Council unanimously approved a resolution Tuesday to move the remains of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife from Health Sciences Park.
They have been buried in a park on Union Avenue for 110 years.
Council members are also moving ahead with plans to remove the statue of Forrest, even looking at selling the statue to anyone who wants it.
"The Forrest family is solidly opposed to digging up the graves and moving them any place," said Lee Millar with the Son’s Of Confederate Veterans. "The statue just as well. They're opposed to moving the statue too."
Read more: http://www.localmemphis.com/story/d/story/council-votes-to-move-nathan-bedford-forrests-rema/12440/x-aa6bzx80iy91LMR_yQ-g
In his whining about "anti-Confederate hysteria" in the article, Mr. Miller conveniently leave out the part where Forrest was the first grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
Either way, another dumb racist finally stripped of his honors.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)
malthaussen
(17,202 posts)... renaming roads, public buildings, whatever. But disinterring the remains seems a bit over-the-top. Hell, they've both been dead for over a century, who is served?
-- Mal
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Might as well move them to a cemetery. Having people buried under your public parks is kinda creepy.
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)He was originally buried in a cemetery, but was dug up about 40 years after his death and moved to the park, when the racist government named the place after him and built the monument to glorify the klan and Confederacy
malthaussen
(17,202 posts)... they won't mind another move.
-- Mal
snooper2
(30,151 posts)
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)military honors. i can see the Sons of the Confederacy or another similar group carrying the Confederate flag to "honor" his (dis)service. Also since he fought the US government (even though pardoned) a traitor?
GReedDiamond
(5,313 posts)...is it OK if they wear their hoods and sheets?
brer cat
(24,576 posts)except that he is buried in a public park not a cemetery.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Probably a lot of bronze in it to melt down and make something better with it.
PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)Forrest was one of the founders of the KKK.
brer cat
(24,576 posts)He should be loathed not lauded.
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)Crying about the treatment of a guy they call a hero, along with a bunch of whining that the blacks have "taken over" Memphis.
They're not even trying to hide their racism any more over there.
brer cat
(24,576 posts)but unfortunately loud minority which gets them the attention they crave. I am hearing and seeing a good bit of backlash which I guess was inevitable, but it is cause for concern. We never know if they are going to vent their anger with a bullets or a torch.
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)in this city park. Time he went back to Elmwood Cemetary where he was first laid to rest. I would love to read the story about how it was decided to rebury him in a public park.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)is not punishment enough?
davepc
(3,936 posts)Fuck him and anybody defending him.
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)and he still has a bust in the Tennessee capitol
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Now no one disputes Fort Pillow was a massacre of Black Union Troops, but all appeared to have been shot not burned. The only real question was the killing on the orders of Forest (Which he denied at the time) or battle confusion combined with racism (The white troops under Forest saw the armed black males as against everything they believed in and had to be killed no matter what orders were issued against such killings, combined with the fear of the African American Soldiers who saw the situation that if they surrendered they would be killed, and thus made ineffective efforts to defend themselves when the battle was already lost).
Side note: Fort Pillow, itself, had been built as a CONFEDERATE FORT overlooking the Mississippi River. It was later taken over by Union Forces. In many ways this was a mistake. The fort was built in a location overlooking the Mississippi River. but itself was overlooked by other higher ground. It was like Yorktown and the Alamo, you needed more men to HOLD the fort then to take it. Thus Forrest appeared before the fort with superior number of men and proceeded to take it over. No formal surrender ever took place, the fort was stormed and the Union troops, both white and black, ran to the Mississippi River to escape. Most Whites were captured, most blacks were killed.
Please note, my comment that they is NO EVIDENCE that Forrest ordered the massacre does NOT preclude that he thought it was good, for he did nothing to stop it. This was the position General Grant takes on the massacre:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Pillow#Massacre
It was within his character to kill African Americans who took up arms. In 1862 he killed such a prisoner in cold blood (he also threatened to kill an Officer under his command who refused to help put out a fire on supply wagons when the officer said as a officer he was NOT to do manual labor). Forrest was a man of violence, do not forget that, violence to both whites AND blacks.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest
https://books.google.com/books?id=vBZiU_tmRmgC&pg=PA350&dq=%22Conversely,+on+their+way+to+and+from+Gettysburg,+Lee%27s+troops+seized+scores+of+free+black+people+in+Maryland+and+Pennsylvania+and+sent+them+south+into+slavery.+This+was+in+keeping+with+Confederate+national+policy.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u2D9VMe4E4akNr3TgYAD&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=forrest&f=false
Please note when he heard a speech during the Civil War when the speakers said it was NOT for Slavery the South was fighting for but state rights etc, he retorted "If we are NOT fighting for Slavery, then why are we fighting?".
Now, his exact position as to African Americans and slavery was complex. Forest owned slaves and sold slaves prior to the Civil War. He had enlisted in the Confederate Army, realized he was a good as any of the officers over him, and bought out his enlistment (Which was permitted at the time period, and up to WWII in the US Army). At that point he "Bought" himself a colonel-ship, by raising and arming a regiment of cavalry (Since he had armed the men and they enlisted to serve under him, he received the rank of Colonel from his State).
One of the first things he did when raising his regiment, he went to his slaves, who were his teamsters for his civilian trade and made them an offer no one else made before him. He offered those Slaves and their wives and children they freedom if they served with him throughout the war, no matter who won. His teamsters took up his offer and thus had one of the most loyal and effective supply wagons for his troops on either side of the Civil War (at that time period, such supplies were done by Civilian Contractors even in the US Army, thus these remained his slaves and no one else serving with the South could grab the slaves or their wagons)
I always like the last speech he made before his death in 1877 (made in 1875 before the "Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association" an organization of black Southerners advocating racial reconciliation). In many ways this speech shows he had accepted Southern Defeat and the changes it entailed, something a lot of Southerns to this day refuse to do:
I will say to you and to the colored race that men who bore arms and followed the flag of the Confederacy are, with very few exceptions, your friends. I have an opportunity of saying what I have always felt – that I am your friend, for my interests are your interests, and your interests are my interests. We were born on the same soil, breathe the same air, and live in the same land. Why, then, can we not live as brothers? I will say that when the war broke out I felt it my duty to stand by my people. When the time came I did the best I could, and I don't believe I flickered. I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe that I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to bring about peace. It has always been my motto to elevate every man- to depress none. (Applause.) I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going.
