Maj. Gen. Earl Van Dorn, 1820-1863

Posted on | September 16, 2011 | 49 Comments

“A man whose willful violation of social rights led him to such an inglorious end.”
— Maj. Gen. S.J.R. Liddell, C.S.A., commenting on the death of Van Dorn

History teaches few lessons more useful than the tale of a great soldier, praised for his daring courage, the survivor of many a fearsome battle, who died so dishonorably as did Earl Van Dorn.

A West Point graduate and grand-nephew of Andrew Jackson, the Mississippi native distinguished himself as a hero of the Mexican War, where he served under Winfield Scott and was twice wounded, and twice promoted for gallantry in action at Cerro Gordo and at Mexico City. He subsequently fought against the Seminole and the Comanches, and was wounded four more times in action, including once with a Comanche arrow through his chest that nearly killed him.

Beyond his military accomplishments, Van Dorn was both a poet and an artist, as well as one of the nation’s finest horsemen, a romantic figure in a romantic age. His unquestionable battlefield courage ensured that his services would be most welcome when, upon the outbreak of the Civil War, he resigned from the U.S. Army and offered his sword in defense of his native state. Such was his outstanding reputation that, when Jefferson Davis was chosen as the president of the Confederacy, Van Dorn was chosen to replace Davis as commander of Mississippi’s state troops.

In January 1862, Van Dorn was appointed commander of all Confederate forces west of the Missippi River and led his army on an advance into Arkansas that culiminated in the Battle of Pea Ridge. Successful in the first day’s fight that nearly broke the Union army under Gen. Curtis, Van Dorn’s army was defeated on the second day and forced to retreat. Ordered to cross the river to unite with Albert Sidney Johnson’s army in western Tennessee, Van Dorn arrived too late to participate in the Battle of Shiloh. In October 1862, Van Dorn was defeated when he led some 20,000 Confederates in a deadly frontal assault on an entrenched Union force at Corinth, Mississippi.

Brought before a court of inquiry to answer for the Corinth debacle, Van Dorn protested that he had no personal wealth, having spent his life in service to his country, and therefore his only real possession was his reputation, “without which life to me were as valueless as the crisp and faded leaf of autumn.” He was acquitted of all charges.

It is extraordinarily remarkable that Van Dorn, having made so much of his military reputation, would have later lost in life as he did. Alas, he had a reputation for more than courage under fire.

Though married for some 20 years, and the father of two children, Van Dorn was very much a ladies’ man, and his female admirers got more than poetry, paintings and compliments in return for their affections.

To put it quite bluntly, Earl Van Dorn was a serial adulterer. The handsome general was “the terror of ugly husbands,” as one contemporary phrased it, and it was this well-deserved reputation that destroyed him.

After his acquittal by a military court, Van Dorn was appointed to command a Confederate cavalry force, and quickly distinguished himself with victories at Holly Springs, Mississippi, and Thompson’s Station, Tennessee. A few weeks after the latter battle, Van Dorn nearly fought a duel against one of his subordinates, the famously hot-tempered Nathan Bedford Forrest, but the deadly conflict was averted and Van Dorn survived to meet his final disgrace.

In addition to his battlefield triumphs, Van Dorn had also conquered the heart of Jessie Peters. This proved to be a pyrrhic victory.

An “incredibly beautiful woman,” Jessie was the much younger wife of Dr. George Peters, a wealthy landowner and retired physician. Her husband had been gone for months attending to his duties as a member of the Tennessee state legislature. During the doctor’s absence, his beautiful bride Jessie was often seen at Van Dorn’s headquarters under circumstances that left little doubt about the nature of her visits.

When Dr. Peters at last returned home, the rumors of his wife’s infidelity were on every gossip’s tongue, and the identity of her paramour was no secret. As the cuckolded husband would later explain, he caught one of the general’s servants attempting to deliver a note to Jessie, and ordered the servant to “tell his whiskey-headed master, General Van Dorn, that I would blow his brains out, or any of his staff that stepped their foot inside of the lawn.” Although the general never returned to the Peters home, the doctor nevertheless made good his threat.

On the morning of May 7, 1863, Dr. Peters rode to the mansion that served as Van Dorn’s headquarters, went to the general’s office, pulled a pistol and shot him in the back of the head. Dr. Peters then rode away, crossed over into Union lines and provided his testimony to police in Nashville, where he was released without ever facing trial. While some then and since have cast suspicion on the doctor as a treacherous Union sympathizer, Van Dorn’s fellow Confederate officers seemed to have no doubt about the justice of the wronged husband’s vengenace, and agreed with Gen. Liddell that Van Dorn’s death was a direct consequence of the dead man’s “willful violation of social rights.”

