Mexico creates racist stamps!

[Razorguns]

OMFG! Can they be anymore crass and racist! lol!

Can you imagine these stamps here? Scary their racist citizenry are also infiltrating our society by the boatloads.

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4670932/detail.html#

U.S. activists called on the Mexican government to withdraw a postage stamp depicting an exaggerated black cartoon character known as Memin Pinguin, saying the offense was worse than recent remarks about blacks made by President Vicente Fox.



Mexico defended the series of five stamps released Wednesday, which depicts a child character from a comic book started in the 1940s that is still published in Mexico.

But the Rev. Jesse Jackson said President Bush should pressure Mexico to withdraw the stamps from the market, saying they "insult people around the world."

"The impact of this is worse than what the president said," Jackson noted, referring to Fox's May 13 comment that Mexican migrants take jobs in the United States that "not even blacks" want. Fox later met with Jackson and expressed regret but insisted his comments had been misinterpreted.

On Thursday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan objected to the stamp, saying "racial stereotypes are offensive no matter what their origin" and have no place in today's world. He added that it was "an internal issue for Mexico and the postal authorities that issued the stamp."

The character on the stamp is drawn with exaggerated features, thick lips and wide-open eyes. His appearance, speech and mannerisms are the subject of kidding by white characters in the comic book.


Mexico said that like Speedy Gonzalez -- a cartoon mouse with a Mexican accent that debuted in the United States in 1953 -- the Memin Pinguin character shouldn't be interpreted as a racial slur.

"Just as Speedy Gonzalez has never been interpreted in a racial manner by the people in Mexico, because he is a cartoon character, I am certain that this commemorative postage stamp is not intended to be interpreted on a racial basis in Mexico or anywhere else," said Rafael Laveaga, the spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington.

But NAACP Interim President Dennis Courtland Hayes countered that "laughing at the expense of hardworking African Americans or African Mexicans is no joke and it should end at once."

The NAACP -- the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People -- called the stamps "injurious to black people who live in the United States and Mexico."

Jackson also said Mexico should "issue a complete and full apology."



Activists in Mexico said the stamp was offensive but not unexpected.

"One would hope the Mexican government would be a little more careful and avoid continually opening wounds," said Sergio Penalosa, an activist in Mexico's small black community on the southern Pacific coast.

"But we've learned to expect anything from this government, just anything," Penalosa said.

Carlos Caballero, assistant marketing director for the Mexican Postal Service, said the stamps are not offensive, nor were they intended to be.

"This is a traditional character that reflects part of Mexico's culture," Caballero said. "His mischievous nature is part of that character."

However, Penalosa said many Mexicans still assume all blacks are foreigners, despite the fact that at one point early in the Spanish colonial era, Africans outnumbered Spanish in Mexico.

"At this point in time, it was probably pretty insensitive" to issue the stamp, said Elisa Velazquez, an anthropologist who studies Mexico's black communities for the National Institute of Anthropology and History.

"This character is a classic, but it's from another era," Velazquez said. "It's a stereotype and you don't want to encourage ignorance or prejudices."

Laveaga, the embassy spokesman, countered that "if you look closely at many of the cartoon characters in U.S. pop culture, those who try will be able to find something offensive."

But, he noted, "the vast majority will see a cartoon character, which is what Memin Pinguin is."

The 6.50-peso (60 cent) stamps -- depicting the character in five poses -- was issued with the domestic market in mind, but Caballero noted it could be used in international postage as well.

A total of 750,000 of the stamps will be issued.

Ben Vinson, a black professor of Latin American history at Penn State University, said he has been called "Memin Pinguin" by some people in Mexico. He also noted that the character's mother is drawn to look like an old version of the U.S. advertising character Aunt Jemima.

The stamps are part of a series that pays tribute to Mexican comic books. Memin Pinguin, the second in the series, was apparently chosen for this year's release because it is the 50th anniversary of the company that publishes the comic.

Publisher Manelick De la Parra told the government news agency Notimex that the character would be sort of a goodwill ambassador on Mexican letters and postcards.

"It seems nice if Memin can travel all over the world, spreading good news," de la Parra said, calling him "so charming, so affectionate, so wonderful, generous and friendly."

 

[nutsnack]

stamps r fun

 

[Hengst]

I am SHOCKED and in DISBELIEF..........

