Guess who said this.

[Complicity]

In the age of Google a "guess who" challenge is not as much fun. Nevertheless, based upon the number of times the guy below is quoted in a different context in this forum, I suspect many will be surprised to learn he also said:

'Ample and full protection should be made for [Blacks] so that they may stand equal before the law [owing to] many considerations. Among these [are]...fidelity in times past. They cultivated your fields, ministered to your personal wants and comforts, nursed and reared your children, and in your hour of...peril they were in the main true to you and yours.'

Admittedly the speaker goes on to say 'Legislation should ever look to the protection of the weak against the strong and nobody can doubt that at this time this race is not equal to the Caucasian'... but even Lincoln and nearly every other contemporary had the same racial assessment at that time.

My point? This guy became a forceful advocate for Blacks although he is always constrained to the opposite false portrayal in this forum.

 

[cash]

In the age of Google a "guess who" challenge is not as much fun. Nevertheless, based upon the number of times the guy below is quoted in a different context in this forum, I suspect many will be surprised to learn he also said:

'Ample and full protection should be made for [Blacks] so that they may stand equal before the law [owing to] many considerations. Among these [are]...fidelity in times past. They cultivated your fields, ministered to your personal wants and comforts, nursed and reared your children, and in your hour of...peril they were in the main true to you and yours.'

Admittedly the speaker goes on to say 'Legislation should ever look to the protection of the weak against the strong and nobody can doubt that at this time this race is not equal to the Caucasian'... but even Lincoln and nearly every other contemporary had the same racial assessment at that time.

My point? This guy became a forceful advocate for Blacks although he is always constrained to the opposite false portrayal in this forum.

One speech makes him a forceful advocate? Really? Tell us about his reaction to the Black Codes his state enacted.

Why did you change his words and carefully crop out this statement? Why not provide the entire statement?

Here's what else he said in that same statement: "They are poor, untutored, uninformed, many of them helpless, liable to be imposed upon." Once again, he's talking about a "superior race" "taking care of" an "inferior race." Noblesse Oblige.

 

[AndyHall]

One always has to keep in mind the time and context in which people say things. The world in which these words were written was vastly different from the world in which this person spoke in, say, 1861. It is not a "false portrayal" to cite this politician's 1861 words in the context of political events in 1861.

Forrest's address to the Pole-Beaers Association in Memphis is often cited as evidence of his respect and openness toward the African American community in Memphis. That speech does not, however, change the fundamental nature of Forrest & Maples' "slave mart" business twenty years before.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Just like his cornerstone speech and post-war writings, he's bimodal.

 

[ForeverFree]

In the age of Google a "guess who" challenge is not as much fun. Nevertheless, based upon the number of times the guy below is quoted in a different context in this forum, I suspect many will be surprised to learn he also said:

'Ample and full protection should be made for [Blacks] so that they may stand equal before the law [owing to] many considerations. Among these [are]...fidelity in times past. They cultivated your fields, ministered to your personal wants and comforts, nursed and reared your children, and in your hour of...peril they were in the main true to you and yours.'

Admittedly the speaker goes on to say 'Legislation should ever look to the protection of the weak against the strong and nobody can doubt that at this time this race is not equal to the Caucasian'... but even Lincoln and nearly every other contemporary had the same racial assessment at that time.

My point? This guy became a forceful advocate for Blacks although he is always constrained to the opposite false portrayal in this forum.

Q: What false portrayal are you referring to? This is what he said:

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away… Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell." Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.​

Nobody needs to "portray" this as anything. The words speak for themselves.

So, he spoke a different tune - after the Confederacy lost, after Georgia wanted to be re-admitted to the Union.

But talk is talk. You say he was a "a forceful advocate for Blacks." How so? Did his speeches "force" anything to happen? Where was he when black legislators were expelled from the GA legislature in 1868? Where was he as Georgia was redeemed and became a Jim Crow state?

But you know, I like happy endings just like everybody else. It's romantic to think that he was an Atoner. So, make me a believer. What did his forceful advocacy actually accomplish for African Americans, in a state that became as Jim Crow of the rest?

- Alan

 

[NedBaldwin]

...
Admittedly the speaker goes on to say 'Legislation should ever look to the protection of the weak against the strong and nobody can doubt that at this time this race is not equal to the Caucasian'... but even Lincoln and nearly every other contemporary had the same racial assessment at that time.
....

At that time, Lincoln had been dead for over a decade.

 

[cash]

At that time, Lincoln had been dead for over a decade.

A year. Stephens said it in 1866.

 

[NedBaldwin]

A year. Stephens said it in 1866.

Ooops. My mistake. I thought it was in the 1870s

 

[jgoodguy]

In the age of Google a "guess who" challenge is not as much fun. Nevertheless, based upon the number of times the guy below is quoted in a different context in this forum, I suspect many will be surprised to learn he also said:

'Ample and full protection should be made for [Blacks] so that they may stand equal before the law [owing to] many considerations. Among these [are]...fidelity in times past. They cultivated your fields, ministered to your personal wants and comforts, nursed and reared your children, and in your hour of...peril they were in the main true to you and yours.'