I have not said anything about politics today. I don't propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, that you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Use your best judgement in selecting men for office and vote as you think right.
Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. I have been in the heat of battle when colored men, asked me to protect them. I have placed myself between them and the bullets of my men, and told them they should be kept unharmed. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I'll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand.
In many ways Forrest was a product of his time and place. To remove him is to white wash history. We have to remember for both the good he did and the bad he did for as Gibbon said of a Roman General (paraphrased) "His sins were the sins of his time period, his virtues were his own".
malthaussen
(17,202 posts)I will agree that if one wishes to understand an individual, not just to judge him, then it is useful to consider his character in the context of his culture.
But vice and virtue are both cultural constructs, and many of the more prominent virtues have been preached for millennia as targets to shoot for. Why, should an individual choose to conform to these criteria, he is to be commended as doing so on his own responsibility, whereas when he conforms to other criteria that may be termed vices in another time and place, he should be said to be a product of his times? The same will proceeds the act, and it is by this will he should most consistently be evaluated. But history places a high value on conformity, and so when a person conforms to a virtue, he is called virtuous, but when he conforms to a vice, he is given a pass due to the times.
-- Mal
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Sorry, if you study Southern Slavery, killing an African American was viewed as a "Virtue" by most pre Civil War southerns (and they share that with almost any other slave based culture). If you were male and turned 14, in the South you had to serve in the local "Sheriff's Patrol" which put you at some spot, generally in intersection, but that was not always the case, to watch for any escaped slaves. You and your fellow member of that "Patrol" could question anyone, white or black, who crossed your assigned post. If you had any suspicions you had the right detailed anyone who came by that post, and if that required you to kill them, that was approved of (Members of the patrol were NOT liable for the price of any slave they killed, that price was paid by the county but they also could beat anyone up with the same immunity). There is evidence that the killing of an African American was presumed to be needed once in a while, and thus if a Patrol did it, it was viewed as a virtue,
Slavery also made whipping a slave a virtue so such slaves would know their place and such whippings could be done by the owner of the slave OR a member of the patrol.
Studies have shown that people will adopt the "Norms" of the place they live in. Thus if the place you live in has slaves, and embraces the concept that they must be kept in their place, you will embrace slavery and the need and methods to keep them in their place.
The recent increase in tolerance of Homosexuality, is in many ways the product of our society removing most of the restrictions on such activities. Without those removed restrictions, starting in the 1950s, including eliminating imprisonment for homosexual acts, homosexuality would still be ignored and when seen, shown in a bad light. That is only since the 1950s that such acts have been seen in a more neutral light and thus the increase toleration of homosexuality. The older generation grew up in the tell end of that anti-homosexuality view, and thus dislike like it to a higher degree then younger people. Again a product of the society they grew up in and what that society accepted as good and bad.
We are a product of our society as much as a product of our genes. Remember the pray of St Francis "Dear God, give me the power to change the things I can, the strength to endure the things I can not change, and the Wisdom to know the difference". Society change, and when we look back in history we must understand the society that produced the people we are studying. Many people of the past embraced they society and did what they could to improve those societies (Jefferson tried to get a condemnation of slavery into the Declaration of Independence, but was outvoted on that matter). At the same time Jefferson was asking for a condemnation of Slavery, he owned slaves and later would advocate slaves as the best investment one could make. Classic case of someone embracing the norms of his own time and place. Everyone does it, we do it even today. People in the future may look upon us as some sort of freaks for we reject something they embrace (For example stopping at Red Lights, they may REJECT that concept, embracing the Iowa Bicycle rule, slow down and look and only stop if needed).
malthaussen
(17,202 posts)Which is that the same act of will preceds vice as precedes virtue. X is courageous and kills slaves. His culture applauds both. Therefore, X is no more to be praised (or condemened) for courage as for killing slaves. Mr Gibbon would have it that the courage is praisworthy, yet he is not responsible for the killing of slaves because his culture encouraged it.
-- Mal
happyslug
(14,779 posts)About ten years ago, I watch a news show about a US-Arabian custody dispute. A man from an Arab Country, married an American Woman in the USA. They had a child, they separated. She was awarded custody by a US Court. The father then took the child back to his home nation with him, and when the Mother tired to get the child back, the courts in that country said no, for under Islamic law, children go with their father not their mother.
The Child quickly adjusted to living in the Arab Country, wearing a burka, when she left her home it was with a man from the household etc. Then a few years later, the mother arranged for the child to be kidnapped and brought back to the US. This was in violation of the laws of the Country the child was in, but given she had US Custody papers NOT against US Laws. When the Child, who was a teenager, returned, for a few months, she followed what she had done in her father's house, but quickly adjusted to living in the US and gave up the Burka and going out of her mother's house only with a male from that house. She adjusted to being a member of American Society.
Another example of this was a Protestant minister who befriended a couple going to collage in the USA. In the USA, they dressed like Americans and adopted living situation as Americans, the minister even visited they home in the USA. When they returned to their native country they invited the minister to come over to see them, which he did. While in their country, he did as he had done in this country, walked around their home. One time he entered the kitchen and the wife saw him enter the kitchen, but she did not have on her veil (Something she had NEVER worn in the USA). On the minster entering the kitchen she immediately throw her dress over her face, let a male she her without a veil. That she exposed everything else she did not even think of. The minster quickly stepped out of the kitchen. Later on they all laughed about it, for it was a classic example of a cultural clash.