Mexico has a working postal system????

 

[n0th1ng]

LoL @ Jesse Jackson and the NAACP for calling out Mexico for being racist. Thats like the pot calling the kettle a nigger.

 

[silverfish]

In

 

[jestros]

And we didnt have cartoons just like that a few years ago. jeezus

 

[Ulcasterdropout]

...

 

[Mr. dB]

I hope SoreArms sees this and buys a sheet of each denomination while he's down there. They'll be collectors items someday.

 

[GoldenDelicious]

oh get over it. if it was a caricature of a skinny english guy with bad teeth, no one would give a shit

 

[mountain muscle]

LMAO. our country is so full of shit now we are calling on other countries to become PC. I hope they tell us to go to hell and grow up. We need it.

 

[Ozz2001]

When will the usa quit crying over everything? When will they quit trying to control the world? Why do they keep trying to justify shit as racist? Funny they tell you its ok to sux another mans dick but you cant put a black monkey on a stamp? They tell you not to be racist but yet every american hates dot heads....They put in god we trust on your money but wont allow the ten commandents to hang on walls,that promotes religion.But its ok to have in god we trust on money.I am not proud to to say i live in a crybaby country with a bunch of pampered bunch of pussys trying to run the world like a soap opera! Doesnt my fucked up county know its not right to make up rules as you go? How can you love a country with abunch of old, nosey, money greedy, lieing asshole that think everyones bussiness is there own!
Twisted bunch of fucked up people....I cant wait to move to canada!

Sorry i feel alittle bit better now!

 

[gonelifting]

Let's bomb them.

Don't they have steroids? do it.

 

[eat big]

Jesse Jackson is annoying as shit.

 

[Spartacus]

When will the usa quit crying over everything? When will they quit trying to control the world? Why do they keep trying to justify shit as racist? Funny they tell you its ok to sux another mans dick but you cant put a black monkey on a stamp? They tell you not to be racist but yet every american hates dot heads....They put in god we trust on your money but wont allow the ten commandents to hang on walls,that promotes religion.But its ok to have in god we trust on money.I am not proud to to say i live in a crybaby country with a bunch of pampered bunch of pussys trying to run the world like a soap opera! Doesnt my fucked up county know its not right to make up rules as you go? How can you love a country with abunch of old, nosey, money greedy, lieing asshole that think everyones bussiness is there own!
Twisted bunch of fucked up people....I cant wait to move to canada!

Sorry i feel alittle bit better now!

"fix me another drink French"

 

[Deleted member 33117]

LMAO. our country is so full of shit now we are calling on other countries to become PC. I hope they tell us to go to hell and grow up. We need it.

Exactally. I personally see all races and ethnicities as just human beings. We should be allowed to just shoot anyone who plays the race card (wether they are members of the KKK or the Black Panters, or just anyone who claims their race is better or they have been cheated due to their race) and that would take care of the issue.

 

[Spartacus]

The Legend of a Massacre:
Nathan Bedford Forrest

At Fort Pillow

Adam Charles Evans

History 4072--"The Civil War"--Spring Semester 2004--The University of Georgia--Judkin Browning

HEADQUARTERS, FORREST’S CAVALRY

Before Fort Pillow, April 12, 1864

Major Booth, Commanding United States Forces, Fort Pillow: Major,--- The conduct of the officers and men garrisoning Fort Pillow has been such as to entitle them to being treated as prisoners of war. I demand the unconditional surrender of this garrison, promising you that you shall be treated as prisoners of war. My men have received a fresh supply of ammunition, and from their present position can easily assault and capture the fort. Should my demand be refused, I cannot be responsible for the fate of your command. Respectfully,
(signed) N.B. Forrest1

As he paused to read this note before accompanying a flag of truce into Fort Pillow, a Confederate soldier remembered years later, discussion among the officers as to whether or not it applied to the Negro soldiers within the walls of the fortification. He was reassured the note did in fact extend to these soldiers.2 In the state of Tennessee forty miles north of Memphis on the Mississippi River, Fort Pillow was held by 600 men. They were locally recruited Tennessee men fighting for the North. These Union forces included escaped and ex-slaves as a part of large portion of the fighting force. The Confederates had men who were also locally recruited but fighting in rebellion. They were led by a man who would eventually become the founder of one of the most inherently racist organizations ever to trod upon American soil. The engagement at Fort Pillow was not a major strategic victory for the Confederacy, or a significant loss in territory for the Union army, but it was one of the most interestingly violent altercations of the Civil War. In the wake of the battle, Northern soldiers and press attached themselves to the incident, painting the Confederates as inhumane and inexplicably violent.

