Do you think it’s important preserve or destroy bad parts of history?

Such as the confederate flag, Hitlers piano, etc.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

I think it's important to keep them.

But it's also important to speak the truth of the historical narrative.

If you want to keep a statue of the Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest because it is a historical monument-- legit. But tell the truth at the same time. He was a war criminal.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

CopperCicada · M

@Waymore I'm the first to admit the North had no moral high ground when it came to slavery. OK?

As for General Forrest, he was responsible for the Fort Pillow Massacre. Approximately four hundred Union soldiers who had surrendered.

The historical record shows Forrest as a brilliant tactician and strategist. Recognized by Sherman and Grant as the most brilliant of the Confederacy. Having studied him, I would agree. Great. Monument worthy.

But his legacy is tainted by Fort Pillow. No doubt.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

MethDozer · M

@CopperCicada There wasn't really such a thing as war crimes back then. That wasn't considered a war crime yet as there was no Hague or Geneva convention making it one yet.

I'm far from a Confederate sympathizer, but if he was a war criminal in rertrospect... What about Sherman?

CopperCicada · M

@MethDozer See. Pointing out Forrest and Fort Pillow is not the same as giving Sherman a pass on burning Atlanta to the ground.

No. There wasn't a definition of war crimes back then. But massacre of soldiers who have surrendered is not honorable by any convention.

MethDozer · M

@CopperCicada Never said it was honorable. It's unfettered war.

They used to be serious about that shit.