Confederate general Stand watie of the Cherokee tribe

[Henry of Grosmont]

Please calm down the emotion, if you guys are interested in history than enjoy. I personally find the pagan governments of adolf hitler repulsive, yet can read and enjoy learning ww2 history of germany and even respect their military efforts. Somehow you ask if this is about slave owners being only a little racist, not sure where you got that from this is on a great general stand watie. It does include the fact he and other indians owned slaves, that is part of the history. I must ask how is slave owning racists? when indians enslaved Indianans, blacks enslaved blacks, whites enslaved whites etc. I am not saying he was not racists, but because someone owns slaves does not force the assumption they are racists, watie was as were almost everyone of every color of that day.

Emotion? No. I am also not interested in pathetic attempts in revisionist history, like Nazis accepting blacks, etc. Saying that Native Americans also owned slaves doesn't make it right or less bad for whites to do so and diminish its wickedness. And please, spare me the tour into ancient history, etc. We specifically are discussing slavery in the US. You perfectly know it and still asked that question. IU'll naswer it - yes, the US slavery was racist. Even after its abolition, racism persisted, hell persists in the country.
Also, Hitler was a Catholic explicitly mentioning doing God's work in Mein Kampf . Maybe not a devout Catholic but nonetheless. So was Goebbels, etc. In fact, Hitler's birthday was celebrated in the churches throughout Germany on specific orders of the Pope. Himmler would fit into that pseudo Arian-Norse shite you mentioned.

Forrest
By KKK you must think of the modern redneck racists group. Than no he was not the grand wizard never was. Forrest did much work to unite blacks and whites after the war, he was invited and spoke to all black groups on uniting blacks and whites. Maybe some more tolerance and try to understand those you see as different than yourself, rather than fast judgment.

No, I do not tolerate intolerance. Not in the slightest. I won't show any tolerance towards racism, bigotry, etc. and KKK from the very beginning being the poster boy of that. Education is a tool, you might want to try picking it up sometime.

[twc01]

Emotion? No. I am also not interested in pathetic attempts in revisionist history, like Nazis accepting blacks, etc

. Saying that Native Americans also owned slaves doesn't make it right or less bad for whites to do so and diminish its wickedness.


And please, spare me the tour into ancient history, etc. We specifically are discussing slavery in the US. You perfectly know it and still asked that question. IU'll naswer it - yes, the US slavery was racist. Even after its abolition, racism persisted, hell persists in the country.
Also, Hitler was a Catholic explicitly mentioning doing God's work in Mein Kampf . Maybe not a devout Catholic but nonetheless. So was Goebbels, etc. In fact, Hitler's birthday was celebrated in the churches throughout Germany on specific orders of the Pope. Himmler would fit into that pseudo Arian-Norse shite you mentioned.


No, I do not tolerate intolerance. Not in the slightest. I won't show any tolerance towards racism, bigotry, etc. and KKK from the very beginning being the poster boy of that. Education is a tool, you might want to try picking it up sometime.

This may well be my last response to you sir, though i do find your posts entertaining.. You seem unable to handle a discussion on topic. From what I can tell your emotions are driving you and you are unable to think through logically what is being said. Having said that lets see what you have stated, i will respond to the bold sections in order.



pathetic attempts in revisionist history, like Nazis accepting blacks, etc


I can only say this is in your mind only. If you would like to have a calm sit down and reread my op or what has been said, you may just find this thread has something to do with a great general named stand watie. You may also find if your were to say maybe have a beer before reading, that not once has someone tried to say the natural selection obsessed Nazis were accepting of blacks. So I believe this would be either a case of emotions in the way, or people in your head talking to you. I would suggest if the latter is the case, you do not answer next time.


. Saying that Native Americans also owned slaves doesn't make it right or less bad for whites to do so and diminish its wickedness.


I believe that comes from inside your head alone. i simply mentioned a part of native american history from the book, they owned slaves. I said nothing of if it was right or wrong, even more so that if indians did it, it makes it ok for whites and blacks to do so. Please for me just calm down a bit, read slow what I say, than respond to what I do say.


We specifically are discussing slavery in the US. You perfectly know it and still asked that question


I was referring to native american, blacks and white slave owners in the usa. No offence but i can sense liberalism has its shakels on your mind. I must say than it must come as a surprise your "sources" have not told you blacks owned slaves [white and black] in american history, yes in the government stand watie faught for as well the CSA. However that would be another topic, this thread is about stand watie, the great confederate, native american, general.


racism persisted, hell persists in the country.