The General pinned with the atrocities detailed in varying Union accounts was Lieutenant-General Nathan Bedford Forrest. A man “born for war,” Forrest was already infamous among both armies. Over the course of the war, Forrest had fifteen horses shot while he was in their saddles. He had never attended West Point and was not a military man before the war. Forrest had been a successful Memphis slave trader. Despite his lack of military training, he evolved through the war into a curiously resourceful cavalryman who frequently required his soldiers to dismount and fight as infantry. Generals Grant and Sherman even referred to him as “Hell-hound.” The legend of General Forrest includes stories of shooting deserters from his own ranks and his negative attitude directed towards black soldiers. When asked if the Confederacy was fighting for slavery, his reply was “If we aint fightin’ fer slavery then I’d like to know what we are fightin’ fer.”3 In correspondence with a Union General he had said, “I regard captured negroes as I do other captured property, and not as captured soldiers.”4 This view was made most explicit in the incident at Fort Pillow.

With the exception of a few officers on the Northern side of the battle, the troops forming the ranks of both armies were from the region surrounding the fort. The rebels under Forrest had been fighting for years and now their brethren were enlisting at Fort Pillow to fight for the Union. Labeled Southern Unionists, these men were considered no more than traitors to the rebels. Poor whites had no desire to possess human property and saw slavery as a personal economic hindrance. They resented the thought of upward class mobility through the acquisition of slaves common among many Confederate soldiers and chose to join the Union army. The situation produced a curious form of class warfare. Defeating the Confederacy was of little consequence to these Southern Unionists. Their goal was to bring economic troubles to the upper caste of slaveholding whites in their communities. Because of their willingness to fight against members of their own race and class, these men had forfeited their “whiteness,” their literal humanity within a Southern society built upon generations claiming racial superiority. In addition to this locally recruited cavalry, two companies of men within the fort were Union soldiers of a darker skin tone. These former slaves with guns played into the worst fears of the Confederates.5 Images of gruesome slave revolts in the Caribbean had been placed in their minds from a young age. They had been taught to fear and eventually hate the threat to their culture that came along with the arming of slaves.

Forrest knew this rare composition of the troops within the fort when he ordered the first attack. The 1,500 Confederates had no trouble securing the high ground around the fort and forcing the Union garrison into the protection of the fort. Forrest’s motivation for this initial attack is unclear. Fort Pillow was not a strategic stronghold for the Union forces. It presented no real threat to the Confederate war effort nationally or locally. However, because both armies had been recruiting from the same region in Tennessee, the attack could have been intended to discourage enlistment in the Union army by members of both races. Forrest could flex the muscles of his cavalry and encourage enlistment into his own ranks. In order to justify the attacks, many Confederates would later cite “numerous outrages upon the people of the surrounding country” as their reasons for attacking.6 Whatever the justification, the events that followed this first wave of attack were uncharacteristic of the war itself, but they did fall perfectly in line with the life of the Confederate General at Fort Pillow.

Troops from both sides found themselves within shouting distance of each other. From their elevated positions, the Confederates could see Union troops frantically preparing to make another stand. As the gunfire subsided and the bullets ceased exchange, racial epithets flew across the lines in a new wave of the assault. During the eight hours of this verbal battery, Forrest raised a white flag of truce and issued a request for the surrender of the fort. Forrest knew the tensions between the two armies were growing more and more tense as the hours progressed. There was no faceless enemy. Men were able to hurl insults at their own neighbors who held arms in the opposing army. The men within the fort were the faces they thought of with malice years before this battle approached. Adding to the tensions was the refusal of the fort to surrender despite being grossly outnumbered.7