I bring up these stories to show that people DO adopt the norms of the culture they are in. We all do it. In many ways women do be more then men (This is believed do to the fact in most societies it is the women who tend to move from the clan, village, tribe, etc they were raised in, and mate with someone from another clan, village, tribe etc and move in with that clan, village, tribe etc). What the society you are in says is "Good" you will embrace as "Good", even if another society calls it "Evil". In many ways this was a cultural clash between the North (which had few slaves) and the South (Where the Slaves at time outnumbered the freeman of the area). People often went from one to the other and embrace the norms of the society they were in. A classic example of "When in Rome, dress as the Roman's do".
We are a product of our culture as much as anything else. Ethnicity is nothing new, and I have seen people who say they are NOT Ethnocentric, then apply the norms of their society onto everyone else. Our dispute appears more of one that I try to understand people of different cultures, while you want to make us all subject to the same cultural norms, you think are normal. I have enough understanding of people to believe that position is not a way to understand people of different cultures, both present and past. To understand people, you have to understand they background and that includes their cultural norms.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)It may be a fact that slavery was part of our past - that does NOT justify the continued prejudice and mistreatment today. The people like the Charleston killer are trying to return us to a horrible past that should have been settled when the Confederacy lost their war. The KKK and other conservative racist groups are trying to keep that past alive with symbols of their treason against the US government.
We can change our culture - the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s showed us that we can and those efforts should continue. The people who revere the Confederate heritage and the symbols of that era are trying to turn back the clock and not living in the culture that has developed since 1865.
Understanding the background that shaped our culture is important but allowing the continuance of the symbols that perpetuate the worst elements is idiotic. I am descended from slave owners and racists but I don't celebrate their evils, I stay aware of their mistakes. I hope by the way I live, I can help remove that legacy from my culture.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)That was St Francis's position, change what you can, accept what you can NOT change, and understand the difference. This thread started about Nathan Bedford Forrest and his attitudes to African Americans. Forrest was a product of the ante-bellum South.
I noted Forrest's attitude changed over time, during the Civil War he killed an African American who had participated as a non combatant, for killing African Americans was one of the Ante-Bellum "Norms" of the South. By 1875 he gave a speech to African Americas where he actually came out and told them to vote as they see fit and he accepted them as full citizens. For someone like Forrest that was a huge change. How deep was the change we do not know, but he mentions friends of his told him NOT to give the speech, and did it anyway. Thus there is some evidence he fully accepted the change, something some people have yet to do in the US.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)He said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest#Speaks_to_black_Southerners
This, from a man whose previous businesses included being a slave trader? From the man who was in charge of the Confederate troops involved in the Fort Pillow massacre?
Maybe as he grew closer to death he worried about his afterlife or his legacy. But I do not have forgiveness for a man who lived a life that subjugated others, selling people as if they were livestock, then made his reputation by defending that choice. Only after he and his were defeated, years later did he make that speech - and there are no stories about acts to make amends for his earlier life. Only a few short years before that speech he was befriending members of the KKK, if he was not a member himself.
Forrest's 1875 speech is the epitome of "too little, too late."
Interesting post. Finally someone who knows something!
malthaussen
(17,202 posts)... JEB Stuart does, though. Funny how the U.S. cavalry commanders don't get parks, but the C.S. ones do. Mind you, Kilpatrick was a damned idiot (in WT Sherman's own words), and Sheridan did get a tank named after him (as did Stuart). Strange, anyway.
-- Mal
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)The Confederates won the war, as far as writing the history, enshrining their traitors with statues and the Lost Cause school of history.
It's long past time erect monuments to Stevens, Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, William Seward, John Brown and the other good folks. And I'm always up for more honors for Lincoln.
Removing the Confederate slant and mythology that's still prevalent in U.S. history education is much needed.
malthaussen
(17,202 posts)Is terrorism, to use the popular word, still terrorism in the name of a good cause? And if one excuses Mr Brown for making war on a "state" (even if he did take over a Federal facility), then doesn't that weaken the criticism of the "states" for breaking with the Federal government? John Brown, I submit, was as much of a rebel and traitor as any CSA officer. Although unlike those who were serving in the US army at the time, he didn't violate any oath. (He also played a rather dubious role in the whole "Bleeding Kansas" affray)
As for Mr Stevens... not a can of worms I'd like to open. I'm pretty much in the camp of those who thought he was a touch too radical for his own or anybody else's good. Considering who his friends and enemies were (Butler, Wade? Really?), I find him a somewhat unsavoury character.
-- Mal
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Consistently getting their ass whipped is their legacy.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Then the CSA getting it's "ass whipped" is it's legacy. If they want to give this terrorist, murderer, and racist a grave, do so, but kept it the hell out of parks which were paid for in black dollars as well as white.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Grierson is known for the two greatest cavalry actions of the 1800s. The first is his raid on the State of Mississippi while Grant was fighting his way south then across the Mississippi river then then back north to Vicksburg. Grierson was ordered to attack Eastern Mississippi to draw off Southern Forces from Grant, to cut supplies to Vicksburg and destroy the railroad serving that part of the South
As late as WWI, Cavalry leaders wanted to duplicate what Grierson did in that raid.
Gierson's other claim to fame is his method of keeping Apache leader Victorio out of Texas. Gierson put groups of four to five men at every water hole north of the Rio Grande. This denied Victorio any water north of the Rio Grande and thus Victorio had to moved back to the Rio Grande when he was killed by the Mexican Army.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Grierson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grierson%27s_Raid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorio
James H. Wilson, the "other boy general of the Civil War", like Custer he made General when he was 26 years of age. He is known to be the only General to defeat Forrest in the Civil War.