This story of the life and death of Earl Van Dorn, based largely on an online biography by Althea Sayers, was not written merely to arouse the interest of history buffs. Rather, my purpose is altogether contemporary, involving Joe McGinniss’s “unauthorized biography” of Sarah Palin.

There has been much of both praise and criticism for my posts soliciting contributions to the “Todd Palin Legal Defense Fund,” with links to the donation page of his wife’s political action committee, suggesting that the First Dude might show up at a book-signing and give Joe McGinniss “The Mother of All Ass-Whuppings.” I even had an e-mail exchange with McGinniss’s son Joe Jr. (who lives in D.C.) after he invited me to dinner, an invitation I politely declined “out of concern that the conversation might be less than entirely cordial.” My concern proved well-founded, as Joe Jr.’s further messages to me were not quite so courteous.

Still less courteous were some of the comments left on my various posts dealing with the McGinniss-Palin controversy, and the ever-vigilant Wombat has done extra duty with his Mighty Trollhammer to delete some of the more odious and insulting detritus deposited by the anonymous online vermin. Though removed from public view, these comments were visible to me when I occasionally checked the software to approve incoming trackbacks, and one prompted me to add this comment on a post from yesterday:

Consider the sequence of events here:

1. Joe McGinniss moves in next door to the Palin family to write an “unauthorized biography.”
2. Todd Palin confronts McGinniss, yet resists temptation to punch him out.
3. McGinniss glibly describes his confrontation with Todd in a book full of lurid innuendo about Todd’s wife.
4. Excerpts of the McGinniss book appear in the National Enquirer.
5. I write a blog post sarcastically soliciting funds to defend Todd Palin in case he decides to deliver “The Mother of All Ass-Whuppings” on McGinnisss.
6. Anonymous trolls show up in the comments to insult me.

Am I wrong to think these trolls have a mental deficiency that prevents them from learning the most obvious lessons about human nature? Do they not see the curriculum, as it were, embedded in my response to this controversy?
People hurl insults and traffic in harmful gossip when they suppose themselves safe from retaliation of the sort they’d receive if they insulted others to their face. When you’re face-to-face with someone, it’s possible to estimate the risk of a violent response to insults, although people have been known to miscalculate such risks. A seemingly harmless little fellow might in fact be extraordinarily sensitive about insults, with a concealed carry permit and an utter disregard for the legal consequences of shooting some miserable son of a bitch who gives him half an excuse.
I tell you, I know guys like that, and God help you if you should ever piss them off.
Having met Todd Palin, I am amazed that McGinniss — having been face-to-face with Todd — would have published what he published. And I am further amazed that any literate person who has paid attention to the reality of this situation would focus on me, as if I were the source of a conflict I’ve done nothing to cause, and the consequences of which are utterly beyond my control.
But if they were intelligent and rational, they wouldn’t be liberals, would they?

Nothing Sarah Palin has done or might do in the future could possibly justify what Joe McGinniss has done, and if I were Todd Palin . . .

Well, best not to pursue that hypothetical. But whatever my political disagreements with Governor Palin, I sure as hell never would have published anything like what McGinniss has written about her. Whatever Random House paid McGinniss, it’s an ill-gotten gain, and I don’t know how he sleeps at night. If he should indeed go on a tour to promote his vile work, I’m sure McGinniss will jump out of his skin if he glances up at a book-signing and sees the First Dude looking back at him. Perhaps my Christian friends will say a prayer for Joe’s continued good health.

This afternoon I had a quick phone conversation with Dave Weigel, who finds the whole public spectacle of this “unauthorized biography” controversy quite amusing. Despite my Swiftian satire about the “One Nation Joe McGinniss Ass-Whupping Tour,” I’m somewhat less amused. But as I told Dave, I feel as helpless as Michael Corleone: “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.”

A matter of honor is involved, and I can’t imagine how Sarah Palin’s husband or her sons could just shrug off McGinniss’s smears. His book will be sold everywhere, and appear on the shelves of public libraries where anyone may read them. His accusations have already been featured on NBC’s Today show where, as the Media Research Center’s Kyle Drennen notes, Savannah Guthrie didn’t even try to verify any of McGinniss’s unsubstantiated claims, but merely repeated them. Here is MRC’s video excerpt of that segment:

That a previously reputable company like Random House would publish such a disgusting travesty of journalism fills me with horror to think that this will be accepted by many readers as the definitive account of who Sarah Palin is.