Many historians have chosen to focus their work on the unprecedented movement of Forrest’s troops as the white flag of truce was being flown. The debate over Forrest’s conduct during the long and trying eight hours under the flag of truce only died down as general apathy set in with the passing of generations. For the soldiers at the engagement and others who made attempts to defend Forrest’s actions before and after the war, these hours may have been his finest. The Forrest they had personally experienced was shown to the Union army and the world as a man of stubborn determination. The Union ship Olive Branch could be seen floating down the Mississippi River with potential reinforcements approaching Fort Pillow. Forrest chose to send a portion of his army to the river’s bank in order to prevent the ship from coming any closer. This may have been the incident in which Forrest initially departed from the rules of civilized warfare as claimed by Union forces. If these men moved within full view of the fort and only in response to the approaching ship, then the traditional rules of war were intact. However, most accounts claim that the flag of truce was used as a means to maneuver troops into positions more favorable to a quick attack on the fort itself.8 Many Confederates believed that each passing minute under the flag of truce was an attempt for the Union garrison to distract the rebels until the reinforcements from the Olive Branch could arrive.

Eventually Forrest found himself anxious to have the Union fort surrender, not the ship. He sent a second flag of truce into the fort with the intention of ceasing the standoff. He gave the garrison twenty minutes to surrender or the Confederate soldiers would take the fort by force. Forrest was confident the fort would be surrendered without further bloodshed. He had assured the garrison that soldiers turned over in the formal surrender would be treated as prisoners of war, but in the event the surrender did not occur, Forrest claimed he could not be responsible for the fate of the fort.9 The response came to Forrest in the form of a scribble covered piece of paper saying, “Your demand does not produce the desired effect.” Forrest crumpled the paper and threw it to the ground in frustration. He sent one last inquiry into the fort asking for a reply to the request for the surrender of the fort “in plain English, ‘Yes or No!’” The fort refused and Forrest responded with an order for a full attack with all of his forces.10

As Forrest’s cavalry attacked, their unbridled hatred for the men inside the fort was realized in one of the most horrendous occurrences of the Civil War. Carl Sandburg, a twentieth century historian and biographer of Abraham Lincoln, articulated the massacre at Fort Pillow in this eloquent way:

Forrest’s men were no longer fighting a battle in a war between civilized nations; they were sharing in a race riot, a mass lynching, and the event became an orgy of unleashed primitive human animals riding a storm of anger and vengeance.11
This cavalcade of violence is where the most controversy surrounding the attack on Fort Pillow can be found. The eyewitness testimonies of the few survivors of the slaying are inconsistent in their depictions of the Confederate actions. The accounts range from Forrest issuing a black flag order requiring all Union troops to be shot regardless of their possession of weapons and pleas for surrender to Forrest actually waving a black flag as the troops charged. Some accounts even include Forrest riding into the fort and quickly disengaging his men from the horrors they were committing.12 Despite the inconsistency concerning the actual details of the massacre, the theme of shooting unarmed men as they pleaded for their lives runs consistently through accounts taken from both sides. The Confederates showed no mercy in slaying the men before them. The actual number of casualties for the battle are still disputed today, however, of the approximately 600 Union men in the fort, close to 100 survived. Twenty Confederates died in the fight and 60 were wounded.13 Some witnesses claimed to see Union soldiers tortured before being killed. Torture does not occur in the heat of battle and implies a curiously calculated detachment. The Confederate were no longer in a heated battle but a socially and racially motivated massacre.14

It is still not known if a black flag, or no quarter order, was issued at all. It is also unclear if the order would have come from Forrest or one of his lower officers. It is most likely that the order was issued from any number of these lower officers or was simply decided upon by the individual Confederate soldiers who had an entire day to grow angry and vengeful towards the men they saw as local traitors. Accounts from both sides try to point out that many rebels were shouting to their brothers-in-arms to end the massacre. The military ranks of these vocal men can only be speculated, however, if any of these shouts came from officers after Forrest had issued an order to execute potential prisoners, then these men would have been insubordinate, a crime Forrest punished severely.15

Confederates, eager to rally behind an unwavering military leader, were anxious to deny Forrest’s approval of the no quarter practice and view their highest ranking leader as moral in spite of the immorality witnessed in the battle. However, if he did not issue the order, the men certainly would have felt it had received the tacit approval of the General. The massacre at Fort Pillow played perfectly into the legend that was quickly growing around Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest himself was interested in trying to protect his own military career. In the 1980s, two historians sought to put an end to the Fort Pillow debate by providing evidence of the initiative taken by Forrest to cover up the details of his involvement in the massacre.16 Forrest’s successful attempt to conceal his own actions at Fort Pillow secured his position in command of the cavalry he had helped recruit. Being portrayed as relentless warriors was better for recruiting than an image of a band of bloodthirsty savages.

