Nathan Forrests Monument Tribute to Selmas Defender or Wizard of Ku Klux Klan - Essay Example

English 7 October Nathan Forrest’s Monument – Tribute to Selma’s Defender or Wizard of Ku Klux Klan Nathan Bedford Forrest: a racist, a ruthless slaughterer, or an American hero? People of Selma, Alabama remain divided in opinion as to if a monument commemorating a Civil War Hero or the leader of Ku Klux Klan should be built. These opposed stances are playing out fervently in Selma, which is deemed as the birthplace of the Civil Rights movement. On one side, friends of Forrest are striving for the reconstruction of an extended monument dedicated to him. On the other hand, a local pressure group known as Grassroots Democracy has initiated a rebellious campaign against it (Loewen and Sebesta 247). In my perspective, laws of justice and humanity conflict with dedicating a monument to a man whose name epitomizes America’s tragic history of racial prejudice and bloodshed. In order to comprehend this controversy, it is imperative to analyze the myriad of aspects surrounding it, such as first amendment, American history, political drama, and society’s reactions. The issue is that the Forrest Monument has always stirred drastically conflicting sentimental reactions amongst Americans. During the civil war, Nathan Bedford Forrest rose from a private soldier to the rank of lieutenant general in the Confederate Army. He was acclaimed for being a self-educated, valiant, and brilliant cavalry leader. Prior to the war, Forrest was an affluent planter, real estate backer, and slave trader. Despite lacking military education, Forrest rose to high ranks due to his innate strategic and tactical abilities. He pioneered novel policies for mobile forces, which earned him the title of “The Wizard of the Saddle” (United Daughters of Confederacy 90). For some Forrest is a brilliant Civil War hero and quintessence of bravery and decisiveness. Todd Kiscaden, a friend and advocate of Forrest monument stated, “I recommend this man to model his life after. He always led from the front. He did what he said he was going to do. He took care of his people, and his people included both races (Allen).” However, he is more notorious for committing devious war crimes especially in the Battle of Fort Pillow where he compelled his soldiers to annihilate the Union army, and in particular the blacks. An extract from the letter of a confederate soldier, Achilles Clark, verifies these facts as he wrote that the slaughter was awful. He, with several others, tried to stop the brutalities of war and partially succeeded, but General Forrest ordered blacks to be shot down like dogs, and the carnage continued. Although some historians have glossed over his devious, inhumane crimes against negroes, the fact is that Forrest was not cruel, racially prejudiced slave dealer (Loewen and Sebesta 280). Likewise, Forrest is also infamous for being the Grand Wizard of Ku Klux Klan, a clandestine vigilante group that conducted a terrifying reign against African-Americans, Republicans and people who moved to south after the war (Ashdown and Caudill 39). Therefore, constructing his monument is “boldly racist” as Malika Fortier, a leading opponent in this struggle, quotes. In spite of the afore-mentioned facts, there are legal hindrances in preventing further work on the Forrest statue. The most imperative lingering question is that of land ownership. Proponents of the statue contend that the local authorities of Selma awarded the United Daughters of the Confederacy an acre of cemetery in 1877. As opposed to this, protestors argue that no legal documents exist to evidence the transfer of ownership to the United Daughters of the Confederacy (Brown 13). Although the question of land ownership is for now the most crucial, it constitutes only the basic queries and legal consequences that shall ensue. For instance, if the land were deemed as private property, passersby would not be aware that this cemetery contains Confederate Circle. In plain terms, the cemetery might be construed as public property even if it is not. Moreover, then there would result consequences of having an abominated statue built on such a property. Even though every question appears to beget another, the First Amendment can provide answers. Proponents of the Forrest monument have contended that under the First Amendment of Freedom of Speech clause, they have the free will to erect this statue. Their argument gets more legally strong when the place of construction is private property. This is because private expressions such as erecting statues that, nonetheless, portray hatred and inhumane practices fall under the purview of The First Amendment protections. This protection shall be withdrawn in case the expressions promote violence, obscenity or are a true threat (Ajmani). Considering this point, Fortier, a fervent opponent of the Forrest statue quoted that even on private property, most of us would not want bin Laden to be celebrated near the Twin Towers or Hitler saluted in a Jewish neighborhood. People would construe this as extremely bigoted and offensive. Nevertheless, the protesters, to prevent the statue from being built, can use the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment favorably. This clause decrees that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The experts on the First Amendment are of the opinion that neutrality theory should be employed in dealing with such cases. This theory prohibits the government to favor any religion, or religious beliefs over secularism. Therefore, the government of Selma would be in effect defending Ku Klux Kan’s religious beliefs, even if the Forrest statue were allowed to be built on private property (Ajmani). If the City Council of Selma allows for Forrest statue that epitomizes Ku Klux Klan’s religious philosophy to be built, it would in fact be favoring religious ideologies. Ku Klux Klan is known for illustrations of burning crosses, religious discrimination, and aggression; consequently, this has an implication for Forrest who was the first Grand Wizard of this group. Being the founder of this organization, he seems fit to be the figurehead for the Christian ideologies championed by the Ku Klux Klan. Hence, the establishment clause can be used as an argument against the statue. The case in Pinette about whether building a tall cross in a park by Ku Klux Klan is constitutional is extremely relevant to the Selma case. The majority of judges determined that the Symbolic Endorsement test was not required for testing private expressions on public property. In addition, they also ruled that an objective observer who is knowledgeable on historical issues and societal reactions to religious ideologies should perform the Symbolic Endorsement test. Ku