As I say, I feel helpless, because this is not my fault. It is utterly beyond my control. And to any trolls in the comments — or Joe Jr. — who want to make this about me, I say that it is not what I’ve written here, but what Joe McGinniss has written in his despicable book, that is the cause of your concern.

We have here what some folks would call a “teachable moment,” and all I can do is attempt to call attention to the lesson.

Earl Van Dorn probably thought nothing of the dangers involved in cuckolding Dr. Peters, but we can only guess what the general thought, because he did not live to tell his side of the story.

Category: Books, History, Sarah Palin

Comments

49 Responses to “Maj. Gen. Earl Van Dorn, 1820-1863”

Peter Ingemi
September 17th, 2011 @ 2:08 am

It is the restraint of decent and honorable men that enables the dishonorable actions of their foes
serfer62
September 17th, 2011 @ 2:34 am

The Man split his forces at Pea Ridge and got his ass kicked.

A husband killed him for screwing his wife.

There just not much to admire about Dorn…he was a Democrta too
Garym
September 17th, 2011 @ 2:41 am

“fuck em if they can’t take a joke” The Big Chill 1983
JeffS
September 17th, 2011 @ 2:48 am

And to any trolls in the comments — or Joe
Jr. — who want to make this about me, I say that it is not what I’ve
written here, but what Joe McGinniss has written in his despicable book,
that is the cause of your concern.

And therein lies the problem, Stacy. You speak Truth, which the trolls — or Joe
Jr. — (or Joe Sr., for that matter) abhor.

As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and this particular infection is fighting to hold down the shades.
willem
September 17th, 2011 @ 2:48 am

Isn’t/wasn’t Random House owned by Bertelsmann, a massive German corporation?

Wasn’t the US Senator Obama under contract with or being paid by Bertelsmann; paid significant sums? I seem to remember something along that line prior to the 2008 election; that some income disclosure reporting requirement caused the information to be revealed.

Also, isn’t Bertelsmann corporation the largest of the publishing giants in the world? I believe they were at the time they were making payments to Obama.

Sorry for the imprecision, but at least these inferences are independently verifiable, unlike the chicken bone conjure journalism of petit luridists like Joe Mack the Hack. At least that’s this man’s opinion.

I remember the Bertlesmann connection because I remember being shocked to learn a sitting United States Senator voluntarily standing as candidate for the presidency would be brazenly taking what I recall were rather large payments from a massive foreign corporation while sitting for his term in the United States Senate.

That such payments coming from an enormous German corporation with financial interests in foreign governments and nations — particularly one that was apparently involved in the tenure of the Third Reich – is among the more disturbing things I recall about the pattern of corporate media non-reportage that, in retrospect, seems to have significantly corrupted our nation’s holding of a free, open and honest public election in 2008.

Please correct me if I’m wrong. Sometimes chilchaco juice on the tundra gets to me and I misremember I mispoke.

Regardless, Todd should issue a manly challenge to Chickenbone Joe the Irish Gypsy and have the WFC sponsor the contest.

I’d definitely get the Pay Per Vew and invite all my friends; even spot for a case of vuvuzelas to trumpet-in the apocalypse.

That’d be some real social justice.
ThePaganTemple
September 17th, 2011 @ 2:49 am

Okay now, who exactly is Sara, Todd, McGinnis, and Rice in this story?

The doctor was an old fool with a trophy wife who probably brought the most beautiful whore in Mississippi, or Tennessee, or wherever. A coward who shot a man in the back of the head over a personal matter. Van Dorn was a brave, talented man of action, with an unfortunate need to dominate and control others, a man who felt he had the right to take whatever he wanted at any given time, even if it wasn’t really all that important to him, and regardless of who it hurt. The person who comes off looking best in this sorry story is Nathan Bedford Forrest. And he was the founder of the original Ku Klux Klan.
Anonymous
September 17th, 2011 @ 3:11 am

There can be no justification for vuvuzelas as I suspect they make a poor cudgel.
JeffS
September 17th, 2011 @ 3:17 am

All analogies are suspect because they are never true parallels.

