Forrest Bedford Jines The Klan

I'm quoting a man, a self proclaimed southern gentleman who led a "secession" movement here on CWT several years ago. He was never shy in saying it was fine to lie to a yankee or any other non "true" southerner. Others still here, at least tacitly, agreed w/ him.

I stand by my statement of Forrest, I think he was a real SoB, I wouldn't ask him over for dinner, but I wouldn't want to face him in a fight; I'd rather he was on my side. He was a self made man and a hell of a good fighting man, I respect him for that. Forrest never claimed to be a gentleman and didn't act as one. He was a fighting man of the highest order through and through. Forrest had the courage of his convictions... something I can't say about many of the fireeaters and their slaverocracy masters. Too many survived the war for me to say otherwise.
that, my friend is offensive.
 
As a note, the word of a "Gentleman" being only good to another "Gentleman" is nothing new. Ask the landed gentry from almost any society across history.
 
As a note, the word of a "Gentleman" being only good to another "Gentleman" is nothing new. Ask the landed gentry from almost any society across history.

That is not at all what you implied with the phrase "southern gentleman"
I concur with your view of Forrest, but there a large number of fine gentlemen living now and then in the south. to imply that they are/ were all liars is offensive.
 
No, we can't reject Forrest's testimony because it was accepted by the committee - but we can take it for what it's worth. "Lying like a gentleman" didn't mean actually lying - exactly. Forrest had a lot of trouble with his memory at that time ... and he didn't have his 5th amendment rights. He asked specifically if he had them and got a resounding NO but you tell the truth. So ... he was dodgy.

Why did he not have his 5th Amendment Rights ?
 
He asked specifically if he had his 5th amendment rights when he was asked if he was a member of the kkk. He was told no but that he was to answer truthfully. He then said no, he wasn't and had never been. Membership in the klan or any of the other outfits was a violation of his parole terms - I suppose that's why they wanted him to incriminate himself. But, there's some evidence he may have been telling the truth. (Which doesn't mean he didn't lead them - he did.)
 
I think I understand the time rather well, I suspect I also have come to understand you & Savez well enough as well. Forrest was a better fighting man than you or I, he was decently honest for his time or ours. He was also a man I wouldn't invite to dinner, which doesn't mean I couldn't respect him. I respect the man for who he was; a man with the courage of his convictions.

Call him whatever you like. Forrest was a product of his time which you have no understanding of despite that "decade" you spent in the South.
 
There were just as many honest men in the south as the north. Take that as you will, if it's offensive to you... it's the truth. I think Davis was venal & corrupt, to quote a Southerner, I think Early and a whole bunch of other supposed gentleman were prolific liars. I think Lee & Johnston among a host of others were honest & honorable men.

When all I have to judge "Southern Gentlemen" are the words of men I've dealt w/ who call themselves true southerners or southern gentlemen... and they clearly don't think the truth is vital in a discussion w/ a non true southerner. When they determine my view is worthless because it fails to line up w/ theirs. When a decade down south, hasn't shown me the solid south mythos they would project. Well at least I can say I've spent a decade down south. I've read the letters and diaries of many a southern soldier; the majority of which I would call good honest god fearing men... few of those letters were from "gentlemen" dandies as they were busy sharing the mud and blood w/ their US counterparts while those who lacked the courage of their convictions were back home sitting safe & pretty. The last group still have their worshipers/supporters... plenty of them here are fond of one liner replies and hide behind anonymous screen names.

Pray god nobody ever calls me a gentleman if it's to put me in the same catagory as a men like Davis or Cobb.

That is not at all what you implied with the phrase "southern gentleman"
I concur with your view of Forrest, but there a large number of fine gentlemen living now and then in the south. to imply that they are/ were all liars is offensive.
 
Call him whatever you like. Forrest was a product of his time which you have no understanding of despite that "decade" you spent in the South.

What does product of his time mean? There were just as many different opinions on slavery, secession, abolitionism back then as there are today..The "times" didn't produce one set of people who all thought the same way..
 
What does product of his time mean? There were just as many different opinions on slavery, secession, abolitionism back then as there are today..The "times" didn't produce one set of people who all thought the same way..

It means that you are effected by the culture and attitudes of the time in which you live and the enviroment in which live. Calling Forrest a man who grew up in Antebellum Tennessee and Mississippi in an enviroment where slave holding was not only considered the natural state of things but aspired to as a means for socially advancing a product of his times is accurate.

Had he been raised in New England or some other hinterland and became an abolitionsist that too would make him a product of his time.
 
I consider referring to a man as a Southern Gentleman one of the highest compliments that can be paid. My father and his seven brothers fit into that catagory and were the finest men I ever knew. Some of them were born in the late 1800's to give a timeline. Polite, reserved, but don't cross them. Better put me in the same pot with Savez and Lazy Bayou if they'll have me.
 
Forrest and the Klan

This is news?

Quite right; this is not news to anyone who's looked at Forrest with anything like an objective eye.

