Whenever a controversy concerning Confederate cavalry general Nathan Bedford Forrest arises these statements are sure to appear in print, in electronic media, and on broadcast news.[1] These statements have been repeated so often that they have been accorded the status of facts although no one ever bothers to cite the historical source which addresses the truth of the statements. If it is true that Forrest was a founder of the Klan or that he was head of the entire organization there should be some source, some body of material, some historic record which could be cited to prove the assertion.
Historians, one would think, would be at the forefront of those calling for proof of such statements; after all, historians are required to provide footnotes in which their sources are cited. Historians are supposed to be guardians of the truthfulness of the representations of the past, but, in the case of Forrest historians are often among those making claims that Forrest had a close connection with the Klan, including being a founder and leader of the organization. None of the various news sources ever cite proof for their statements and historians often make use of assumptions and weak secondary, even tertiary sources for their assertions.
More @ You Were Lied To About
Today's historians are about as reliable and honorable as climate scientists, mainstream media, or Barrack Hussein (the Kenyan) Obama.
ReplyDeleteWell said and I guess we didn't kill enough of them in Vietnam. Maybe we can get a re-do. :)
Delete:)
ReplyDeleteYup. :)
Delete