Tennessee gov. signs proclamation establishing Nathan Bedford Forrest holiday

[Bandit3 the Worker]

How come we're not hearing more about this?

A few months ago, the Democratic governor of Virginia was embroiled in a controversy about a blackface photo from 40 years ago. If I remember correctly, someone investigated as to whether he appeared in the photo, and it couldn't be determined conclusively whether he had. But this was a major story for weeks.

But now the Republican governor of Tennessee has actually signed a proclamation establishing a holiday to honor an early Ku Klux Klan leader. We don't even need an investigator to figure out that the governor signed this proclamation. It's pretty unambiguous. But from the media...crickets.

Why isn't this a big news story? There's no ambiguity whatsoever about the Governor of Tennessee's ongoing racism. So why aren't there calls for him to resign?

Is the media racist?

[Santander]

The First Klan was not the same thing as the much larger and longer-lived Second Klan or the increasingly pathetic organizations that followed. General Forrest briefly led the First Klan, which was more of a Democratic Party paramilitary organization formed out of anger and opposition to tyrannical carpetbagger rule, and swiftly ordered it disbanded after losing control of its membership and seeing the violence members were committing. He left the Klan after about a year and disavowed it and its activities. Certainly, it was a mistake he made, but he wasn't an avowed terrorist leader, and there are many mitigating factors.

However, that does not mean he deserves a holiday. Even ignoring his brief tenure as the Klan leader, his record as a general, being responsible for Fort Pillow, is not worthy of being memorialized in a remotely positive way, even if he was the only man to ever go from Private to Lieutenant General in one war. (which, let's face it, is not why these neo-Confederates want to memorialize him)

[MichaelRbn]

Even Ted Cruz has a tweet criticizing this (of course he had to include the requisite “150 years ago this Confederate was a Democrat so we all know which party today has all the racists”.

[Crumpets]

We already have a holiday for wearing sheets over our head to look like ghosts and go around scaring people.

[brucejoel99]

Oh, so Bill Lee must now be a huge Democrat then, right? Since Democrats = Confederates = KKK racists?

Right wing trolls? Any explanation for this one?

[GP270watch]

 Who was clamoring for a Nathan Bedford Forrest holiday anyways?

 What a stupid waste of time.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Who was clamoring for a Nathan Bedford Forrest holiday anyways?

Nobody. Just the Republicans.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Who was clamoring for a Nathan Bedford Forrest holiday anyways?

A lot of white people in Tennessee, unfortunately.

[Vespucci]

This is actually required by state law, which makes it even more ridiculous.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's been an official holiday according to TN law since 1921.  

Did other recent governors just ignore the law that instructs them to make this proclamation?  Or did this practice just escape media scrutiny until this year?

EDIT: apparently it's the latter

Lee — and governors who have come before him — are also required by state law to proclaim Jan. 19 as Robert E. Lee Day, honoring the commander of the Confederate Army, as well as June 3 Confederate Decoration Day, otherwise known as Confederate Memorial Day and the birthday of Confederate President Jefferson Davis...

The statute instructs the governor to proclaim those three days of special observation, along with Abraham Lincoln Day on Feb. 12, Andrew Jackson Day on March 15 and Veterans Day on Nov. 11, and to "invite the people of this state to observe the days in schools, churches, and other suitable places with appropriate ceremonies expressive of the public sentiment befitting the anniversary of such dates."

In the Forrest proclamation, identical to the one issued each year by former Gov. Bill Haslam, Forrest is described only as a "recognized military figure in American history and a native Tennessean."

The text reads that the governor encourages "all citizens to join (him) in this worthy observance."

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/tennessee-gov-bill-lee-plans-stop-celebrating-confederate/story?id=64311086

The governor of Tennessee has been required by law to annually declare July 13 in honor of the general. And Lee said he has no plans to dispense with the tradition.

"I signed the bill because the law requires that I do that and I haven’t looked at changing that law," Lee told The Tennessean Thursday.

This would be a good opportunity for Civil Disobedience on the part of a sitting Governor that wouldn't affect anyone.  Let the Courts twist his arm to force him to sign the proclamation.  Or rush the Legislature into repealing this nonsense.