Off topic but I will just say i agree 100%. I think racism is maybe even greater than ever in the usa, its just done in a politically correct way.


Hitler was a Catholic explicitly mentioning doing God's work in Mein Kampf . Maybe not a devout Catholic but nonetheless. So was Goebbels, etc. In fact, Hitler's birthday was celebrated in the churches throughout Germany on specific orders of the Pope. Himmler would fit into that pseudo Arian-Norse shite you mentioned.


Off topic so i will just say Hitlers worldview was fully atheistic, survival of the fittest ,he hated Christianity and planned on eradicating it. This would be for another topic though.


No, I do not tolerate intoleranc

how very intolerant of you. Everyone is tolerant, so long as everyone agrees 100% with them on what should be tolerated i guess.


won't show any tolerance towards racism, bigotry, etc. and KKK from the very beginning being the poster boy of that. Education is a tool, you might want to try picking it up sometime.


Lets try that education thing, lets try to educate. NBF did not start the modern racists KKK. The original "kkk" was a political group, not a racist group. Also i find often those today who claim to be not racists, are actually obsessed with race and are the most racists, just politically correct racist and dont realize it because its so common.

[Henry of Grosmont]

The ignorance is great but not surprising. Utter rubbish about Hitler being an atheist, KKK not being racist, etc. Plus, implying things and making astonishingly stupid assumptions about me. Pulling thing out of your arse, aren't you? Or can you provide proof to those incredible claims?
As I mentioned, the ignorance is immense.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Interesting that Nathan Bedford Forrest was brought up as I expected his name to be mentioned at some point in this conversation.
My supernatural powers aside, I was under the impression that Nathan B. Forrest left the KKK. I think he wasn't necessarily anti-black but wanted some sort of segregation be it in terms of just socially or flat out government mandated deportations of blacks to their own areas. I think he made some statementss which were generally in favour of blacks despite being part of the KKK which at the time was pushing something more to segregation than a return to slavery.
But when dealing with the opinions of famous figures in this period regarding slavery the opinions get really blurred across Union and Confederate sides. Read what Grant, Lee, Forrest, Sherman or Stonewall Jackson said about slavery, abolition and black culture/society and what they have to say is extremely similar. Despite the fact that Lee owned 20 slaves, Jackson owned 3 slaves but Sherman and Grant owned none. Judging by their beliefs and statements being so similar then none of those 4 were racist or all 4 of them were racist (but not all of them were slave owning).

Anyway I can agree with the suggestion that owning slaves does not inherently make one racist. For example many American tribes owned slaves from other tribes. Owning another human being does not have to be related to racial discrimination.
Runaway slaves in Brazil enslaved other blacks for instance. Of course if one were to read on the opinions of people at the time most of them are bigoted against blacks, even those who weren't for slavery.

Random shift to Hitler's religious views but from the sources I've read which aren't pushing a Christian or Atheist agenda, Hitler was at least some kind of Agnostic and at the most religious some kind of weird Theist not connected to any religious belief.
Hitler for one did not accept either the Pope's authority, nor that of Protestant clergy and he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus (though he did believe in a historical Jesus) nor did he believe in the Biblical God/Yahweh as the deity of the universe (assuming he believed in the existence of a deity which is not clear).
Hitler's belief in the superiority of Catholicism was entirely cultural and had nothing to do with his religious beliefs. If anything he had a huge lack of religious belief but was not an Atheist akin to Stalin or Mao etc. Though I certainly wouldn't say that he was a Norse Pagan like some people claim (regardless of their agenda). Hell I wouldn't even say he was favourable to Norse/Germanic Paganism at all.

[twc01]

Interesting that Nathan Bedford Forrest was brought up as I expected his name to be mentioned at some point in this conversation.
My supernatural powers aside, I was under the impression that Nathan B. Forrest left the KKK. I think he wasn't necessarily anti-black but wanted some sort of segregation be it in terms of just socially or flat out government mandated deportations of blacks to their own areas. I think he made some statementss which were generally in favour of blacks despite being part of the KKK which at the time was pushing something more to segregation than a return to slavery.
But when dealing with the opinions of famous figures in this period regarding slavery the opinions get really blurred across Union and Confederate sides. Read what Grant, Lee, Forrest, Sherman or Stonewall Jackson said about slavery, abolition and black culture/society and what they have to say is extremely similar. Despite the fact that Lee owned 20 slaves, Jackson owned 3 slaves but Sherman and Grant owned none. Judging by their beliefs and statements being so similar then none of those 4 were racist or all 4 of them were racist (but not all of them were slave owning).