Admittedly the speaker goes on to say 'Legislation should ever look to the protection of the weak against the strong and nobody can doubt that at this time this race is not equal to the Caucasian'... but even Lincoln and nearly every other contemporary had the same racial assessment at that time.

My point? This guy became a forceful advocate for Blacks although he is always constrained to the opposite false portrayal in this forum.

Once they lost, high Confederate official had to come up with a more respectable reason for losing than a dedication to owning humans. After all slavery cost them foreign recognition and there was a revulsion in the first world countries of the late 19th century to slavery. Losing and revulsion forced a revision of history.

 

[Complicity]

At that time, Lincoln had been dead for over a decade.

Less than an year.

It was also only about 3 - 4 months after Stephens was released from prison.

 

[KeyserSoze]

One always has to keep in mind the time and context in which people say things. The world in which these words were written was vastly different from the world in which this person spoke in, say, 1861. It is not a "false portrayal" to cite this politician's 1861 words in the context of political events in 1861.

Forrest's address to the Pole-Beaers Association in Memphis is often cited as evidence of his respect and openness toward the African American community in Memphis. That speech does not, however, change the fundamental nature of Forrest & Maples' "slave mart" business twenty years before.

Is there anywhere where a transcript of what Forrest said to this Pole-Bearers Association can be found? I'd like to see his quote in context.

 

[AndyHall]

Is there anywhere where a transcript of what Forrest said to this Pole-Bearers Association can be found? I'd like to see his quote in context.

I'll dig out the original news item this weekend. It was generally along the lines of, "be good citizens and we'll all get along, together." It was after Reconstruction, and after the Redeemers has mostly regained control of local and state government in Tennessee. It was not, in that context, a particularly bold or ground-breaking position, except for the fact that it was Forrest who said it.

 

[Complicity]

Q: What false portrayal are you referring to? This is what he said:

Nobody needs to "portray" this as anything. The words speak for themselves.

Just like the words below from Abraham Lincoln in March 1861

'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.'

And also in the same speech addressing an amendment to the Constitution that had passed Congress and would prohibit the Federal Government from interfering with slavery in any of the states,

'...I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.'

Now, consider Jefferson Davis in July 1864,

'We are not fighting for slavery, we are fighting for independence.'

In the popular (winner's) history of the War, Lincoln gets to change his mind, but not Davis.

 

[Complicity]

Ooops. My mistake. I thought it was in the 1870s

Do you think it might be worth examining why you had that presumption?

 

[cash]

Just like the words below from Abraham Lincoln in March 1861

'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.'

And also in the same speech addressing an amendment to the Constitution that had passed Congress and would prohibit the Federal Government from interfering with slavery in any of the states,

'...I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.'

Now, consider Jefferson Davis in July 1864,

'We are not fighting for slavery, we are fighting for independence.'

In the popular (winner's) history of the War, Lincoln gets to change his mind, but not Davis.

In the real world, Lincoln actually did change his mind, whereas Davis didn't.

On 11 Apr 1865, Lincoln said, "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers." [Collected Works, Vol 8, p. 403]

Why were the confederates fighting for their independence? In order to preserve the institution of slavery.

 

[rpkennedy]

Just like the words below from Abraham Lincoln in March 1861

'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.'

And also in the same speech addressing an amendment to the Constitution that had passed Congress and would prohibit the Federal Government from interfering with slavery in any of the states,

'...I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.'

Now, consider Jefferson Davis in July 1864,

'We are not fighting for slavery, we are fighting for independence.'

In the popular (winner's) history of the War, Lincoln gets to change his mind, but not Davis.

By that point, Davis may have been willing to sacrifice slavery in exchange for independence. Unfortunately for him, the Confederacy was not.

R

 

[M E Wolf]

http://www.tennessee-scv.org/ForrestHistSociety/forrest_speech.html

http://www.flatfenders.com/scv/Forrest Defense.htm

http://www.geni.com/people/Lt-Gen-Nathan-Bedford-Forrest-CSA/6000000007167954829
(looks to have newspaper articles in support)

M. E. Wolf

 

[Sid J.]

'"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

To the Slave Power, this was a position of radical abolition: Lincoln was committed to Free Soil in the Territories as well as Emancipation in DC.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Do you think it might be worth examining why you had that presumption?

Trying to search google and get work done at the same time and I misread a date.
It might be worth examining why I was checking out the forum at work.

 

[brass napoleon]

I'll dig out the original news item this weekend. It was generally along the lines of, "be good citizens and we'll all get along, together." It was after Reconstruction, and after the Redeemers has mostly regained control of local and state government in Tennessee. It was not, in that context, a particularly bold or ground-breaking position, except for the fact that it was Forrest who said it.

The fact that he kissed a black woman on the cheek, publicly, after he said it, was probably a pretty bold and ground-breaking position though. Personally, I take Forrest at his word that he had a change of heart. It's very easy to see the wrong of slavery when your livelihood doesn't depend on it. Likewise, it's probably very easy to accept slavery as right when your livelihood does depend on it, and when you've been raised all your life to believe that it's right.