He did Wilson's raid through Alabama in 1865, he won the first battle of Selma:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Wilson
Another factor was the Union Army did not think it needed that much cavalry. The Eastern US was mostly forested at that time period and Cavalry loses it effectiveness in deep woods. Thus the Union Army called for only 10% of its forces to be mounted in 1861, by 1865 about 1/3 of the US Army was mounted, mostly mounted infantry, who road into combat but fought on foot (as did the regular US Cavalry during the war, except in unusual circumstances).
The South liked its cavalry but each rider had to supply his own horse, no horse he was transferred to the Infantry. If a Trooper lost a horse, till 1864 he was given 30 days to get a new one. The problem by 1864 horses were hard to come by AND many troopers just went home and stayed home, so that option was removed in 1864.
By 1863 Union Cavalry was the equal if not better then Southern Cavalry, but given most people who buy Civil War Books are from the south, that is just ignored.
Side note: Pennsylvania raised a regiment of Lancers, the only lancer equipped unit on either side in the US Civil War. Had a good reputation but later dropped the lance for the lance kept getting tangled in tree branches and nearly useless as a infantry weapon compared to a Rifle. Very while used in the few horse mounted actions of the Civil War, but such actions only occurred when enemies forces blundered on to each other, if either side had time to prepare to fight, they dismounted.
http://www.rushslancers.com/
malthaussen
(17,202 posts)Not Rush's though.
About all I could add to your fine retort is that Phil Sheridan did a hell of a good job, and the cavalry of the Army of the Potomac wound up being a pretty competant force.
As a side note, not about cavalry but about generals: Galusha Pennypacker (you can't make these names up) was the youngest general officer ever in the U.S. army, brigadier general of volunteers at the ripe old age of 20. He also was awarded the Medal of Honor. Since I live right on the banks of Pennypacker creek, I like to think of the crazy fool once in a while.
-- Mal
happyslug
(14,779 posts)That was their positions before they were cavalry officers. Geierson actually hated horses, he had been kicked by one as a young child. When he enlisted, he was selected to be an officer and given his build (he was a small person) he was put into the cavalry (The US Cavalry wanted small people, no heavier then 150 pounds, and mostly lighter, that tended to be men under 5 foot 6 inches. 5 Foot 8 inches was the tallest, yes John Wayne and the other "Western" Cowboy heroes of the big screen would NEVER have been actual Cavalry officers, to heavy, wear out to many horses).
KatyMan
(4,197 posts)In Philly?
malthaussen
(17,202 posts)"Pennypack" is Lenni-Lenape for "slow moving water," and the creek (and park) are named for that. But the Pennypackers were a moderately-important family in the Philly area (Samuel Pennypacker, governor of Pennsylvania, was Galusha's cousin). So there's some cosmic serendipity going on.
-- Mal
KatyMan
(4,197 posts)n/t
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I think being on the winning side was their legacy... if we're short-sighted enough to limit a legacy ton one and only one act, that is. 
gladium et scutum
(808 posts)Look at our flag, there are 50 stars on it. That is because of men like Generals Sheridan, Kilpatrick, Pleasanton, Thomas, Sherman, Meade, Burnside, Hooker, Grant, Halleck et alia, these men did their duty to defend the United States.
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)Take down the statue, but leave the remains where they lay. I've helped move a few (thousand) bodies, and unless there is an urgent need for development, or they are in danger of being disturbed through natural forces, leave them be. On the other hand, if they do proceed with this, I hope they place his remains in an unmarked grave and let them be forgotten once and for all.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They were moved there to lionize this KKK creating, confederate general. It's a stain and a shame, and it's paid for with public money--and that's just wrong. Put him and his old lady back to where they were originally laid to rest, and from where they were ignominiously moved to make a racist and political point four decades after the guy died.
Put up a statue of MLK, who gave his last speech in Memphis before being assassinated there, in its place. That seems like a more appropriate representation of "history."
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)I can see, and sympathize with, both positions in this debate. I'm not sure which agencies will have jurisdiction in the decision, but I will be very interested in the determination made by the state Historic Preservation office, which I expect will have a voice. 
MADem
(135,425 posts)Nothing wrong with putting up a small plaque where the monument once stood as a testament to racism and segregation all those years, but no need to continue to glorify someone who doesn't deserve it and never did, either. He was a murdering, cruel ass. And that wasn't his original final resting place--his rotting corpse was used, without his permission or knowledge, like Lenin only without the wax and the glass display case, to further the goals of the Klan and of segregation and oppression. There comes a point when enough of that shit is enough.
One of the things that always made me uneasy when I would be down south is all those confederate statues. Not just a little bit--a LOT. Those statues made me feel like I was in enemy territory, and I didn't belong. If we want to be One Nation, Indivisible, we need to make everyone feel at home from sea to shining sea, at least in our public spaces.
They took his name off the park. Now it's time to put his ass back where it belongs.
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)If moving the remains for political reasons was wrong 100 years ago, it still is. A simple historical marker explaining how they came to be there would be a better lesson to future generations in my opinion. If they do return them to their original resting place, it will still be a shrine to his vile beliefs. Better to use them as a source of learning and keep them in public view maybe. Or toss them in a landfill. Either way works for me.
MADem
(135,425 posts)There are empty graves awaiting them. Put them back where they belong. Where their families buried them in the first place. Even an enemy combatant has a right to a grave, and if people want to go "worship" at this clown's grave, let them.
Just don't make people eating a sack lunch in the park or taking the kids to play have to deal with that shit, that legacy of oppression. It's not fair.
The dead general and his bride don't belong in "Health Sciences" park--years from now children would think those were the victims of human scientific experiement, or something. The name of the park and its purpose have 'evolved' too--and, so, those corpses just don't belong there anymore. They were brought to that place to bully and intimidate, to declare a faux "victory" and let Black people know that the losers weren't done, yet. That just doesn't float anymore, and good thing.