Not celebrating Forrest isn't a gray area.  He was a KKK founder, and a guy who did his part to keep the "Lost Cause" going.  When you became part of reviving the "Lost Cause" and are not about "Binding up the Nation's wounds.", that's a starting point for revoking past honors, and Forrest meets this standard rather easily.  There were Confederate leaders (mostly military leaders) that were part of binding up wounds, but Forrest wasn't one of them.

Not signing this proclamation would be a way for Governor Lee to actually do something to affirmatively acknowledge the legitimate offense black folks would take at something like this, and on the broader range of these sort of issues.  It isn't an unfair statement to make to say that after 1877, "binding up the Nation's wounds" meant former Confederate troops and former Union troops putting aside the battlefield conflict, but neither group being concerned about the plight of former slaves.  Not signing this proclamation is a small step in the right direction to undo what can be undone of that.

[7,052,770]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/tennessee-gov-bill-lee-plans-stop-celebrating-confederate/story?id=64311086

The governor of Tennessee has been required by law to annually declare July 13 in honor of the general. And Lee said he has no plans to dispense with the tradition.

"I signed the bill because the law requires that I do that and I haven’t looked at changing that law," Lee told The Tennessean Thursday.

This would be a good opportunity for Civil Disobedience on the part of a sitting Governor that wouldn't affect anyone.  Let the Courts twist his arm to force him to sign the proclamation.  Or rush the Legislature into repealing this nonsense.

Not celebrating Forrest isn't a gray area.  He was a KKK founder, and a guy who did his part to keep the "Lost Cause" going.  When you became part of reviving the "Lost Cause" and are not about "Binding up the Nation's wounds.", that's a starting point for revoking past honors, and Forrest meets this standard rather easily.  There were Confederate leaders (mostly military leaders) that were part of binding up wounds, but Forrest wasn't one of them.

Not signing this proclamation would be a way for Governor Lee to actually do something to affirmatively acknowledge the legitimate offense black folks would take at something like this, and on the broader range of these sort of issues.  It isn't an unfair statement to make to say that after 1877, "binding up the Nation's wounds" meant former Confederate troops and former Union troops putting aside the battlefield conflict, but neither group being concerned about the plight of former slaves.  Not signing this proclamation is a small step in the right direction to undo what can be undone of that.

[Suburbia]

Who was clamoring for a Nathan Bedford Forrest holiday anyways?

 What a stupid waste of time.

Lee is a fool.

Karl Dean should have won the election.

[ProudModerate2]

Of course the TN governor signed it.
Nathan Bedford Forrest is one of those "very fine people."

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I'm all for the non-erasure of history, but the dude doesn't need a special day for him. Unless it's like Guy Fawkes Day where they burn his effigy, then go for it.

[HillGoose]

Why does TN suck so much ass i can't wait to leave this God awful state.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Even ted Cruz knows this is wrong, smh.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Why does TN suck so much ass

Too much economic anxiety.

[Santander]

Why does TN suck so much ass i can't wait to leave this God awful state.

(i am not racist)

Thomas Jefferson
John Calhoun
Jefferson Davis
Isham Harris
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Judah Benjamin
Henry Horton
George Wallace

[HillGoose]

Why does TN suck so much ass i can't wait to leave this God awful state.

(i am not racist)

Thomas Jefferson
John Calhoun
Jefferson Davis
Isham Harris
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Judah Benjamin
Henry Horton
George Wallace

Sorry I was trolling back then. I am ashamed of my comment.

[Progressive Pessimist]

You mean the guy who dressed up in Confederate clothing? How can that be!?

[Indy Texas]

So, if it's the DEMOCRATS who are the REAL racist party, as Dinesh D'Souza never fails to remind us, why is Tennessee, which is solely controlled by Republicans now, continuing this tradition and outright refusing to stop it?

For that matter, considering all Southern states are under full or partial Republican control at this point, why are they refusing to remove or stopping removal of confederate statues that were erected by Democratic politicians in the 1920s-1960s for no other reason than to express opposition to civil rights?

