Civil War History - The South & Western TheatersCheck this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.
Cash, I can't argue too much with what you've posted here. Do you suppose any current folks, yourself perhaps excluded, confuse Gen. Forrest with klan grandson Nathan II? I maintain that the General's connection with the group started in Pulaski was more in the nature of citizen militia due to a lack of organized government on the state and local level. Was he a saint, I doubt it.
I've seen too much evidence however to greatly doubt he did have principle.
Cash, I can't argue too much with what you've posted here. Do you suppose any current folks, yourself perhaps excluded, confuse Gen. Forrest with klan grandson Nathan II? I maintain that the General's connection with the group started in Pulaski was more in the nature of citizen militia due to a lack of organized government on the state and local level. Was he a saint, I doubt it.
I've seen too much evidence however to greatly doubt he did have principle.
Larry,
I've never heard of anyone getting the two confused. Also remember that the KKK began its terrorist functions under Presidential Reconstruction, which involved home rule. There was an organized government at both the local and state level. KKK activities and Andrew Johnson's acquiescence in the southern attempt to resume racial subjugation of blacks were two of the factors that led to Congressional Reconstruction and the establishment of military districts.
My impression has been that there really wasn't an organized government in Tennessee immediately after the civil war, which is when the Gen. Forrest I came into the scene. The governor of TN, brother Brown was a carpetbagger at best. Lots of folks of many ethnic backgrounds were being set upon in Tennessee. The former governor, Andy Johnson, was not doing so well himself and he was reportedly in Washington trying to assume the office of President. Tennessee was in turmoil in 1866. There was no practical public reinforcement of order.
My impression has been that there really wasn't an organized government in Tennessee immediately after the civil war, which is when the Gen. Forrest I came into the scene. The governor of TN, brother Brown was a carpetbagger at best. Lots of folks of many ethnic backgrounds were being set upon in Tennessee. The former governor, Andy Johnson, was not doing so well himself and he was reportedly in Washington trying to assume the office of President. Tennessee was in turmoil in 1866. There was no practical public reinforcement of order.
---------------
Larry,
No, there was indeed a functioning and organized government in Tennessee right after the war. William G. Brownlow was the governor, and he wasn't a carpetbagger. He was a native Tennessean who had been a Unionist throughout the war. Johnson wasn't just "reportedly" in Washington. He was indeed the President from Lincoln's assassination on.
Some sources have tried to claim some legitimate function for the KKK, but there was no legitimate function for them. They were a terrorist group who worked at intimidation of blacks and Republicans through murder, whippings, and threats. Forrest did get involved with them and was the Grand Wizard for a time, but he saw it was moving out of his control and was counterproductive. I think the Wills bio has the best take on Forrest's role and his subsequent departure from the Klan, and I think Wills puts Forrest's racial views in perspective better than other books I've read.
Tennessee's Radical Republicans did not lose control of the state because of the actions of the Klan. Andrew Johnson became Vice-President of the U. S. in 1864 and William G. Brownlow was named Military Governor by Lincoln to fill Johnson's spot.
In 1866 the State Guard used its control of the polls to guarantee a Radical Republican majority in the state legislature. In the 1868 presidential election the same control was present. Whenever the State Guard or local sheriffs took action the Klan faded away. Tennessee had been readmitted to the Union in 1866 so U. S. troops played little role in state politics.
In 1868 Governor Brownlow was elected to the U. S. Senate and left the state to take his seat. DeWitt Clinton Sentor, a moderate Radical Republican, decided to end the "politics of force" imposed by the State Guard and allowed exConfederates to register to vote. When this group became a majority Reconstruction ended in Tennessee by a change in policy of the government.
The Klan never decided the result of an election in Tennessee. They did attempt to do so and intimidated whomever they could but the Klan was ineffective in directing the outcome of events. In short, it is easy to make too much of their role.
Reconstruction failed because there was a failure of will on the part of the Radical Republican leadership. That failure was assisted, not caused, by resistance from Klan-like groups.
It was my understanding from American History class while a sophmore at Auburn that the Klan actually helped both blacks & whites by providing some law and order? After this, radical factions began utiliing the idea for morose purposes. But VERY early on, I was taught the Ku Klux Klan was a benefit to both races due to the lawlessness prevalent in early post-war days. Ex: a black or white family had a 'man of the house' who wouldn't work & provide for his hungry family. The Klan would hasten his lazy butt onward to work. (not that I'm being pro Klan or con anything, only learning)
I am very aware of the tactics used by the Klan later, but thought it was utilized 'initially' for restoration of lawful manners, due to a lack of organzed and sympathetic State Gov't & severe criminal element. Gen. (Mr) Forrest hence left the group. He was placed under Federal scrutiny and survived.
Got any books or sources on the notion that the Klan in the early days of its existence was actually considered 'a help' by both blacks and whites? I have to admit, I am a tad skeptical of this notion, but am willing to look over any sources you might remember or provide before commenting further.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
No, sir, only the fact that I stated my remembered teachings as a sophmore student in American history class at AU; circa 1978. I can't remember a Professor/Asst. Professor's name.
I defer on this matter to Reb Prof, a man who is well qualified to provide facts with an unbiased view and enough scholarly research to fill a mule wagon. Tennessee was in considerable turmoil in the fall of 1865. There can be no argument on that point. The degree of involvement in the cause or the cure of the condition by the klan can be discussed at length. Reconstruction was not a pretty time. The klan could not have been a major player, there was not enough time for bad or good actions to develope to a substantial degree. Gen Forrest served a role, trying to help all involved, as per several testimonies, whether biased or not. He apparently was not comfortable as evidenced by his withdrawal from his association with the developing entity. He was too tired and in far too poor health to have been as much of a problem as he is often portrayed.
Last edited by larry_cockerham; 11-10-2005 at 11:21 AM.
Reason: spelllllin
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
