Forrest Blowback on Forrests' Pole Bearers Speech: “Unworthy of a Southern gentleman”

AndyHall

Colonel
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
I was looking around recently for some background to the famous Pole-Bearers address given by Nathan Bedford Forrest in July 1875 at Memphis. In his speech to the Freedmen’s group, Forrest emphasized the importance of African Americans building their community, participating in elections, and both races moving forward in peace. Just prior to making his remarks, Forrest was presented a bouquet of flowers by an African American girl, and responded by giving the girl a kiss on the cheek. This single event is sometimes cited as proof that the former slave dealer and Klan leader “wasn’t a racist” or some similar nonsense, as if that modern term had much import in mid-19th century America.

I’ll have more to say about the Pole Bearers speech another time, but if you ever wondered how Forrest’s actions that day were perceived by at least some of his former comrades in gray, now we know. They weren’t happy about it, and went to considerable efforts to say so – publicly. From the Augusta, Georgia Chronicle, July 31, 1875, p. 4:

EX-CONFEDERATES
-----
Meeting of Cavalry Survivor’s Association.
-----
A called meeting of the Cavalry Survivor’s Association was held at the Irish Volunteers’ Hall last evening. The amended constitution as reported by the committee, was unanimously adopted. Captain E. Eve said: “Comrades, we are ordered to meet to revise out constitution and by-laws; it is in the hands of an able committee ably, I trust, they have perfected their labors, but while here assembled there is one incident that has transpired upon which I wish to throw your disapproval and have recorded in our archives, although performed by as gallant a cavalryman as ever used sabre over an enemy’s brain; yet let us prove that the old esprit du corps still lives, and that we endorse no action unworthy of a Southern gentleman. I speak of the address delivered before a black and tan audience by Gen. N. B. Forrest. With what a glow of enthusiasm and thrill of pride have I not perused the campaigns of Gen. Forrest’s cavalry, their heroic deeds, their sufferings and their successes under the leadership of one whom I always considered (in my poor judgment) second only to out immortal Hampton? And now to mar all the lustre attached to his name, his brain is turned by the civilities of a mulatto wench who presented him with a bouquet of roses. We would rather have sent him a car filled with the rarest exotics plucked from the dizziest peaks of the Himalayas or the perilous fastness of the Andes than he should have thus befouled the fair home of one of the Confederacy’s most daring general officers. What can his object be? Ah! General Forrest!

[snip]

Wherefore be it
Resolved, that we, the Survivor’s Association of the Cavalry of the Confederate States, in meeting assembled at Augusta, Ga., do hereby express our unmitigated disapproval of any such sentiments as those expressed by Gen. N. B. Forrest at a meeting of the Pole Bearers Society of Memphis, Tennessee, and that we allow no man to advocate, or even hint to the world, before any public assemblage, that he dare associate our mother’s, wives’ daughters’ or sisters’ names in the same category that he classes the females of the negro [sic.] race, without, at least, expressing out disapprobation. The resolution was unanimously adopted and ordered spread on the minutes.​

Geez. Sounds like they were mad, huh?

________
 
Last edited:
There were other things going on in Memphis then that have direct bearing on this event, that I'll get into another time. It's not something that occurred in isolation.
 
"E. Eve" was F. E. Eve, who later became head of the Confederate Survivors' Association. That group was later rolled into the UCV.
 
We may need a dose of proper perspective here...

"A year ago a number of veterans of the cavalry of the Confederate States, resident in Augusta, decided to organize a Cavalry Survivors' Association for the purpose of preserving the records of the respective commands and for mutual aid. The idea was carried out successfully. An association was organized, Capt. W. B. Young was elected President; Capt. Edgewoth F. Eve, First Vice-President; