Issue Of The Week XV: Who Or What Is Worthy Of A State Or National Honor: The Haley Barbour — Nathan Forrest Dilemma

Haley Barbour is correct in everything he is saying about Forest. Forest is a decorated military man from his time spent in the Confederacy. I believe that he deserves the tributes that he already has in place. But to say that this man and the atrocities he has committed against other humans deserves a state wide license plate, is absurd. His racist acts committed with the KKK should disqualify him from being honored by the state.

In my opinion leave the past in the past and move forward. There is no honoring this man. He committed racist acts that eliminated black people while involved with the kkk. This man should be viewed in the same category as Osama bin laden. Forest is no different from the terrorist groups we have here today. They can tag forest to the veterans of confederacy. Making a license plate after him will only keep us from moving forward with racial issues. If this was to pass it would be more stir ups on racial issues. I believe there is no honor for his act he committed no matter if it was 100 years ago. It was wrong and will always be wrong to lead such a group as he did. I would be very surprised if it got passes to use the plates to honor him

Although I was not familiar with the name of or doings of Nathan Forrest before this post, if he was a Civil War hero of some sort, his actions with the KKK diminished any heroic acts he may have been a part of. I do not believe this man should have a commemorative license plate in his honor. To do so as the article states would be to “perpetuate symbols of racial hatred and bigotry.” To recognize this man or any other human who has preformed such vial acts I feel would greatly weaken any strides we have made in relation to race. Reading this does make me curious, if Nathan Forrest were alive today, would he see the error of his ways. Certainly, as we have studied, racism is learned and he grew up in a time when hatred ran rapid and was taught to children as part of everyday life. How did he get to a point in his life where he thought his actions were necessary and maybe even OK? Thank God for the progress that has been made, may we continue to move forward and not backward. I am sure Mississippi can find someone more deserving of this honor.

I think that Nathan Forrest can be honored for his being a part of the Confederacy and that he should have received the honors that the state has already given him. However, people will be offended at Forrest being honored by having his face on a license plate because of the murders that he was involved in against African Americans. Yes, he is a historical figure but we need to be more concerned with how we can be considerate of our fellow Americans and where we are now as a country than with honoring people in the past.

When thinking of historical figures that need to be commemorated, we need to keep an open mind and really take a look at that person. There are a lot of people in history that made major achievements (locally or regionally) but had an incessant hatred towards black people. I don't want to dwell on the fact that some people are still racist simply because that's how they were raised, such as may be the case of some of our historical figures. However, it's still something we need to keep in mind. If we all lived by the rule of religion, we would treat everyone equally and skin color would never have been an issue. One would especially think that people in the "good ol' days" would have that mindset. They chose not to. It's the act in them choosing to have a closed mind that hinders them for being applauded nationally for their achievements. When Nathan Bedford Forrest had the whole unit of black soldiers killed, that was a choice he made. Should his fellow Confederate veterans and their ancestors be denied to boast him as a proud figure? No, they shouldn't. But, their impression of him should not be forced upon everyone else. Should he be denounced as a historical figure? No. We all do things in our lives that people would look down upon. We are only human. If we can't completely glorify in the things Nathan Forrest did, then let us be reminded by his doings that we always have choices. There's no way we can smother out racism, but those of us who choose not to engage in that mind-set don't have to condone it, but everyone should learn from it.

I think that Nathan Forest's honors that he has received for his achievements in the Confederate Army during the Civil War should still be upheld, but any further awards should be denied. Yes, he was a leader in a very important historical moment, but he also was a leader in racism, which is something our country struggles with. By giving him even more credit than what he has already achieved would be sending our society the wrong message. People would take that as our country rewarding him for his actions in the KKK and other negative acts towards the black race. I agree that we all make mistakes, but I also agree that you have to live with the consequences, and for Nathan Forrest, this is one of them. Everyone makes mistakes and no one is perfect.

I feel that this issue is one that few people would have even known about had it not been highlighted. However, since it has been highlighted I feel that it is best not to honor this man. Few people will probably care if their license plate has this man honored. They can probably go on with their daily lives as usual. But for someone to be allowed to display and honor this man on a license plate I feel could stir up some hurt in people that could cause them to feel threatened. This issue is one that should be left alone because it will probably cause more problems if people are allowed to honor this man than if they are not.
Plus, allowing for this man to be honored would give the KKK reason to believe that the government supports their actions. Although this may be extreme, I believe it is safe to assume that few of us if any would want for people to believe it is okay to support the KKK. If the individual parties choose to honor them on their own that is their personal decision, but I believe it would be a bad move on behalf of the government to choose to allow Forest to be honored.

There is a distinct line between honorable and noteworthy. Nathan Bedford Forrest is the later. The line is crossed when the only achievements available to be recognized includes fighting against the United States, not to mention butchering 300 African Americans while wearing a uniform. To chose to commemorate anything done by such a man is nothing short of agitation. The entire purpose of such a suggestion is to start a fight to see if it could be done. There are plenty of men who are very noteworthy throughout history, most of whom we would never even consider honoring on our bumper stickers. These men have done great things as well as despicable things. Men such as Nathan Bedford Forest deserve to be recognized for what they were and nothing more. He was a brilliant soldier, he was a murderer, he was a racist. Try that for a slogan.

This is definitely a situation where this governor Haley Barbour, is stuck in between a rock and a hard place. Nathan Bedford Forrest is a decorated confederate soldier and anything he has earned in the past should not be taken away from him. However, I believe that any future recognition on this man should be stopped immediately. How can we expect to move on in the world with our thoughts and views if we are recognizing and lifting up people who completely go against those views from our past? I think this is especially important in places like Mississippi and other southern states to set an example of intolerance to the support of the past. I feel like the South is behind on the trends to move forward with Cultural diversity and equality more than the South. I think that Barbour is somewhat of a coward for not expressing his personal views on this topic. If you are going to be running for the president of the United States I think our country has a right to know how you feel about this incredibly steamy topic before it comes out in a different manner.

Governor Haley Barbour is in a hard spot and honestly I don’t know what I would do if I was in his position. There is an obligation to honor people that have served the Untied States but at the same time people make mistake and the ones that General Nathan Bedford Forrest made just happen to be huge. So the question arises, to honor or not to honor? On that issue I would say that the honors that are already in place should stay in existence but as far as creating new ones I do not think that should happen. As governor, I think Barbour should just continue to keep his mouth shut and enforce the laws and regulations he thinks is best. People respond to what the leader says and does so I think it would cause more conflicts if he added his input. An honorable designation should be given to anyone that has served the Untied States. Whether or not that honor is small or big can be determined by the act. The lasting value that remembering any symbols of racial hatred and bigotry offers in my opinion is nothing. The only thing it calls for is hurting the same people over and over again. I think that existing honors should stay intact but making any new ones that deal with controversial issues should be dismissed to save the United States from a lot of headache.

I can see why the governor chose to sidestep the question about what he thought of Nathan Forrest. He is a political figure seen to represent the people and the government. If he chose to personally comment on the question, he would be portrayed as representing the ideas of both the government and those who elected him. As the Sons of Confederacy are a group in Mississippi, it is likely that some of the members are his constituents but he doesn't necessarily want to say what they want to hear because the NAACP and the rest of the country could see his response as a slur on the people Nathan Forrest killed. Politically, his situation was a catch-22 and he did the best he could politically. However, politically and honorably are two different things. Oftentimes politicians neglect what is right in order to attempt to stay in the good graces of all.
Those who deserve honor are those who serve their country or their neighbors. Those who make the world a better place, not out of a misguided sense of predjudice, but out of what is good and right.

Should we honor a mass murderer with a license plate? It is disgusting that people would even think about it. It would be telling children that it is not only okay to be a racist murderer but that they might also get their face on a license plate for it. And what would that do to descendants of the people he killed to have to look at his face every day?

Honoring those with a less than perfect past is nothing new in this country. Andrew Jackson is well known for killing Native Americans and pushing them from their land, and his face is on the twenty dollar bill. Christopher Columbus burned them alive and chopped off their hands, and he has a national holiday. Thomas Jefferson, the admired president and writer of the declaration was a blatant racist and slave owner.

If Haley Barbour had spoken out against Forrest, he may have lost the support of many people. I understand why he said what he did, but that does not make it right.

What warrants an honorable designation? In my opinion, NOT acts of KKK activity, mass murder, and wicked treatment of black people. According to this article, and granted I have not done my own research on Nathan Bedford Forrest, he committed far more atrocious acts than commendable ones. What or who is deserving of a national honor? If a president committed heinous crimes, would he still be commemorated after his retirement just because he was a president? Someone deserving of honor, and prestige should be an example to all people, of every color. I can’t see the majority of people in Mississippi being proud to display the honor of mass murderer. The time is now to put an end to the belief in inequality. The allowance of honor to the situation of Forrest, would only hinder the progression against race inequality and give leeway to any further situation of such an offense.

Honestly, I don’t see how putting someone’s face on a license plate is exactly “honoring” them. I think it is a rather bizarre way to display your respect for them. I’m not saying that he should be honored in a different way, just stating that it’s a rather ridiculous idea. The point is Haley Barbour wants to honor someone that, yes, has a reputation for being a great cavalry leader, but he also is a terrible representation of displaying equality for all men, which is what we, as Americans, are striving for in our country now. Considering the state that Barbour lives in, there are a lot more people who potentially know both sides of Forest and could take serious offense when they see Barbour’s license plate with a picture of Forest’s face on it. I think it’s an all-around poor idea because for one, many people could take it the wrong way if they don’t know where Barbour stands and what his beliefs are and two, because it is just a really unreasonable way to honor someone. I’m sure Barbour doesn’t want people to think he supports the acts of the Ku Klux Klan, so I don’t understand why he would risk his one reputation to show honor to someone that doesn’t really need to be honored.
Someone early wrote about the difference between honorable and noteworthy, and stated that Forest was the later. I must agree. Sure, he was a great soldier and that part is noteworthy, but the fact that he was a mass murderer is quite weighty. It’s probably best if his face isn’t on the license plate of honor.
As, for Haley Barbour side stepping the question of what he thought of the General/KKK leader, I can understand why he wanted to be so careful in answering that question, so he probably gave the best answer he could for that. I think he tried his best to avoid upsetting people and giving them the wrong idea.

This issue is certainly a dilemma. The entire history of the United States is littered with social injustice and racial discrimination; does this mean we ignore our national heritage? Do we cut out the pieces that do not fit our evolving beliefs, damning those that acted on the socially accepted values of their time or damning those that have been wrongly oppressed for centuries? The United States Declaration of Independence has TWO references to God, referring to ‘(our) creator’ and ‘divine protection’ even our own currency prays ‘In God We Trust’… by today’s standards this blatant display of religious preference would be outlawed in 9 of 10 court systems. Do we banish honorable acts that tarnish over time? Do we abolish Mr. Hancock’s writing for impeding on the protected rights of atheists? It was socially accepted at the time, even at the dismay of the oppressed minority. His contributions and intentions are understood and are a major part of the fabric of Americana.

I cannot speak of an opinion on Mr. Nathan Bedford Forrest because I never met the man nor have I full knowledge of his alleged acts… from what I have read independently, I assume he was never criminally convicted on any of these accusations other than perhaps being a member of the Klu Klux Klan, which is constitutionally protected. Being a military veteran, I can say that war is a very ugly thing. Men must do unimaginable things, very primitive and uncivil acts; they enjoy a completely different frame of mind and insanity is a common coping strategy. If he were in fact involved in the war-time slayings, it would be a crime… why did the U.S. government not take justice? I believe Mr. Forrest was a product of his environment. He is long deceased, allow him rest in peace. Remember the positive contributions he had to his country and forgive the past. The man already has monuments in his honor… what is so wrong with Mississippi’s standard state license plate anyways?

I understand why the governor did state his personal opinion about the license plate issue because he cannot say he is either for it or against it without stepping on somebodies toes. Whether he made the right decision to stay in the gray area on the issue cannot be determined. Personally I think the fact that this general already has to monuments commemorating him I do not think it is necessary to make a license plate for him. Yes he was a great general but he was also a participant in a mass murder. I was actually shocked when i read about Pillow Fort i have never heard of this battle before now, and though I understand the emotions and beliefs of the times I think that this massacre was horrible. To think that anyone could kill such a large number of people is horrifying and what is more horrifying is that it happened on American soil by Americans. I don't think that General Forest should have a license plate for him regardless of his achievements. If a person is capable of killing mass amounts of people just because of the color of their skin should not have the honor of having his name in any other place than history books or museums.

I think both sides of the issue make valid points, but that the license plate should not be produced. Mississippi, in itself, has been a state plagued by racial tension, and this proposition seems to just throw gasoline on the fire. Yes, Forest may have been a great military leader, but many of the decisions he made due to his racist viewpoints stick too closely to his name. I agree with the governor in the sense that the license plate probably won't be approved anyway. The amount of current controversy will probably influence those making the decision. This will likely become a non-issue soon, but I would have liked for him to have taken a more prominent stance. It seems that American politics have become so focused on pleasing a group of voters that those running for office end up compromising almost any opinions they may hold. I'm not saying this was the case for Governor Barbour. It was just an observation. The approval of the license plate is by no means a necessity, so I think it should be denied production due to the racial implications it would hold in the eyes of many.

I believe the NAACP has a valid point in opposing the notion that General Forrest should be allowed to have a license plate honor him in Mississippi. Could you imagine having some sort of commemorative license plate honoring Hitler in an area with a substantial Jewish population? Just like the general, Hitler committed many crimes against humanity and was also a very popular leader for the time, but that doesn’t justify glorifying someone with such a dark side of history to be honored. The article mentions a few memorials that have already been erected for General Forrest, but in my opinion it only hurts the argument; why do you need a license plate in addition to all the other memorials to show honor the very same historical figure? What is the point of having so many memorials and what is the real significance adding a license plate to the ones already in place?

I don’t believe that making this license plate is worth the potential problems. Our society is full of people that are just looking for ways to push the envelope, and this is one of them. To give honor to someone that has stained history with racist blood is not something we should want, even if he was a “great” general in other aspects of the war. A great leader is someone that is great all the time. We cannot just over look actions that are not becoming of an honorable leader. Yes, he does already have parks named after him, but the public is not forced to visit them. If individuals do not agree with the way he led, then they don’t have to visit the parks. On the other hand, making license plates would force everyone that came in contact with it to see it, whether they wanted to or not. This would indeed offend many people, slowing down the progression we are making to eliminate the racist idea.

In my opinion, Governor Haley Barbour was placed in a very difficult position concerning this issue, because no matter what he said somebody would be offended. He was wisely attempting to be diplomatic and appease both sides by refusing to slander Nathan Forrest's character in public. This is a controversial issue because although Nathan Forrest was "a great cavalry leader," he has also been accused of committing horrific acts against African-Americans. What is the purpose of making a license plate to honor him? If creating the license plate will bring up so much tension, then it does not seem worth it. Also, since this man has already been honored in other places, than why does he need to be honored again, in such an obvious manner? Before reading this article I was not aware of the Fort Pillow massacre, and I completely understand why some people would be horrified at the thought of Forrest being on a license plate. The acts that he participated in are disgusting and it is extremely disheartening to reflect on these aspects of American history. During the time period that Forrest committed these acts, African-Americans were considered inferior to Whites and degraded constantly because of their skin color. However, the times have changed drastically and choosing to honor Forrest in such a blatant manner would likely cause a great deal of tension between people. It is not right to honor this man and simply ignore the atrocities that he was a part of. By choosing to ignore the horrible actions he took, then some people might view it as condoning his decisions. Does the fact that Forrest was a great leader throughout the war excuse the terror that he inflicted on people? I do not believe that it does. It would be not be in good taste to have a license plate that honored a man who committed such despicable acts. As a nation, we should be striving to move past the racial injustice that occurred in the past and that will not happen by honoring someone who played a major part in these injustices.

Regardless of your views of the Civil War or the Confederacy, I find it difficult to understand why someone would argue so fervently in favor of the state's recognition of a man who is accused and widely believed to be a perpetrator of mass murder. At best, the commemoration of General Forest would be the state's approval of a man with a questionable history and ties merely for his contributions to the Southern efforts during the tumultuous Civil War. At its worst, it would be the honoring of a racist, terrorist, mass murderer, and an over all dishonor to the military institution. Realistically, the honor would be an outright disrespect to much of the state population and country. Although he brought considerable success to the Southern campaign, he is too widely perceived as a villain. Even those who defend the Confederacy and its cause should more prudently pick their battles.