I would like the south a LOT better if these monuments to racists were taken down. They make me feel very unwelcome, like I am in territory of enemies of the USA. When it can make me feel like that, it's not 'heritage,' it's hatred.
B2G
(9,766 posts)You'd have an aneurysm.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And it's like a WEIGHT when I see that stuff.
That Stone Mountain in Georgia is another place that makes me sick to my stomach.
I don't have a problem with the odd statues of the rank-and-file servicemembers that are up in many town squares to honor the local dead. I "get" that--they served as a place to commemorate the death of family members who were buried in far off cemeteries, or whose remains were not recovered.
It's the glorification of specific individuals who were, at the end of the day, traitors and enemies to the nation, that I find troubling. And the overlay of the racism, the oppression, the segregation, etc., it can't be overlooked.
They just took down that flag in SC. That wasn't "heritage"--that was South Carolina's nastyass 1961 Hearty Fuck You to the federal government over the issue of segregation. Nasty, ugly, and wrong in the first place--and this "park" named after a general who led a war-crime slaughter and helped to found the Klan was nasty, ugly and wrong, too. Just because the park was there for a while longer doesn't mean it's too late to fix a big mistake. It's time--I hope we do a lot more of this kind of thing. It'll make visiting the south a lot more pleasant for many people, I'm sure.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Savannah is a fascinating city, steeped in history.
What you say is "glorification" is viewed as a historic learning experience to a great many people.
MADem
(135,425 posts)seeing things as they--and I--do. There just might be more people than little old me who are "offended" by a lot of the confederate imagery that persists in the southern portion of the United States of America.
Some monuments are inappropriate; we don't name highways or schools after Rommel, or put up statues of Hitler for a "historic learning experience," the way it works is that the losers don't get lauded.
It only took us a hundred and fifty years to start to grab a clue on that score, but better late than never.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Munificence
(493 posts)Now if we could get these names of these slave owners removed from anything with their name on it. It is disgusting that we celebrate their names on public institutions as they were slave owners:
Washington
Jefferson
Madison
Monroe
Jackson
Van Buren
Harrison
Tyler
Polk
Taylor
Johnson
Grant
Same goes for all the name of "Byrd" in West Virginia. We all know that Byrd only showed us his "crocodile tears" to get votes and keep his racists ass in political power.
"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side. ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)That particular false equivalency is getting rather old and tired. The original stature was not created to celebrate a slave owner, but rather someone who fought for a failed nation wholly predicated on slavery. Even the half-wit is able to see the relevant different. Though no doubt those half-wits will rationalize a pretense otherwise.
Not that you're a half-wit by any mean... as you seem of be full of wit.
Munificence
(493 posts)you think I was making some type of equivalency between Forrest and the names I mentioned. I was not. I am willing however to say that Byrd is closer to present day and is actually worse in my mind, so there is no way for me to make a false equivalency as they are not indeed.
Society is starting to wake up to the ills of our forefathers and demanding their removal from public places... so let's not stop with the Confederates. Let us move forward and shame all who were involved with owning or selling of slaves. And let us all shame Senator Robert Byrd and anyone who took an active roll in being a Klansman. I know you more than likely can't find it in yourself to do this to Byrd's name, however I hope you agree with me that we need to disassociate Robert E Lee's name from Arlington House and remove the various monuments honoring Lee. And while we are at it, let's dump any public namesake or monuments of Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson...as these are equivalent.
.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)You have to understand where the hatred of African Americans came from in West Virginia and the Western Pennsylvania Coal Fields. In both areas you had large coal mines, that tried to unionize between the 1860s and the 1930s. These tended to fail for mine owners did various actions to keep wages low, including importing people as "scabs" during labor strikes AND even during labor peace (and lets not forget outright shooting of striking miners, an not uncommon situation in those mines).
When WWI stopped European immigration (Immigration restarted in 1919 but was stopped by 1924) these coal mine owners looked elsewhere for Strike Breakers and found African Americans working in the south were perfect (The Auto Companies went to the hills of Appalachians for the same reasons, bring a lot of former white residents of the Southern Appalachians mountains to the Detroit Area).
When it came to Strike Breakers, the Coal Mine owners preferred African Americans from the deep south, for most had no information of what was happening in the coal mine regions, but like the offer of what to them sounded like good paying jobs. Thus during WWI, you saw a lot of African Americans start to move north to the cities and the coal fields. Some problems in the 1910s, but given the labor shortage wages stayed high till 1919 and the various steel and coal strikes of that year (Both Coal mine owners and Steel Mill Owners wanted to cut wages and when workers objected you had nasty strikes occurring).
Coal mining was and is a very dangerous profession, but it is also a profession that forces people to learn to depend on each other. This brings with it solidarity and thus the Coal Miners were always willing to work together to force they employer to accept a union. The traditional way to undermine this was to make move miners around and make sure they had no place to meet not under the mine owners control (one tactic was to put a Pole and an Italian in the same mine, they spoke two different languages and thus could not speak to each other, for such speaking could lead to unionization efforts).
Since Africa Americans spoke English and most immigrants learn English, by the time of WWI the above tactic was no longer effective but African Americans could be brought in by train to undercut any strike during the 1910s and 1920s. The push in the 1920s was to cut wages of coal miners, and one way to achieve that was to import African Americans from the deep South, this lead to resentment of these African Americans by white coal miners and their families.
By 1928 the reduction in wages, while the country boomed, was to much for most coal miners so you had the 1928 Coal Strike in Western Pennsylvania. The coal mine owners feel back to their old policies including an occasional shooting, beatings of strikers, evictions of strikers from their homes and if your parents were on strike you could NOT go to school. That is how bad the mine owners would go to break a strike.
In Western Pennsylvania there was one exception to the denial of schooling to childrne of striking miners, Broughton School in what was then Snowden Township (now South Park Township) Allegheny County PA. The reason for the exception was the Union Hall was right across the street and the Union organizers had grabbed the school and left it opened to everyone.