[junior chįmp]

Last time I was in TN, it was awful....dry counties everywhere meant i was unable to drink to forget i was in TN.

[Fuzzy Bear]

So, if it's the DEMOCRATS who are the REAL racist party, as Dinesh D'Souza never fails to remind us, why is Tennessee, which is solely controlled by Republicans now, continuing this tradition and outright refusing to stop it?

For that matter, considering all Southern states are under full or partial Republican control at this point, why are they refusing to remove or stopping removal of confederate statues that were erected by Democratic politicians in the 1920s-1960s for no other reason than to express opposition to civil rights?

I'll agree to this argument, but why are these issues considered so important and take up so much time?

Having Confederate monuments, the Confederate Southern Cross in the field of a number of Southern State flags, playing "Dixie" at football games, etc. never stopped the Civil Rights movement.  Indeed, the same DEMOCRATIC southern state governments that allowed these monuments to stand, sign proclamations for these absurd holidays, were governments that, by the 1990s, MAXIMIZED black political leverage.  That's because the Democrats in many Southern states were elected by a coalition of black voters and working class white voters; the white voters who voted Republican were either "Mountain Republicans" (descended from folks in East TN and Western NC that were loyal to the Union) or "Country Club" types.  This coalition allowed black voters in a number of Southern states (including GA, MS, and the Carolinas) to have maximum political influence.  The concerns of black voters were taken into account, and sometimes "catered to" because they were a crucial element in the Democratic Party's coalition that allowed them to maintain control over Southern state governments.

The real issue is how Democrats allowed their coalition of blacks and working class whites in Southern states to be obliterated.  It wasn't because of "racism"; if it were because of "racism", these coalitions would not have developed and endured for any length of time.  A degree of why this happened is the tone-deaf attitude of the National Democratic Party who has insisted in imprinting its social agenda on all segments of society.  This, of course, has not gone down well in the section of the country that has the highest rate of church attendance and military installations.

In The Vital South, written by Earl Black and Merle Black, there was a discussion of the Democratic Party's future in the South.  One option was for the Democratic Party to become a permanent minority party; in that event, Southern Democrats could become as liberal as they wished to be.  The other option was for a Democratic Party to develop candidates who could run in the South and win in the South.  In Bill Clinton, there was such a Democrat, and Democrats such as Jim Hunt, Jim Hodges, Doug Wilder, Ned McWherter, Lawton Chiles, and many moderate state legislators enabled Democrats to walk the line between catering to local sentiment and remaining loyal to the top of the ticket. 

The second strategy could have been adhered to without selling out workers.  Instead, the Democrats adhered to the first strategy.  The only thing that hasn't kept the Democrats from losing the entire South are demographic changes in VA.  Perhaps their "Demographics is Destiny" strategy will work in TX, GA, FL, and NC.  Perhaps not in my lifetime.

The Democratic Party is more adept in shooting itself in the foot than any large organization I can think of.

[OSR stands with Israel]

So, if it's the DEMOCRATS who are the REAL racist party, as Dinesh D'Souza never fails to remind us, why is Tennessee, which is solely controlled by Republicans now, continuing this tradition and outright refusing to stop it?

For that matter, considering all Southern states are under full or partial Republican control at this point, why are they refusing to remove or stopping removal of confederate statues that were erected by Democratic politicians in the 1920s-1960s for no other reason than to express opposition to civil rights?

The real issue is how Democrats allowed their coalition of blacks and working class whites in Southern states to be obliterated.  It wasn't because of "racism"; if it were because of "racism", these coalitions would not have developed and endured for any length of time. 

The voting generation which was dominant changed and as soon as that happened the Dems lost control of the South. Baby Boomers are far less populist than GI Generation voters were and as soon as they along with late Silents became the dominate generation in politics the Dems fortune in the South changed.

Second is the Suburbs rather than Urban Areas became the dominate demographic and that change helped Republicans out tremendously.


Lastly is before 1994 there were only 2 elections from 1968 on that you had a National Election with a Dem in the WH : 1978 and 1980. Due to Republican opportunities to make down-ballot gains  were very limited.

1994 is when all three factors converged as once and Dems havent recovered in the South since then