But your analysis break downs because while Van Dorn was a brilliant soldier, he was an amoral wretch as well. Speaking from professional experience (and not as the amoral wretch), the two are not mutually exclusive.

A healthy sex drive is desirable for soldiers (as Patton once said, “A soldier who won’t fuck, won’t fight”), but tact and discretion are increasingly needful the higher up the chain of command one is. Van Dorn lacked that tact and discretion.

Van Dorn is the analog of McGinniss because both professions* require tact, discretion, judgement, and credibility. Van Dorn clearly had poor judgement (i.e., in choosing between professional duties and personal desires, his penis overrode his brain), and was likely losing credibility with his command and superiors.

(The latter is an assumption, but it’s amazing how quickly infidelities travel through the grapevine in a military unit. Civilian equivalents pale in comparison.)

So Stacy’s story is of reasonable applicability. Although I doubt that Todd Palin would shoot McGinniss in the back of the head; Jerk Off Joe ain’t worth the trouble and expense of a capital offense trial. Mr. Palin would just Whup Joe’s Ass.

=====

*: I hesitate to call journalism a profession any more, but there are enough people of character in the news profession to warrant it. Stacy, for example. But the list grows shorter daily.
Anonymous
September 17th, 2011 @ 3:28 am

The person who comes off looking best in this sorry story is Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Honest, it wasn’t the purpose of this 1,800-word post to glorify Forrest. But the irony is, if Forrest had accepted Van Dorn’s challenge and killed him — which was the most likely result of a duel between them — Van Dorn’s cherish reputation would have been untarnished. Dying in a duel was an entirely honorable fate, especially at the hand of such a famed foe as Forrest, and Van Dorn’s womanizing would have been just the stuff of legend.
ThePaganTemple
September 17th, 2011 @ 3:35 am

I got to thinking somewhat along those line myself, in a way, right after I posted that. Stacy said in an earlier post that McGinnis was at one time a great reporter, or something to that effect, so I guess the slide from honor to dishonor would make a good parallel between the two men.

I don’t know how seriously all that was taken back in those days. Nobody would have minded Joe Hooker’s patronage and encouragement of prostitution among his soldiers if he had been a better general. But the South I guess had a bit more integrity when it came to honor, and the treatment of the fairer sex. But that’s even a supposition built possibly on myth or tradition.

I had never heard that saying by Patton before, but it sounds like him.
Anonymous
September 17th, 2011 @ 3:53 am

Restraint is generally an admirable quality, Pete. I’ve never been one of those fight-at-the-drop-of-a-hat guys, and don’t usually enjoy hanging out with dudes with hair-trigger tempers, who are almost as likely to go off on their friends as their enemies. But any man with any sense of honor will have in his mind some sense of where the line is that he will permit no one to cross without hazard.

You grow up around wild-ass rednecks, you learn to keep an eye out for the signals of danger. But some people don’t have the advantages of such a background, so they get the idea that they can push people around any which way without consequence. And then one night they say something rude to a cocktail waitress, and her boyfriend the bouncer decides to deliver an Attitude Adjustment.

Weird thing about situations like that is that when the bouncer gets through kicking the idiot across the parking lot, the idiot inevitably thinks of himself as a victim. Never once have I seen an idiot like that say, “Hey, you know, I was kinda out of line.” And they sure as hell never recognize their beating as the result of karma, the righteous comeuppance for all the jackassery they’ve gotten away with before.
Adjoran
September 17th, 2011 @ 3:53 am

Did you think to inquire of Joe, Jr., how he might feel had someone written those false and unsubstantiated allegations about his own mother?

As for his besotted father, I’ve never been one to believe that some long-forgotten accomplishment from decades past justifies current misbehavior. The man is a weasel, through and through. I don’t give a rat’s patootie if he raised the freakin’ flag at Iwo Jima, he is the scum of the earth and worthy only of scorn.
McGehee
September 17th, 2011 @ 3:59 am

Whereas Dr. Peters merely put him down like the cur that he was. I don’t condone murder as a rule, but when a feral dog bothers your hens you don’t challenge it to a duel.
Anonymous
September 17th, 2011 @ 4:07 am

To be fair, it is kind of apples/oranges to analogize between Van Dorn and Creepy Joe: for one thing, Van Dorn was a man, albeit a rakish one.
Anonymous
September 17th, 2011 @ 4:13 am

As to the “grapevine”: In any organization, people talk. And if a married guy thinks he’s going to sleep with a co-worker and nobody will ever know, guess what? He’s wrong.