Anyway I can agree with the suggestion that owning slaves does not inherently make one racist. For example many American tribes owned slaves from other tribes. Owning another human being does not have to be related to racial discrimination.
Runaway slaves in Brazil enslaved other blacks for instance. Of course if one were to read on the opinions of people at the time most of them are bigoted against blacks, even those who weren't for slavery.

Random shift to Hitler's religious views but from the sources I've read which aren't pushing a Christian or Atheist agenda, Hitler was at least some kind of Agnostic and at the most religious some kind of weird Theist not connected to any religious belief.
Hitler for one did not accept either the Pope's authority, nor that of Protestant clergy and he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus (though he did believe in a historical Jesus) nor did he believe in the Biblical God/Yahweh as the deity of the universe (assuming he believed in the existence of a deity which is not clear).
Hitler's belief in the superiority of Catholicism was entirely cultural and had nothing to do with his religious beliefs. If anything he had a huge lack of religious belief but was not an Atheist akin to Stalin or Mao etc. Though I certainly wouldn't say that he was a Norse Pagan like some people claim (regardless of their agenda). Hell I wouldn't even say he was favourable to Norse/Germanic Paganism at all.

The early kkk was not really organized but was a against reconstruction, a political organization that was really just about getting democrats back in office. Forrest as said was invited and spoke at all black meetings on civil rights issues after the war. here is a quote from one in 1875.


"Ladies and Gentlemen I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the southern states. I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God's earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself. ( Immense applause and laughter.) I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power 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, 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 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. 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."


At his funeral there were hundreds of mourning blacks.



Many in the KKK may have wanted segregation, many in society white and black wanted it at the time. I have read hundreds of the former slave narratives and not once did a black say they did not want segregation, both wanted it. On the rest of slavery i chose to try and not bring this thread even more off topic, so i will wait. if your interested in slavery,racism and views towards black both north and south, keep an eye on this forum in the coming weeks.

[Henry of Grosmont]

Interesting that Nathan Bedford Forrest was brought up as I expected his name to be mentioned at some point in this conversation.
My supernatural powers aside, I was under the impression that Nathan B. Forrest left the KKK. I think he wasn't necessarily anti-black but wanted some sort of segregation be it in terms of just socially or flat out government mandated deportations of blacks to their own areas. I think he made some statementss which were generally in favour of blacks despite being part of the KKK which at the time was pushing something more to segregation than a return to slavery..

Please, re-read the underlined and compare to what I worte on the subject. This time carefully.

Anyway I can agree with the suggestion that owning slaves does not inherently make one racist. For example many American tribes owned slaves from other tribes. Owning another human being does not have to be related to racial discrimination.
Runaway slaves in Brazil enslaved other blacks for instance. Of course if one were to read on the opinions of people at the time most of them are bigoted against blacks, even those who weren't for slavery.

If the subject at hand is slavery in the US and Civil War, it has everything to do with racism.
Mind you, Yankees are not absolved of being racist. In the words of Frederick Douglass:
-Eleven days and a half gone and I have crossed three thousand miles of the perilous deep. Instead of a democratic government, I am under a monarchical government. Instead of the bright, blue sky of America, I am covered with the soft, grey fog of the Emerald Isle [Ireland]. I breathe, and lo! the chattel [slave] becomes a man. I gaze around in vain for one who will question my equal humanity, claim me as his slave, or offer me an insult. I employ a cab—I am seated beside white people—I reach the hotel—I enter the same door—I am shown into the same parlour—I dine at the same table—and no one is offended... I find myself regarded and treated at every turn with the kindness and deference paid to white people. When I go to church, I am met by no upturned nose and scornful lip to tell me, 'We don't allow in here!'

Random shift to Hitler's religious views but from the sources I've read which aren't pushing a Christian or Atheist agenda, Hitler was at least some kind of Agnostic and at the most religious some kind of weird Theist not connected to any religious belief.
Hitler for one did not accept either the Pope's authority, nor that of Protestant clergy and he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus (though he did believe in a historical Jesus) nor did he believe in the Biblical God/Yahweh as the deity of the universe (assuming he believed in the existence of a deity which is not clear).
Hitler's belief in the superiority of Catholicism was entirely cultural and had nothing to do with his religious beliefs. If anything he had a huge lack of religious belief but was not an Atheist akin to Stalin or Mao etc. Though I certainly wouldn't say that he was a Norse Pagan like some people claim (regardless of their agenda). Hell I wouldn't even say he was favourable to Norse/Germanic Paganism at all.