This fact lead to a largely unreported school shooting. Now Broughton School was along a road that followed a creek. On the other side of the creek ran a railroad to the coal mine. The railroad was up a steep hillside, that today is covered with trees but in the 1920s was covered with scrub. African Americans were imported to be scabs. To get to the mine they had to go through Broughton itself and then pass the School OR bypass Broughton by walking along the Railroad tracks. For "protection" the Coal and Iron Police, police officers hired by the mine owners, gave them pistols. A group of African American scabs decided to walk along the railroad tracks. They reached opposite the school.
No one disputes the facts up to that point. The miners in the school state that they saw the African Americans till they heard shots being fired. The Miners reports the African Americans opening fire on the school. The African Americans claim they only returned fire after hearing shoots being fired. The local Justice of the Peace sided with the miners, but while the school was clearly shot up no one was killed and thus no one was charged (The State Police blamed the miners, as did the Coal and Iron Police and neither were present at the shooting through both were in the area to "contain violence" during the strike).
You have three explanations for the above shooting:
1. The miners opened fired as the African Americans walked by, but then explain why the bullets in the school? Bullets were found. Why would the miner's open fire from a place their children were attending school? Why not wait for the African Americans along the road or creek or railroad where they were better places to hide and better protection from any return fire?
2. The African Americans opened fire. The problem with this is simple, they had nothing but pistols, the distance was about 200-300 yards, to far for effective pistol fire.
3. This was a set up by the Coal and Iron Police. They were further up the hill, with rifles, and opened fire on the school as the African Americans walked by. This was to draw the fire of the miners in the school to the only people they would see, the African Americans. The African Americans hearing gun shots in a narrow valley will assume it is from the school and return fire, but having only pistols it would be ineffective. This would be typical Coal and Iron Police Tactic. The Miners stayed in the school, protected by the wooden structure, the African Americans jumped the other side of the railroad, using the track as a barrier to gunshot, thus no one was killed.
Now, you may say, aren't pistol bullets different from rifle bullets? In most cases yes, but it appears the African Americans had been given 44-40 pistols, which was a popular rifle round. Thus it is possible that only rifles fire hit the school, but the intent was to get the miners to kill the African Americans so they could all be charged with Murder (i.e. the shooters, if Coal And Iron Police, did not care if they killed anyone or not, they just wanted to provoke fire from the miners, the purpose of the pistols being given to the African Americans was for them, on hearing the shooting, return ineffective fire but by that drawing the fire of the miners, who the Coal and Iron Police would then charge with Murder.
Please note, the charge of Murder was to break the union not anything else. Coal and Iron Police were known to charge leaders of strikers, who were NOT even present at the killing, with murder, while leaving the actual killers escape (Some times the Coal and Iron Police did the actual murder and then blamed the Union Leaders). .
I bring up the 1928 Broughton School Shooting, for it was typical of how white miners came to view African Americans, they were scabs. The African Americans were brought in to cut their wages. The 1928 strike was a nasty strike and it brought with it a lot of hatred. This hatred extended to mine owners, the Coal and Iron Police (who were finally outlawed in 1931) and scabs including African Americans.
Thus racism in West Virginia exists and widespread but of a different nature then the deep south. In the deep south it is more to keep African Americans as suppressed local labor, as opposed to West Virginia's position that they are nothing but scabs whose role is to cut wages.
The further we go from the 1928 strike, the less racism we see, but this brings me back to Byrd. He is a product of the 1930s and 1940s, he thus the first generation AFTER that strike, a strike still fresh in the minds not only of the participants but they children. Thus Byrd's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Acts. As time went on, racism, even in West Virginia died down and Byrd could become more even handled (In his old age, he stated he regretted opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act).
Racism in the Coal Fields of West Virginia and Western Pennsylvania is tied in with the Coal Strike of 1928 and the use of African Americans to break that strike and to destroy the United Mine Workers Union. Byrd had to run in an environment of deep loathing by the miners of West Virginia brought by the fact African Americans were used as Scabs in the 1920s and 1930s. His early speeches reflect that situation and his later speeches reflects that West Virginia has slowly recovered from the hatred generated in that time period, a time period rarely reported in US History books.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)All the major Corps leased black prisoners. This documentary is made from factual government records.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Yes, the South "reinvented Slavery" in the form of black prison gang populations but that was the deep south and included Birmingham Alabama, the heart of Southern Steel Making. US Steel is known to have used such labor in Birmingham.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB995228253461746936
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/hisprislacap.html
On the other hand outside of the deep south, while prison labor was available it was rarely used. First, the "buyer" of the prisoners were responsible for them, thus if the prisoner escaped they had to pay for any damages (and you had to provide security for them, housing for them, food for them etc, much of this could be done cheaply, but with hired workers you could put those costs on them to provide for themselves. . Second, most did not have the skills to do the work wanted, thus most employers did not want them. Thus prison labor were not really competitive outside the deep south and even in the deep south they abandoned it except for chain gangs by 1900 for similar reasons. Chain gangs were popular in the south for they could do road work while chained. Thus stayed popular till mechanization of road work made hiring people with equipment more cost efficient then hiring convicts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_gang
Yes, such prisoners were used in the South, but no indications of such use north of the Mason Dixon line. This was NOT do to humanity reasons, but practical reasons the areas where such gangs could operate safety were very small. In most industry and mining the chains were a hazard, a hazard not only to the prisoners but anyone else working with them. Thus the larger mines and industry in the north wanted no part of them. Most prison labor were tied in with plantation work or road construction, neither a high interest in West Virginia in the 1870 to 1930 period.
Given my sub-topic was BYRD and WEST VIRGINIA and the coal mines of West Virginia prison labor was not much of a factor in West Virginia.