Nathan Forrest did great things, but enough to have a license plate honored to him. I think not. We can honor him in museums, books, schools, and such, but a license plate is a little absurd. Why all of a sudden do we need to honor him if he has been know about before? We all are human and do make mistakes, but only those who are privileged enough to be honored will be, and he should not. Regardless of if he committed these crimes or not, there is rumors about it, and an honored man should not have any "dirty laundry". Not many people know who he is to begin with, so when they hear about what he may have done, it will just be another controversy.

Nathan Forrest might have done good things during the Civil war, but from what I understand he built his own cavalry with his own money and used a majority of his own slaves to fight under his command. People who should be considered to be honored should lead full lives of accomplishment and most importantly honor. Soon after the Civil war ended it was confirmed that he joined the Ku Klux Klan and could have possibly been one of its early leaders. Even with is somewhat impressive Civil war resume he could in no way be honored by many people in Mississippi since he affiliated himself with the Ku Klux Klan.

I disagreed with giving a license plate to the famous confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest. As the text says “ Forrest became most known for leading the forces that massacred African-American Union troops that had surrendered during the battle of Fort Pillow.” “General Nathan B. Forrest captured Fort Pillow on April 12, 1864, and proceeded to kill all the black troops within; some burned or buried alive.” Personally such deeds do not sound very uplifting or worth of praise in today’s society. Blacks are now part of our community and I believe that we should honor that. General Forrest, though was seen highly in his time, is not a positive reminder of our history.

Even though Nathan Bedford Forrest may have been regarded as a hero of the state of Mississippi and the South at the time in which he served in battle, I think it can be concluded that no one feels the same way about his acts these days. Yes he should be respected in that he was a leader of the cavalry in the southern army, but he should be dishonored for his actions in the involvement in the killings of many African Americans and involvement in the founding and furthering of the Klu Klux Klan. I can see where the state of Mississippi and The Sons of Confederate Veterans would want to honor one of their most thought of generals, but at the same time they must think of the message that will be sent to anyone in other states, or even in their state that might be offended by seeing this type of license plate on a vehicle. Although these groups of people may think that it is essential to honor the reputation of one of their favorite supposed heroes they must first think of what others will think when they see the license plate and how they will be affected by seeing it. In my opinion the license plate should not be allowed to be made with General Forrest on it because of what it could mean to others.

I don’t agree with honoring a license plate to Nathan Forrest in the state of Mississippi. Yes, we are aware that he was a great leader in the Confederate Army during the Civil War, but he was also a part of the Ku Klux Klan. Why would anyone think of honoring such a man? Doesn’t sound right to even think of the idea knowing that he lead force that massacred African –American Union troops, and to find it okay to put him on a license plate to honor just doesn’t make sense. What about honoring all those who suffered from Nathan Forrest reactions? How about honoring that instead of Mr. Forrest himself? I think who ever thought about this idea should have to in consideration the other side of what he didn’t do right for the South. Overall I don’t think this would actually occur, where Nathan Forrest would be put on the Mississippi license plate.

While the answer to the issue seems rather obvious to some, I argue that it is not as simple as it seems. What would people say if a predominantly black community wished to honor a historical figure that was a slave and freed him and others by killing slave owners? Or honor a man like, Tupac that opted for violence to solve discrimination issues. The truth is the memorial or license plate would probably be approved or a least face less resistance than a Forest License plate. While it’s obvious that the difference lies in the fact that Forest stood for something widely seen as wrong now days and the others may have stood for something widely seen as right now days, this does not exclude the fact that these are opinions and constitutional rights. In the end these are all men who stood up for what they believed in and fought for it. The only question to consider here is whether or not this organization is receiving the same rights another organization may be receiving. Also, I don't know anything about the politician, but I can see where he is coming from, as he may not want to offend anyone by speaking out against what could be considered a historical figure. Some people like head strong politicians that stand for whatever they believe in despite others opinions, but I like my politicians to have manners too.

I don't think that putting a license plate up honoring Nathan Forrest is even worth it. Why even bother when he focused on just mainly killing the black community. The African Americans are trying to rid of all the bad things that all their ancestors have been put through in the slave years. No one wants to relive that, better yet see a plate of a man that put their ancestors through that pain. Who would even think it's right to honor him? Yes, he had done great things, but he also had his flaws and his flaws put him to the point he doesn't deserve such a thing in his honor. No African American wants to see this plating of a Klu Klux Klan leader. Put it this way, what if an African American historical figure did the opposite of Forrest, would the whites want a license plate to honor that African American then?