The Southern press learned of the battle in the weeks following Fort Pillow. They heralded Forrest’s men for their “great victory” in the “indiscriminate slaughter” of enemy troops. Always ones to embellish victories and tame defeats, the press claimed that the fort “ran with blood,” yet only five Confederate lives were claimed in the battle. They proceeded to label the General one of two undeniable geniuses to emerge from the war. Nathan Bedford Forrest and Stonewall Jackson were seen as examples of how the military might of the Confederacy may not have existed in numbers, but it triumphed in cunning and common sense. These two men were integral parts of the Confederate war machine as irreplaceable military leaders and personal interest stories.17

Some Southern papers chose to not deny the details of the massacre, but to justify them. Richmond Daily Dispatch reports emphasized the role the refusal of surrender played in the altercation. They claimed the Union had shown a lack of common sense in its armies and its cause by showing such stubbornness in the face of such meager odds. Interestingly, some of the more grotesque descriptions of torture emerge from this same newspaper. One story told of how Confederates brutishly nailed a Union cavalry officer to a board and threw him into the fires of the fort. Truth and fiction found within the legend of the massacre in both Northern and Southern sources are almost impossible to substantiate.18

The Confederate proximity to Fort Pillow did not help their press break the story. The Northern press did not paint Nathan Bedford Forrest in shades of glory and military genius. Their stories embraced the more gruesome aspects of Fort Pillow. The New York Times headline read “The Black Flag: Horrible Massacre by the Rebels.” Emphasizing the unorthodox tactics of Forrest‘s flag of truce, they painted their enemies in a negative light They tried to portray all of the Union casualties as men regardless of color. One such story was of two Negro soldiers being buried alive and digging themselves out of their shallow graves. This “fiendishness“ on the part of the rebels was contrasted with tales of the courtesy shown by Union officers when meeting with Confederate officers in the days following the battle.19

Immediately following the battle, the outcry of the Northern public was for retaliation. The press, pulpit and politicians all rallied behind the cry “Remember Fort Pillow!”20 Tirelessly slaughtering American troops with such intense disdain was not to be tolerated; Forrest’s name became entangled in this rhetoric against such blatantly racially motivated violence as seen at the battle. In fact, before the Southern Confederacy in Atlanta was printing its first incomplete details of the battle, Northern sentiment had already led to Congressional action. A special joint-committee was formed with the intentions of investigating the brutal conduct of the rebels at Fort Pillow.

Part of larger investigation into the conduct of both armies, Congressmen Ben Wade and Daniel Gooch were charged with traveling to the soldiers who survived the massacre and record their tales of the happenings at the fort. Published upon their return, the report contained graphic depictions ranging from the shooting of innocent women and children to torture involving tactics similar to crucifixion and even compassion shown by the Confederate soldiers. One Northern survivor even estimated there were only around fifty deaths as a result of the fort’s invasion.21

Some Southerners looked upon the findings of the committee with a certain amount of skepticism, a natural response to the report which was in no way kind to them, stating: At least 300 were murdered in cold blood after the post was in possession of the rebels and (Union) men had thrown down their arms and ceased resistance… Men, women, even children, were shot down, beaten, hacked with sabers; children not more than ten years old were forced to stand up and face their murderers while being shot; sick and wounded were butchered without mercy…22

Conducted with the war still in progress, these reports were not going to admit any fault on the part of the United States. Any negative findings within the Union ranks could be hidden among other details while brutal Confederate mishaps could be emphasized. To some, the answers given by the survivors seemed guided, or curiously articulate and grammatically correct for former slaves. Perhaps Wade and Gooch did not feel it necessary to preserve dialects in their report, or perhaps their report was substantially fabricated. If the report was a lie, the authors integrated curious inconstancies in order to give the illusion of truthfulness. Whatever liberties were taken in writing the report, labeling the rebels with harsh adjectives such as “devilish,” the effects of its publication were seen almost immediately. Lincoln was able to reiterate his portrayal of the army as a liberating force fighting against the savagery that was the South, while Southerners were able to dismiss the document as mere factually inaccurate Northern propaganda.23 The report could easily find its way into the ideologies of either side of the war.

