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.
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.
I don't think I fundamentally disagree with any of this. My point was that the KKK was a terrorist group who sought to intimidate blacks and Republicans. I'd say I especially agree with your last sentence in that the failure was assisted but not caused by resistance from the KKK and groups like it. I might quibble with one or two points, but overall I don't have much problem with this.
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.
I would fundamentally disagree with that view. The KKK was a lawless group, which is why it was a secret group. Murder and beatings by night are not the actions of a group designed to provide law and order.
Well, I think he is referring to the Forrest led organization, from what I have read was a political and even a civic sort of organization. Now, once the KKK got out of Forrest's control, then no I don't think it was a law and order group. That's when the terrorism aspect came into play.
Respectfully
__________________ Up men, and to your post! And let no man forget today that you are from old Virginia!
Well, I think he is referring to the Forrest led organization, from what I have read was a political and even a civic sort of organization. Now, once the KKK got out of Forrest's control, then no I don't think it was a law and order group. That's when the terrorism aspect came into play.
Respectfully
The KKK was a terrorist group when Forrest was in charge in Tennessee as well. I've already posted the support for that.
Before we get too much off the topic, may I suggest that we return to our journey to Fort Pillow? It seems to me the KKK would be another thread at another time.
Much information and references have been provided on this thread concerning Fort Pillow and I for one thank all who have participated in this thread. You have given me much to think about and even more to research.
But I am still leaning towards the view that Gen. Forrest did not order the massacre of black troops and I have seen some of the statements given by some who claimed to be there called into question.
Any more information concerning the battle of Fort Pillow would be appreciated.
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
Maybe this has come up already, but does anyone know of a source that has a detailed analysis of the casualty figures? I mean one that goes over all of the available muster and casualty rolls.
Now, there will be huge discrepencies trying to match up rolls and casualty figures, but I think an in depth (and no doubt frustrating and painful) look is necessary to understand what really happened at Ft. Pillow.
It might be similar to the Saltville Massacre...at the time the reports of black troops killed were reported to be 200 and even more. Now, after much analysis, there are two interpretations....Mays thinks maybe 40-50 were probably killed in cold blood and Marvel thinks about 5-8. In either case significantly less.
So, a similar thing may happen to Ft. Pillow...either confirmation of widespread massacre or it might hint at a less widespread affair. (I have no doubt that there was some killing...but the sources are so contradictory...it is hard to make sense of the scope of the thing)
Respectfully
__________________ Up men, and to your post! And let no man forget today that you are from old Virginia!
Maybe this has come up already, but does anyone know of a source that has a detailed analysis of the casualty figures? I mean one that goes over all of the available muster and casualty rolls.
The Cimprich and Mainfort article I quoted on the statistical analysis does so.
The Cimprich and Mainfort material has built-in assumptions. Before taking all they say at face value read Maness, "An Untutored Genius." Professor Maness makes some telling cirticisms of the conclusions in the Cimprich & Mainfort article. Also, see the new biography of Tyree Bell, a brigade commander at Fort Pillow. This book by Nathaniel C. Hughes gives a very well balanced account and analysis of the event.
Thanks Cash and Prof...I will look into this more...the Tyree Bell book is on my reading list...I have been impressed by the other works of Hughes, so that definently seems worthwhile.
Respectfully
__________________ Up men, and to your post! And let no man forget today that you are from old Virginia!
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