Furthermore, as any husband knows, an enduring marriage is not an accident. A man’s choice of a wife says a lot about his judgment. So a guy who marries badly — and a wife who will turn a blind eye to infidelity is not a good wife — is self-evidently a poor judge of character.

Do you want a poor judge of character as the leader of your organization? I think not. Nor do you want your organization led by someone who routinely manipulates and exploits others for selfish purposes, which is what any womanizer excels at.

Even good people may, in response to pressures and temptations, succumb to a moment of weakness. But the guy who habitually runs around on his wife is a different matter altogether. So when liberals started making excuses for Clinton — and millions of Americans were evidently persuaded by such excuses — it was an ill omen for our nation.
Anonymous
September 17th, 2011 @ 4:24 am

Joe, Jr.: “How dare someone write bellicose words about my father, who is a professional tabloid assassin.”
JeffS
September 17th, 2011 @ 4:41 am

Correct in all regards. I used the military as an example because Van Dorn was a soldier (and a good one), and there’s something of a myth that military personnel are saints.

For which you can thank prudish generals, wanting to paint the picture of a bunch of virgins going into combat. Patton would have whupped the asses of most modern generals. General Order Number One is the most asinine, ignored order EVAH. Van Dorn would have SHOT those generals……and the troops would have applauded.

However, that’s secondary, and merely explains why I explained what I did. Your main point that poor judgement reflects poorly on a leader is spot on. Clinton is a prime example, and our nation has suffered as a result.

There are some rather interesting dynamics going on at the executive level where I work…..and people DO see it. Mr. X may think he’s being discrete in sleeping with Mrs. Z, but it ain’t so, not by a long shot. And that reflects heavily against the credibility and respect towards Mr. X and Mrs. Z. And certainly adversely impacts the morale of the organization. All in all, a really bad idea.

The sames hold for people in prominent positions, like, oh, say……journalism Joe McGinniss isn’t banging the wife of his editor, or one of his friends. As far as I know, anyway.

But his lousy judgement in this book of his reflects badly upon him, even if the poor old man doesn’t realize it. Maybe he’s suffering from Alzheimer’s, and just hasn’t been diagnosed as yet.

(Hey, I’m just saying!)
Anonymous
September 17th, 2011 @ 5:43 am

Joe Jr wouldn’t understand the question, in his mind the difference wouldn’t be the what but the who. They and those like them don’t believe, but know that Palin is fair game to all whose opinion they care about. A sense of honor can mean many things to different people but to some it’s a complete stranger.
Dan Collins
September 17th, 2011 @ 10:44 am

The guy’s like an amoral Hedda Hopper, or an ethically challenged Perez Hilton. Spurn. Spurn.
Dan Collins
September 17th, 2011 @ 11:02 am

But you know who I like? Mamie van Dorn. Sex Kittens Go to College is an unacknowledged American classic.
Rich Vail
September 17th, 2011 @ 11:10 am

I guess the best way to put it is to do so bluntly:

“Stupid people do stupid shit”

It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

Rich Vail
Pikesville, Maryland
The Vail Spot dot Blogspot dot Com
ThePaganTemple
September 17th, 2011 @ 12:30 pm

All I meant by that was, nobody in the story comes off looking well at all. Van Dorn, the doctor, his wife, everybody looks bad. Incidentally, I got to thinking about this story and I am very curious as to how the Doctor could go to Van Dorn’s home, or his headquarters, or wherever this happened, and kill Van Dorn by shooting him in the back of the head, and then get away scot free. Wasn’t there any soldiers, adjutants, guards, secretaries, etc. around? It seems odd the Doctor could pull this off and just split the scene and make it to freedom.

It makes me wonder if he had some help from somebody else there. I wonder how he was able to even get close to Dorn. This is actually the first time I ever heard of this story, or for that matter Van Dorn. It would make a good book, maybe in novel form, maybe even a film.
Dale Price
September 17th, 2011 @ 1:30 pm

It’s simple: bring back dueling. Nothing makes a man temper his rhetoric like the prospect of facing the business end of a handgun.
Anonymous
September 17th, 2011 @ 1:35 pm

McGinniss is one of those people who deserve to have the phrase, “scum-sucking little shit” said aloud, whenever his name is mentioned in public. Followed by spitting.

This should become as natural as saying “Bless you!” when people sneeze.