Klux Klan won the case as the judges ruled that the erection of disclaimer signs near the cross explicitly pointed out that the government had not endorsed any such religious philosophies. In contrast, Justice Stevens in concurrence with Justice Ginsburg stated, “If a reasonable person could perceive a government endorsement of religion from a private display, then the State may not allow its property to be used as a forum for that display” (Ajmani). In the light of these rulings, it can be concluded that the Forrest statue would face no legal consequences if built on private land. Even if it is erected on public property, the proponents can get away by putting disclaimer signs around it. Nonetheless, it is to be noted that the uproar, protests and infuriation against the Forrest statue demonstrates a deeper concern than our flawed history. These statues of Confederate figures that are often justified as Southern pride portray continuation of white sovereignty (Loewen and Sebesta 325). It denotes the present inability to eradicate racism, and racist organizations that applaud and close eyes to the Confederate past. Building statues for one of such Confederate figures seems drastically opposed to Selma, which played a crucial role during the Civil Rights movement and declaration of Voting Rights Act. Monuments dedicated to historical figures whose actions did not justify commemoration are not new in America, for instance, General William Tecumseh Sherman’s sculpture in Central Park. He was responsible for conducting brutal massacres against natives in the West. Similarly, one of the worst American Presidents and the infamous killer of Indians, Andrew Jackson, has numerous monuments across the country. Human rights and the American constitution that proclaims equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are in contradiction of honoring such individuals. Building a monument for Forrest would be the same as building a sculpture in a hundred years for Wade Michael Page, the Nazi racist who recently attacked the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin. Teaching history by building Forrest a statue sends a disconcerting message to minorities (Brown 13). It symbolizes white supremacy escalating again across Southern and Midwestern states. Thus, rebelling against Forrest’s statue is similar to a stand for justice, humanity and the American way. Although the issue of land ownership looms on the forefront of the Forrest statue, public perspective should also be taken into account. From the very start, the notion of Forrest’s statue was extensively censured. A decade ago, widespread protests of Civil rights groups resulted in relocating the monument to the city cemetery dedicated to war martyrs. The statue was often subjected to vandalism and this March someone managed to remove its bust from the top of a seven-foot granite statue. Unmistakably, these events are explicit evidence of society’s disapproval of the Forrest statue (Brown 13). This discord is further demonstrated by the fact that 325,000 Selma residents signed the petition submitted to the City Council against any work on the statue. Even the Selma City Council went against its own rule of not voting on racially sensitive matters and four out of six members voted in favor of the resolution to cease work on the Forrest statue. The opponents of this issue protested on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, which is the same site where protestors striving for voting rights during the Civil Rights era of 1960s were brutally victimized. The majority of Selma residents stated to the council members that people could place memories of such violent and racially biased incidents behind, only if such monuments are disallowed. Thereby, the Forrest statue that exemplifies racism will stir an emotional outrage amongst the sixty percent black residents of Selma, even if built on private property. Undertaking any work on this monument is like adding fuel to the fire. Undeniably, it will trigger a racial war; hence, the state should take steps to prevent events that obstruct peace. Slavery was alive and one of the biggest menaces in Nathan Bedford Forest’s era, and he chose not merely to take part but to play a part at the highest level. He was presented with a vision of the prospect without such evils, and he chose to fight the future. Instead of being motivated by high principle, Forrest was more moved by personal ties and considerations of his native land (Ashdown and Caudill 5). Consequently, he led an inhumane massacre, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Nothing can be viler than the slaughter conducted by him, even though apologist historians might gloss over this piece of history. The notion of binding up the nation’s wounds advocated by people like Nathan Bedford Forrest is understandable. It is further understandable that it took a century for descendants of American-African slaves to be recognized and treated like citizens. However, most of all, it is understandable that the Civil War is still going on. Commemorating savages like Forrest offers credibility to the wrong side of that ongoing struggle. It is reasonable why he was respected for his tactical acumen and visibly admirable personal attributes. The fact remains, however, that he openly broke a sacred oath so he could lead people who were fighting in defense of the principle of treating people like inanimate objects of property. So what part of Forrest do we want to remember and enshrine the slave trader, the slaughterer of innocent humans, or the all around slime? Irrespective of private or public property, the critical question is if such a cold-blooded man deserves remembrance and reverence (Ashdown and Caudill 193). Works Cited Ajmani, Nisha. Article 3 .“The First Amendment and Civil Rights in Selma: Is a Monument to Early KKK Leader Constitutional?” Article 3. September 2012. Web. 7 October 2012. . Allen, Michael. “Petition Started to Ban Monument to Founder of Ku Klux Klan, Nathan Bedford Forrest.” Opposing Views. September 2012. Web. 7 October 2012. . Ashdown, Paul and Edward Caudill. The Myth of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Oxford: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers Incorporation, 2005. Print. Brown, Robbie. “Bust of Civil War General Stirs Anger in Alabama.” New York Times August 2012: 13. Print. Loewen, James W. and Edward H. Sebesta. The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The "Great Truth" about the "Lost Cause." Mississipi: University Press of Mississippi, 2010. Print. United Daughters of Confederacy. “General Nathon Bedford.” United Daughters of Confederacy. United Daughters of the Confederacy Patriot Ancestor Album. Kentucky: Turner Publishing Company, 1999. 90. Print. Read More