At no point there was any indication or evidence of Hitler being agnostic/atheist. In fact, he explicitly mentiones God.
Alliance with Vatican was actively sought and greatly valued.

I refuse to think that you missed the whole point of threads like this. Its sole agenda is "Confederates weren't so bad".

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

1. Which part that you wrote? All you said regarding Nathan B. Forrest was that he was the first Grand Wizard of the KKK.
You would do better to refute twc01 source than to take it up with me. Again I say that Nathan B. Forrest had gone on record saying things on the matter that cannot be interpreted as being anti-black regardless of his involvement in the KKK I do not think his personal opinion was only to one side of the spectrum. More than that though people can change their opinions.

2. Well I'm not saying that the Union was not racist. My point is would you consider Robert E. Lee as a racist because he owned 20 slaves as opposed to say William T. Sherman who owned none? Both of them had been known to express sentiments more towards the idea that blacks should be free but also sentiments such as blacks having benefited from slavery as an institution. Despite anything that William T. Sherman believed did he act in any way against blacks?
If a black person was conveniently willing to enslave a black person, how do you know that a white person would not be equally willing to own another white person? I'm not by any means arguing that the American institution of slavery was not based on racism as only blacks had been "enslaved" (by other terminology I suppose Natives could also be "enslaved"). However I am saying that the concept of slavery is not inherently racist. But does my partaking in this discriminatory institution actually make me a racist? If I own a black person does this mean I hate black people? Most people didn't need justifications like saying blacks are inferior they simply did it.

3. I don't want to derail this but so what if he mentions God? Because he uses a religion for politics/propaganda does this inherently mean that his personal beliefs were this religion? I never said that Hitler was an Atheist, don't conflate Atheism with Agnosticism.
In terms of evidence there are plenty of people who knew Hitler and spoke with him who would relate what Hitler told them. Hitler was known to have commented that he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus nor did he believe in Yahweh as an actual deity and when asked if he believed in a God he commented that he did not know, that he believed there might be some sort of deity but that he did not care. Aside from that he did not practice any religion in his personal life and had not gone to a church since about the 1920's, at his most religious he was a Theist not connected with any religious institution or belief.

4. Nor should you accept it because I understand that point and to that I say "so what?". I couldn't care less if the OP had the intention to prove that there were Chinese rabbits on the Moon. What exactly is the problem if it was his intention?
But honestly I think you're jumping to a conclusion. Is it possible that this is what the OP intends? Yes. But I have not seen anything where he says this, so far it has been a discussion about Confederate policies towards natives and Nathan B. Forrest. Go to the OP and read where it says "Wattie considered Negros inferior", that's a positive propaganda spin? Either way he references a book, have you tackled this book/source? No instead you go and attack (not offend) the user personally with the presumption of guilt.

[PikeStance]

Given the OP, the poster's avatar and the fact that Ludicus isn't here, I will take upon myself to ask the question: is this a thread about how Confederate slave owners were only "a little racist" or something along these lines? Is this a feeble attempt at revisionism?

I was enjoying this thread until I read this post. Some times it is best to ignore silly posts like these. The discussion with "South" (pardon the pun) from this point forward.

======

My understanding of Forrest was that he wanted nothing to do with the KKK when he learned of its position and attitude.

When it comes to history and historical figures you always need to understand within their own time. Many historical figures would not cross the threshold of what is acceptable within our own moral and ethical code we have today. George Washington, Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Jefferson were all viewed as virtuous within their own time, but they are all morally and ethically wrong by own ethical code.

BTW, welcome to twc01. I hope to see more posts from you!

[O'Hea]

Interesting that Nathan Bedford Forrest was brought up as I expected his name to be mentioned at some point in this conversation.
My supernatural powers aside, I was under the impression that Nathan B. Forrest left the KKK. I think he wasn't necessarily anti-black but wanted some sort of segregation be it in terms of just socially or flat out government mandated deportations of blacks to their own areas. I think he made some statementss which were generally in favour of blacks despite being part of the KKK which at the time was pushing something more to segregation than a return to slavery.

He was involved in political violence against blacks and white Republicans in 1867, as part of the the Klan. I think he left as the Klan started to evolve into a more narrowly racist/nativist organization, for him it had been a Confederate veterans' fraternity-militia that could counter the influence of the Grand Army of the Republic, a Union equivalent, and fight against Reconstruction.