In West Virginia the main prison was West Virginia Penitentiary, and while it did use prison labor, it was all within the prison walls and for the prison itself. The second function of the prison was education, the West Virginia Prison system believed that if prisoners could read and write they get jobs and not return to crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Penitentiary
Thus West Virginia did not have the POLICY of using prison labor during the time period OUTSIDE of the prison itself.
The second prison in West Virginia was not founded till 1937 and was an extensive farm, but has other prison labor today (for example 90% of Braille text books are translated into braille at this prison):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huttonsville_Correctional_Center
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Could make them a lot of money.
OK, OK, raffle the bones separately for another $25.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)OK, let's all just take a breath. Removing flags is one thing. Actively disinterring and removing honorably buried bones is quite another. Nathan Bedford Forrest was the first Klan Grand Wizard, he was a pluperfect bastard, but for the love of simple decency if not accurate history, let sleeping bones lie. Make the place a monument to refuting hate, do whatever, but let the man lie still.
This is bullshit.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)all of the sudden here in the USA.
The Palmyrans had slaves too, so maybe ISIS is right to destroy their monuments too.
Psephos
(8,032 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)death?
His family didn't bury him in that park when he died. They buried him in a cemetery.
Put him back where his people buried him.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)then no amount of explanation is going to convince you.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He wasn't "honorably buried" there.
He was RE BURIED, for racist and political reasons, to make a point about the Klan and keeping certain members of our society in their "place."
Make no mistake, they were saying--the south will rise again. Don't get too uppity, because even when we lose, we WIN.
Put the guy back in the grave that he was buried in WHEN HE DIED. It's not like anyone would be going against his "wishes," if anything, they'd be putting things right by putting him in his proper burial place, as opposed to a frigging city park. They took his name OFF the park a few years back, because they saw the error in glorifying a racist bully by naming a public place after him. This is just the "wrapping up" bit. The city council has already voted in favor of it, and good for them.
That seems appropriate to me. Get him the hell out of a public, once-segregated, park. He never belonged there in the first place.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 10, 2015, 03:13 PM - Edit history (2)
That is considered his greatest crime. It is clear he did NOT participate in the massacre, but he also did nothing to stop it. A good commander makes efforts to prevent his men from committing war crimes. General Patton during WWII, sent an order that he wanted any soldier who raped anyone, tried and convicted no matter who the soldier happened to be. Patton knew it would occur, and he wanted to punish those who did it, for he saw that as the best way to tell the soldiers NOT to rape. i.e. you will NOT get away with it.
Thus raise funds for a Ft Pillow monument and a MLK memorial, one on each side of Forrest. More expensive then removing the Forrest Monument, but can put him in perspective, We could be like Jefferson, he kept a bust of himself opposite a bust of his political opponent Hamilton. A MLK beside Forrest, with a Ft Pillow display in front of both would look nice. Given Memphis is where MLK died, it would be fitting.
A another thought, since MLK was killed, what about a memorial of the two African Americans crush to death in the Garbage truck? That incident lead to the Garbage workers strike and the reason MLK was in Memphis when he was assassinated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis_Sanitation_Strike
A memorial based on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
Aristus
(66,386 posts)As appropriate a resting place for his diseased carcass as any...
randys1
(16,286 posts)Paladin
(28,264 posts)I never would have dreamed it would happen in my lifetime.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)What they should do is add a part to that monument that quotes his civil rights speech not long before he died. Nobody in American history EVER evolved like Forrest. He went from being a pre-war slave trader to a man who told the black population of Memphis "when you are oppressed I'll come to your relief." I think a man like that shouldn't be hidden because of the evil he did, but should be shown in all his complexity. It's possible to show him without celebrating him. That makes more sense than a misguided attempt to bury the past.
Oh, contrary to popular belief, he didn't found the Klan. He was definitely involved, though whether as a formal commander is unknown. How do I know? I've read his testimony to Congress on that very subject. I suggest everyone read it. It's a hell of a history lesson.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The following spring, in April 1864, Forrest and his men were involved in one of the most controversial episodes of the Civil War. After surrounding Fort Pillow, near Memphis, Forrest demanded the surrender of the garrison, which included 262 soldiers of the U.S. Colored Heavy Artillery. When the Union forces refused, Forrest’s men easily overran the fort. Then, according to several eyewitness accounts, the Confederates, enraged by the sight of black men in Federal uniform, executed many of the colored troops after they had surrendered: an unambiguous war crime. Though accounts varied, the incident stands as one of the most gruesome of the Civil War era; “Remember Fort Pillow” became a rallying-cry for African-American soldiers throughout the Union Army.
......
After the war, Forrest is best known as having been a prominent figure in the foundation of the Ku Klux Klan, a group composed of mostly Confederate veterans committed to violent intimidation of blacks, northerners and republicans. He was “Grand Wizard” until he ordered the dissolution of the organization in 1869. Forrest died of diabetes in Memphis on October 29, 1877.
It's nice that he "evolved," but being close to death has a way of making people reassess their conduct towards their fellow man. His 'evolution' can be commemmorated on a small plaque in the park, making note of the sad history of that park and how it was founded on race hatred, after they put his remains back where they were improperly disinterred in the first place.
There are THOUSANDS of people in front of the SC state house as I type this--and the vast majority of them are not there to cry over the loss of the confederate flag. I expect to hear a lot of cheering when that flag comes down. Speaking of evolution, it's time for this NATION to evolve--and stop glorifying monuments to people who wished a large percentage of our citizens ill. Enough.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Allen Trelease's book White Terror, from 1971, details the founding of the Klan quite well. Forrest gets no mention in it. His involvement came later, as indicated by his own testimony before Congress. The dissolution they cite is only known because the stupid bastard actually admitted it immediately after declaiming any role in the Klan. Again, I suggest reading that testimony. It never hurts to learn the history of one's country.