It should become acceptable in polite company.

No apologies should be issued, nor expected.

It should happen in a Presidential debate.
American and Proud » Saturday’s PRIDE Round up.
September 17th, 2011 @ 9:36 am

[…] a gift for verbosity ready to knock the leather off the ball: Stacy McCain has a post about “Maj Gen Earl Van Dorn 1820-1863” INTERESTING […]
Lou
September 17th, 2011 @ 2:44 pm

I’ve never seen anything like this. Name me one conservative who’s children were trashed by the media, entertainment industry. Whose church got attacked by an arsonist, was put into $500,000 for THE dumbest lawsuits, people wishing her newborn son was dead, threatened with gang rape, husband accused of incest and rape. One lie after another attributed to her. “Screws up” one interview and is treated like a shoplifter. Something about her causes the left and even some on the right to foam at the mouth as if demon possessed.
If she causes this kind of hatred from my political enemies then she has to be good to go. There’s that carnal nature of mine that just wants to see her win solely to piss off her enemies and watch them go nuts. But if she runs I’ll back her to the hilt for the right reasons.
elaine
September 17th, 2011 @ 2:51 pm

Joe McGinnis is lionized for his books written decades ago, yet he’s sunk to penning gossip.

He attacks Palin for indiscretions she allegedly made decades ago, yet she’s lived a pretty blameless life since.

So which is better, to have done good and then sink into depravity and immorality, or to have possibly sinned long ago, yet atoned and then lived relatively sin-free later? Seems pretty self-evident who the better person is, and it ain’t Joe McGinnis…

Somehow I doubt anyone will even remember this book and its stupid gossip-mongering allegations in a month or so, much like the book written by her former staffer…

One last point: for all the talk about what a “white trash grifter” and scam artist Palin is, it’s funny all the people who make money from peddling trash about her. I kinda think they (McGinnis, the former staffer, Levi Johnston, et al.) are the white trash grifters and scam artists.

But maybe that’s just me…
Joe
September 17th, 2011 @ 3:07 pm

I still think McGinniss deserves a good ass whoopin. And I wish that there could be circumstances for some civilized dueling.
Joe
September 17th, 2011 @ 3:10 pm

I love that scene in It’s A Wonderful Life where Violet is crossing the street (looking pretty good) and Burt the Cop says he has to go home and see what the wife is doing.
Anonymous
September 17th, 2011 @ 3:38 pm

And then there’s the Journo-Listers and pseudo-intellectuals who repackage the trash being peddled by their inferior ideological allies (but from whom they distance themselves), providing the trash with a sophisticated veneer.

These elites are shocked, of course, when readers question their commitment to serious inquiry.
LD
September 17th, 2011 @ 3:44 pm

Note to world. I AM PRAYING THE POWER OF PSALM 91 PROTECTION OVER SARAH PALIN IN AN ANOINTING THAT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND — AND HAS POWER TO STRIKE MEN DEAD IN SUPERNATURAL ANATHEMA — IN GOD’S SUPERNATURAL ANOINTING. Touch not God’s anointed. It “packs a punch” when that anointing is present in enough power for God to absolutely strike you dead by supernatural power of anathema. In other words, this article is prophetic. But not in relation to human violence.
ThePaganTemple
September 17th, 2011 @ 4:14 pm

I can just see the headlines from the Left-

God Goes Crazy, Kills Palin Detractor. Democrats denounce divine rampage, wonder, “who’s next?” “I think its time this God person was made to answer for his crimes”, said one unidentified Democratic Congressional staffer. Some are even accusing what they call “this so-called God thing” of sabotaging the career of Keith Olbermann, encouraging Global Climate Change, and even of being a war-monger and hating the poor.

“Well, we already know he’s a homophobic racist and sexist said one Episcopalian minister on condition of anonymity, “so why should this surprise us?”

President Barak Obama took time out from his extended working vacation in Cancun Mexico to remark that”it’s time people adopted a more civil tone in their prayers.”
bradley
September 17th, 2011 @ 4:40 pm

In regards to Perez Hilton, shouldn’t that last bit be “Sperm. Sperm.”?
Joe
September 17th, 2011 @ 4:49 pm

And it is pure speculation that Forest would have taken him in a duel.
Joe
September 17th, 2011 @ 4:50 pm

PGlenn, well said!
Joe
September 17th, 2011 @ 4:52 pm

Van Dorn was undoubtably a good shot and cool in a dueling situation (I am going by his coolness under fire in battle). I think at best a duel between Forrest and Van Dorn could have gone either way. That said, it would have been a gift to Van Dorn to have fallen to Forrest.
Joe
September 17th, 2011 @ 4:55 pm

McGehee, That is true too.
Joe
September 17th, 2011 @ 4:58 pm

Young Joe Jr. was in class when the teacher asked all the students to get up and say what their daddy did for a living.

