bama46
Captain
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2008
Not commenting on his guilt or innocence, just saying that if you take the 5th, which someone suggested he might have done, you have to say that every time they ask you a question. You can't pick and choose. I'm glad he did answer, even if evasively in some cases, because it gives us a window we wouldn't otherwise have.One must remember "innocent until PROVEN guilty". While not innocent, I certainly have never thought Forrest was guilty.
I couldn't really name an item, since I've never thought he was quilty. I doubt he was sinless, few people are.Shhh! I want to hear Larry say it.
Be careful diane,I was absolutely vilified on here a short while back for bringing up such points.........Well, considering the klan was trying to at least undermine if not overthrow the government of Tennessee and deter freedmen from exercising their civil rights, participation in such a group might be deemed a violation of his parole. Violating his parole would nullify the general amnesty for Confederate officers in his case and there was that nasty little warrant for his arrest for treason that was issued by a Union judge in Memphis. (A local marshal was given the job of arresting Forrest and, no doubt after he got done rolling on the floor laughing, he wrote 'Not within this jurisdiction' (or something of the sort) on the back of the warrant. Three Union armies hadn't been able to bring Forrest in, so I don't suppose one little ol' Tennessee marshal and his posse was going to do it either!) So, to my mind, given all the circumstances and situations and various reasons, it's just to give Forrest the benefit of the doubt and say he may have broken the law but he did it because he thought it the best (and maybe only) thing to do. When men like Fielding Hurst were made judges and most ex-Confederates were disfranchised it was hard to effect a change for the better through the legal system available. It doesn't give him a halo but it doesn't give him horns either.
Isn't that the mindset of everybody who breaks the law?So, to my mind, given all the circumstances and situations and various reasons, it's just to give Forrest the benefit of the doubt and say he may have broken the law but he did it because he thought it the best (and maybe only) thing to do.
If I did, I would absolutely say I thought it was the best thing to do. If I hadn't thought so, I'd have done something else. The same is true of anyone who breaks the law; they always think it was the best way to get what they wanted. If there were some way that were easier or better, that's what they'd have done instead.No, most just do it because they can! (Or they think they can.) It's that old ethics question - is it always wrong to steal? Would you steal a can of milk for a starving baby? Does it stop being wrong because it's for a good cause? No, it's always wrong - but you'd probably steal the milk for the starving baby anyway.
Not commenting on his guilt or innocence, just saying that if you take the 5th, which someone suggested he might have done, you have to say that every time they ask you a question. You can't pick and choose. I'm glad he did answer, even if evasively in some cases, because it gives us a window we wouldn't otherwise have.
In addition, there are other options for seeing that the child gets fed aside from stealing milk. Some of them aren't pleasant, but neither is stealing. And like every other choice in life, it comes down to what one's priorities are.That's true! You always have the choice. Now, take Robert E. Lee. If stealing a can of milk just because you could was wrong, then stealing it because your baby was starving is wrong, too - I don't think he would have done it. Some would say now that's plain foolishment - the child's life is more important than your ethical well-being. But, if you've lived your whole life by honor then it would be a betrayal of your entire life.
It would be interesting to know what went on behind the curtain of that time in history, but I take no position on anyone's guilt for the very reason that no one was put on trial and convicted that I know of. We do, however, know that Parson Brownlow was no better a man than those he would have liked to hang, he just happened to be on the winning side.Can you imagine being his lawyer? Trying to get Forrest NOT to say something he wanted to say would be a nightmare. BTW, in his testimony, he's not just protecting himself (which I'm sure was paramount); he's also protecting a lot of men who would gladly have died for him, like John Morton. So evasiveness isn't just evidence of his own guilt.
In addition, there are other options for seeing that the child gets fed aside from stealing milk. Some of them aren't pleasant, but neither is stealing. And like every other choice in life, it comes down to what one's priorities are.
Why is there a cannon in my #67 post? I didn't put it there!
Absolutely. And in that case, the priority was making as much money as possible, as quickly as possible, without leaving some sort of victim in one's wake, except perhaps the federal government. Is there anything more red-blooded-American than that?In land deals, for instance.
Well, considering the klan was trying to at least undermine if not overthrow the government of Tennessee and deter freedmen from exercising their civil rights, participation in such a group might be deemed a violation of his parole. Violating his parole would nullify the general amnesty for Confederate officers in his case and there was that nasty little warrant for his arrest for treason that was issued by a Union judge in Memphis. (A local marshal was given the job of arresting Forrest and, no doubt after he got done rolling on the floor laughing, he wrote 'Not within this jurisdiction' (or something of the sort) on the back of the warrant. Three Union armies hadn't been able to bring Forrest in, so I don't suppose one little ol' Tennessee marshal and his posse was going to do it either!) So, to my mind, given all the circumstances and situations and various reasons, it's just to give Forrest the benefit of the doubt and say he may have broken the law but he did it because he thought it the best (and maybe only) thing to do. When men like Fielding Hurst were made judges and most ex-Confederates were disfranchised it was hard to effect a change for the better through the legal system available. It doesn't give him a halo but it doesn't give him horns either.