But when dealing with the opinions of famous figures in this period regarding slavery the opinions get really blurred across Union and Confederate sides. Read what Grant, Lee, Forrest, Sherman or Stonewall Jackson said about slavery, abolition and black culture/society and what they have to say is extremely similar. Despite the fact that Lee owned 20 slaves, Jackson owned 3 slaves but Sherman and Grant owned none. Judging by their beliefs and statements being so similar then none of those 4 were racist or all 4 of them were racist (but not all of them were slave owning).

This is one of the biggest lessons of the time that has been lost on people- slavery was a regional issue but racism was absolutely national. The idea of the Civil War as "the war to end slavery" is just a national myth, in practice the Republican party had little interest in the welfare of freedmen and was quick to abandon them after the war.

One way I've heard the differences between Southern and Northern racism explained that always stuck with me, was that Southerners were more likely to dislike blacks as a race but also much more likely to have close relationships with individual blacks. So, for example, northern abolitionists thought slavery was immoral but they tended to favor shipping freedmen off to Liberia rather than try to integrate them into society in any way, shape or form. Segregation was perverse and awful but on an ideological level, it accepted that blacks and whites could coexist within a certain framework. There's a lot of layers to these feelings about race and it can be very hard to sort through them.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

^I think that's a valid point.
What always struck me is that while the Confederacy seceded in order to make sure that abolition could not affect them due to things like the abolition in the Mid-West states/territories and the declaration of no more slave states the Union was not fighting to free the slaves until the emancipation declaration. I think Lincoln would have done anything to get his way so long as he could keep the South from seceding or fighting. Where as Lincoln constantly expanded his power to meet his ends Jefferson Davis reluctantly increased his power but sold out to the local millionaires which angered many people in the Confederacy. The fact that Jefferson Davis couldn't seize total control (or more likely didn't try) made certain capitalist elements overly strong and rich enough families avoided military service altogether so one could say that they dominated the Southern government. After the war it was said that Jefferson Davis was seen more favourably by the Union than by the people in the South.

As far as Confederate cavalry commanders go how do Stand Watie, Nathan B. Forrest and JEB Stuart compare? I'm not that knowledgeable on the western theatre of the war. I suppose the difference is that JEB Stuart had the advantage of bridges, roads and other infrastructure to carry out his operations where as the former two must have required a wide array of scouts and knowledge of terrain and an ability to resupply out there.
That type of warfare must be similar to the types of operations that have been conducted for millennia in the deserts of Africa and the Middle East. This would be another great broad topic for a thread aside from just the similarities of cavalry operations and raiding.

[PikeStance]

This is one of the biggest lessons of the time that has been lost on people- slavery was a regional issue but racism was absolutely national. The idea of the Civil War as "the war to end slavery" is just a national myth, in practice the Republican party had little interest in the welfare of freedmen and was quick to abandon them after the war.

I do not think this is true. You could argue that the Radical Republicans were more interested in punishing Southerners, but it is undeniable that they they did many things to help freedman.
- Freedman Bureau 1865
- Civil Rights Act 1866
- The 14th Amendment 1868
- The Enforcement Acts and Ku Klux Acts of the 1870s

I supposed the end of Reconstruction could be considered a "Turning away" leading to complete (arguably) abandonment with the SC ruling of Plessy vs. Ferguson. It wasn't until WWII ear that any attempts of integration was made. But as I noted below, segregation was an national issue enforced by law in the South. However, it is clear that the Republicans did not immediately "abandoned" the freedman after the war. They did everything possible at that time to ensure newly freed slaves had opportunities.

One way I've heard the differences between Southern and Northern racism explained that always stuck with me, was that Southerners were more likely to dislike blacks as a race but also much more likely to have close relationships with individual blacks. So, for example, northern abolitionists thought slavery was immoral but they tended to favor shipping freedmen off to Liberia rather than try to integrate them into society in any way, shape or form. Segregation was perverse and awful but on an ideological level, it accepted that blacks and whites could coexist within a certain framework. There's a lot of layers to these feelings about race and it can be very hard to sort through them.

The deportation to Liberia was always a fringe suggestion. It was never a really viable option.
If there is a misconception is that "segregation" existed in the South and not in the North. The reality is that it existed throughout the US. The difference is in the South it was de jure segregation while in the North it was de facto segregation. Moreover, In the Mid-west, there were sundown towns. Sundown towns prohibited blacks from being within the town limits after sundown. There is not a northern city that does not have a historic area for "blacks only." As in South, blacks were discriminated from good housing, jobs, and opportunity. Randy Newman sums it up best in his song "Redneck."

Be warned it has some profanity.