I put up this blog post specifically to counter a claim that I've heard lately online, that there's "no evidence" that Forrest had anything to with the Klan, apart for ordering it to stand down. It's a ludicrous claim, which I replied to by pointing to accounts by both Crowe, one of the Klan's founders in Pulaski, and Morton, who includes a detailed essay in his own autobiography describing how he himself swore Forrest into the group. People can (and will) believe what they choose to about Forrest, but the claim that he had no involvement with the group is simply willful denial.

Regarding Joe Johnston, I was careless with my wording, and for that I apologize. My intent was to ask why if (as some claim), Forrest's only involvement with the group was his order to disband, why that order didn't come from someone even better known and senior to NBF. Johnston was simply a quick example.

Hope that helps clarify my blog post, and the reason for it.
 
Quite right; this is not news to anyone who's looked at Forrest with anything like an objective eye.

I put up this blog post specifically to counter a claim that I've heard lately online, that there's "no evidence" that Forrest had anything to with the Klan, apart for ordering it to stand down. It's a ludicrous claim, which I replied to by pointing to accounts by both Crowe, one of the Klan's founders in Pulaski, and Morton, who includes a detailed essay in his own autobiography describing how he himself swore Forrest into the group. People can (and will) believe what they choose to about Forrest, but the claim that he had no involvement with the group is simply willful denial.

Regarding Joe Johnston, I was careless with my wording, and for that I apologize. My intent was to ask why if (as some claim), Forrest's only involvement with the group was his order to disband, why that order didn't come from someone even better known and senior to NBF. Johnston was simply a quick example.

Hope that helps clarify my blog post, and the reason for it.

On the other hand, save the one account, there is no definitive proof that he was involved. I am convinced he was involved, but the evidence is inconclusive due to the nature of the organization and the secrecy associated with it. I suspect a lot of information was imparted with "a wink and a nod" that could be later denied. One must also recognize the klan of the 1860's /70's Tennessee was not the klan of today.
 
On the other hand, save the one account, there is no definitive proof that he was involved.

History is built up upon a careful analysis of the best available evidence, each piece of which has to be considered against the others, and assessed on its own. History is, most often, a conclusion, rather than a revelation. (And as such, our understanding of the past is always subject to change, as new evidence comes to light.) There is much we accept as unchallenged, established fact about the past, that rests on less evidence than Forrest's involvement with the Klan.

One must also recognize the klan of the 1860's /70's Tennessee was not the klan of today.
I appreciate that. There are a number of differences, including the fact that the modern Klan is (thankfully) less prone to actual physical violence in achieving its goals.
 
AndyHall,

Enjoyed your article. Thanks for your clarification on Joe Johnston - couldn't figure a way he would be involved in anything like it!

Forrest was, when approached by Galloway and Meriwether Minor, looking for an outfit like the klan that could be used in a paramilitary manner if necessary. In Brownlow's Tennessee, with strong racial strife, clamping down on ex-Confederates and dramatic upheavals in society generating from the war, there was good reason for him to believe the South might rise again. And, to be fair, it was not unreasonable for Federal authorities to think he might be a leader in such an insurgency. Forrest's primary purposes for joining the klan was that and to restore the Democrats to power, get rid of Brownlow and a few other objectives that weren't too racial. At that time, he felt whatever calamities befell the blacks was their own fault as they should have remained under white protection on the plantations - he wasn't that concerned about them. That he later saw the light - as you mention in your article - is nothing short of amazing but it did happen.

It may be questionable as to whether or not he was actually a member and moot, too - they certainly considered him one of theirs and he did actively spread them throughout the South. Like a lot of ex-Confederate generals, he travelled all over selling insurance and usually, when business was concluded, he recruited for the klan, too. He also directed them, at least partly - Forrest was never in anything except as a leader and I can't see how this would be any different. How firm his authority was soon became apparent when uncontrollable elements entered the picture. That was why he left - his initial objectives had been achieved anyway. And, the 15th Amendment had been passed and Grant elected president - he may not have considered Grant much of a president but he considered him "marvelous" as a general. Any insurgency would be swiftly dealt with. (Didn't turn out quite that way! Grant should have come down harder.)

You're perfectly right, though, in pointing out some have a very blind devotion to Forrest but he's best seen as he really was, warts and all. It's as much a departure from truth to over-glorify him as it is to over-vilify him!
 
Borderruffian,

Exactly. Ambitious men of that day wanted two things - land and slaves. That meant wealth, prosperity, social advancement and security. The way things were set up in the agricultural South of that day, it was the ONLY way a man of Forrest's background and education was going to get ahead. The Indian cessions were full of men just like him, too. After the war, it's small wonder he wanted his world back - he was busted up, no longer young and most of the men in his family were just as busted up as he was. It must have been a terrifying prospect, starting over pretty much from scratch. His prosperity would never be restored without the slaves, so of course he wanted them to 'come home' as he put it. All the Forrest brothers were slave dealers, that was the source of the family's pre-war wealth. (Before that, they apparently had been land speculators.)
 
Back
Top