Northern and Southern armies found themselves unable to deny the need to focus their fighting tactics on more traditional forms of warfare. Violations of these time honored codes could only result in more incidents such as Fort Pillow, which were inexcusable and disrespectful to both armies. Another commitment of both sides was in recognizing both white and black troops as human. Neither army would officially sanction or tolerate a no quarter policy. As black soldiers continued to prove themselves as men in battle, members of both armies were forced to question the racist opinions of an inherently inferior race of subservient men they had been inundated with from a young age.24

Because of his actions at Fort Pillow, the Confederate hierarchy may have seen Forrest as a valuable military asset, but a difficult tool to utilize politically. In a war filled with “what-ifs,” one concerning Forrest is his peculiar absence from properly harassing Sherman’s line of communication before the now famous March to the Sea. Grant and Sherman both consciously tried to avoid Forrest because of his ability to wreak havoc on their operations. As a consequence of the attention brought upon his brutality at Fort Pillow, Forrest may have been kept from getting too entangled with Sherman’s campaign. Fort Pillow, then, may have been a more decisive battle than the minor engagement status bestowed upon it through years of Civil War studies.25

The legacy of Fort Pillow was felt after the war and throughout Reconstruction as black leaders brought forth the memories of the massacre at their political rallies with the words “Remember Fort Pillow” written on black flags and flowing throughout their speeches.26 During this same period of American history, Nathan Bedford Forrest could not escape his own legacy of “Fort Pillow Forrest.”27 He was donning colors in stark contrast to the flags of the black politicians, as his Knights of the White Camellia dressed in white sheets and sought to remember Fort Pillow in their own ways by bringing the violence of that April day to the home front in a different kind of war. Protesting against the consequences of the ultimate Confederate defeat in the year following the engagement, the Ku Klux Klan would be the reason for Forrest’s name to survive history in infamy.

The massacre at Fort Pillow is even more significant to the modern study of the Civil War than of the political front of Reconstruction. Although neglected in the perpetually blooming industry of historical works on the nineteenth century, the massacre offers a unique study of the war waging within the Southern citizenry. Few of the soldiers on either side of the battle were from Northern states. The clash of these two particular armies illustrates the conveniently forgotten fact that the South was not wholly united in their attempt to secede from the United States. Much like the New York City draft riots of the previous summer, Fort Pillow offers a chance for the modern historian to see how the war played out within local communities and the frequent turn to violence taken in the midst of such tensions. Northern leaders were aware of these tensions among Southerners. When Grant took command of the Union armies he implemented a strategy of trying to wear down the Confederate army by continually bombarding them with relentless assaults as he waited for their morale to decline and the Confederacy to collapse from within. Northern newspapers and publications found their way to the Southern states and served in this same capacity with regard to Confederate civilians rather than soldiers. For the remainder of the war, Northern military and cultural tactics consisted of simply inundating the South with demoralizing accounts of the war in an attempt to outlast their opposition and ultimately claim victory in the conflict. If anything, Fort Pillow was both a victory for the Confederates to rally behind and a demoralizing and shameful event.

The Civil War was an infinitely complex time in American history. It was filled with battles between armies great in number and great in character, but a study of Fort Pillow urges the modern observer to analyze the historical bunkum associated with traditionalist views of the war.28 A deeper look generally leads to a deeper understanding. However, in cases such as Fort Pillow, the modern historian is led to endlessly inconclusive confusion. Motivations and consequences can be speculated, battles can be reenacted, but what truly happened at Fort Pillow remains veiled in mystery. -End Notes Title

 

[Spartacus]

"The legacy of Fort Pillow was felt after the war and throughout Reconstruction as black leaders brought forth the memories of the massacre at their political rallies with the words “Remember Fort Pillow” written on black flags and flowing throughout their speeches.26 During this same period of American history, Nathan Bedford Forrest could not escape his own legacy of “Fort Pillow Forrest.”27 He was donning colors in stark contrast to the flags of the black politicians, as his Knights of the White Camellia dressed in white sheets and sought to remember Fort Pillow in their own ways by bringing the violence of that April day to the home front in a different kind of war. Protesting against the consequences of the ultimate Confederate defeat in the year following the engagement, the Ku Klux Klan would be the reason for Forrest’s name to survive history in infamy."