When it was Joe Jr.’s turn he said his father danced naked in front of strange men in a club and if they offered him enough money, he went out in the alley and performed sex acts on them.

The teacher shocked, excused the other students and asked Joe Jr. privately if this was true. Joe Jr. said, no, but his father was Joe McGinniss and he did not want to admit that to the class.
Dave
September 17th, 2011 @ 6:08 pm

Or a gift to America had Van Dorn prevailed. Forrest was an unbelievably talented battlefield commander who was also a mad dog racist son of a bitch. Maybe someone else would have started the KKK….but maybe not.
ThePaganTemple
September 17th, 2011 @ 6:12 pm

Actually, I misspoke when I said Forrest founded the KKK, I think the reality is he was brought on board by the true founders to give it an air of legitimacy and for promotional purposes. I think he actually turned against them in the end. It’s all a bit shady and unclear to me, but I’m sure he wasn’t the true founder. It was founded by some Confederate vets in Tennessee.
Dave
September 17th, 2011 @ 6:59 pm

He was the 1st Grand Wizard of the original KKK, even if not a founder.
Bob Belvedere
September 17th, 2011 @ 7:21 pm

You mention Clinton, but don’t forget JFK.
Bob Belvedere
September 17th, 2011 @ 7:23 pm

I have trouble, though, with Van Dorn being shot in the back. It is part of the unwritten code of honor that, if you’re going to shoot a man who needs killing, you look him straight in the face as your do. It says something about the good Doctor that he did not wait for the man to turn.
Bob Belvedere
September 17th, 2011 @ 7:27 pm

Well put. That was the logic I used to combat the supporters of John McCain.
McGehee
September 17th, 2011 @ 8:23 pm

“How dare God hold Himself above the law!?”
Quartermaster
September 17th, 2011 @ 9:53 pm

Forrest was not a founder of the original Klan. He wasn’t even close to Pulaski TN when 4 former Confed Junior officers, bored spitless, were sitting in the law offices of one of their fathers and dreamed up the entire joke. It remained a joke until the Yankee military occupation of the south revealed its very corrupt core. It was then seen as an ideal resistance movement and was taken over for that very reason.

It is not known if Forrest was even a leader in the hijacked Klan, although when he was called to testify before Congress on the matter, and a friend saw and accosted him as to what he was doing in Washington replied, “lying like a gentleman.” While he is reputed to have been the head of the original Klan, that is something that was never determined. After the Hayes/Tilden Presidential election, and the deal that settled it, the Klan quickly died out because of the removal of the Yankee Army from the south.
Charles
September 18th, 2011 @ 12:33 am

In making this a question of honor, you do Todd Palin considerable disservice. Are we now to look down on Todd Palin because he hasn’t defended his wife’s honor by punching or shooting Joe McGinniss?

Todd Palin, after all, may one day be the spouse of the Preident of the United States.
Cube
September 18th, 2011 @ 12:57 am

>A matter of honor is involved, and I can’t imagine how Sarah Palin’s
husband or her sons could just shrug off McGinniss’s smears.

The sweetest revenge will be when ol’ Joe has to say the words “President Palin”. No legal problems and the satisfaction lasts for at least four years, eight if she’s up for it and the voters have sense.
rightfielddj
September 19th, 2011 @ 1:53 am

Why this elaborate, angry “satire”? It all seems highly inappropriate, given the claimed “offense” by McGinniss. His reporting uncovered a brief sexual relationship or one-night stand between two young, single adults. McGinniss’ reporting is substantiated by one of the participants in the relationship, among others.

In this Van Dorn case you wish to turn into an analogy, everyone involved was married. That fits the definition of scandalous (though it does not fit our modern definition of justifiable homicide). The affair between Palin and Rice was not scandalous at all- in fact, pre-marital sex is had by the vast majority of young, unmarried adults. From what we know, McGinnis does not claim this affair was ongoing while Sarah and Todd were engaged or married.

What’s the big deal here? Be clearer- you’re beating around the bush.