Hiding away Forrest is a mistake. I didn't mention his evolution to sing his praises. My point is that if that son of a bitch can learn to change, nobody else has a damned excuse. Forrest was maybe the most self-made man in American history. He came from nothing, had nothing, was nothing. He built himself on the backs of other human beings. He's an object lesson that the "values" the right trumpets like hard work and entrepreneurship are not intrinsically good. Forrest is a great example of the lesson people refuse to learn: what you do matters exactly as much as how you do it. That's why I say don't hide him.
MADem
(135,425 posts)As he looked when he gave his last speech....
And put the key parts of the speech on the plinth....
B2G
(9,766 posts)to learn what modern day monuments, names and burial sites are deemed offensive by our descendants.
Judging things that happened centuries ago based on modern societal standards can be a tricky business. I wonder where it will end.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Someone takes a city, put his monuments all over the city to show it is his, when the city is taken by someone else, those monuments are pulled down and end up in dumps.
When Rome Embraced Christianity, they tended to destroy pagan temples (and the Gold on those temples turned over the the Emperor, and some historians said, the destruction was more to raise gold for the Emperor then to destroy temples, for temples without gold lasted for centuries in the Christian Roman Empire). Now, most of these temples were NOT usable as churches. Temples tended to be small enclosures when the temple priests would go in and offer the sacrifices given to them by worshipers. The worshipers were NOT allowed in the temples themselves.
Christian Churches were intended to house all the Christians that wanted to participant in the mass, thus were much larger then the earlier pagan temples (with the exemption of the Jewish Temple, which required participate to enter and exit and the Jewish Synagogues which like Christian Churches were intended to house everyone participating in the Jewish Religious Ceremonies).
Thus, except for some larger temples, the Pantheon in Rome for example, Churches tended not to be built on pagan temple sites. The Pantheon in Athens was NEVER a temple, it appears to have been where people kept their money, it was also converted to a Church (and later a Mosque). Many Temples were destroyed, but no Churches built on their site (through some of these sites had churches built on them centuries later).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianized_sites
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenon
When Cortes conquered Mexico, he had the "Metropolitan Cathedral of the Assumption of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven" on the site of the old Aztec temple, for the same reason, it was to show everyone Spain and Catholicism were in power now, not pagan defeated natives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Metropolitan_Cathedral
In England, many a Church, that in the days of Catholic England, had been gold trimmed and decorated with images of saint, where white washed and became Protestant Church that down played the Saints and decorations of Churches.
On the other hand, when Islam came into being, the Conversion of Temples and Churches was one of its trade marks (They are exceptions, such as the Churches in Jerusalem). but many a church was converted to a Mosque, more to show everyone who was in power then anything else (and during the Reconquest in Spain, many a Mosque were converted to a Church, some being reconverted back to Churches).
The Communists are not much different, Stalin in 1931 order the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour destroy so he could build a Palace to Communism on the site (This destruction many communists opposed for why destroy a icon just to make a point?).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Saviour
These were all acts to show things have CHANGED, that what was good in the past is now evil. Who was a great leader, is now an outlawed barbarian.
Just agreeing with you that such destruction and building something new reflects what is the social norms of today. I wish people were more progressive then the people of the past, but that does not appear to be the case.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I think removing all the Confederate memorials risks us forgetting what they actually did. Sort of erasing and whitewashing the past.
I think adding some context to the displays is important to the discussion because these memorials typically leave out the unsavory details. Well, maybe it's time we added those details back in.
Larry Engels
(387 posts)To hate someone enough to want to dig him up and bury him somewhere else after over 100 years is a real hate-achievement.
Disclaimer: this is not an endorsement of the Confederacy, Forrest or of racism.
MADem
(135,425 posts)His rotting corpse was used as an intimidation tactic--to glorify his role as a war criminal and one of the racist founders of the Klan. Obviously, he made arrangements for his own death--put him back where he wanted to be buried, in his empty grave, where he rested for years before they decided to dig him up as a political intimidation stunt.
Nothing wrong with putting things back where they belong, and leaving public spaces available for use by ALL of the people, not just the ones who aren't repulsed by this guy's conduct through the bulk of his life.
Larry Engels
(387 posts)Hatred does.
MADem
(135,425 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)His remains were moved there and the monument was built as a symbol of defiance.
47of74
(18,470 posts)No, not there.
I was thinking at one of these fine facilities;
The T.E. Maxson Facility treats an average of 70 million gallons per day of wastewater under NPDES Permit #TN0020729. The T.E. Maxson Facility is located at 2685 Steam Plant Road and began operation in 1975. It has gone through a series of major changes over the years. The treatment regime currently consists of coarse bar screens, grit removal, fine bar screens and primary treatment followed by high rate trickling filters, conventional activated sludge, and secondary clarification. Treated wastewater is discharged into the Mississippi River. The primary and waste activated sludge is sent to a covered lagoon system for anaerobic digestion. The digested sludge is dewatered with belt filter presses and the dewatered sludge cake is land applied on-site. The biogas generated by the covered lagoon system is both sold to a nearby utility and flared.
M.C. Stiles Wastewater Treatment Facility
The M.C. Stiles Facility treats an average daily flow of 80 million gallons of wastewater under Permit #TN0020711. The M.C. Stiles Facility is located at 373 Stiles Drive and began operation in 1977. The treatment regime consists of coarse bar screens, fine bar screens, grit removal, activated sludge contact-stabilization followed by secondary clarification and discharge into the Mississippi River. The waste activated sludge is sent to a covered lagoon system for anaerobic digestion. The digested sludge is dewatered with belt filter presses and the dewatered sludge cake is stored in a surface disposal facility on-site. The biogas generated by the covered lagoon system is sold to a nearby industry and used to fuel an electric generation operation on-site.
Put it right in the area where the, shall we say, raw materials first enter the plant.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Cremate their remains and scatter them, then melt down the statue and replace it with one to a Union general (Sherman is my personal fave ) or a civil rights hero like MLK, Malcolm X, Harriet Tubman, or John Brown.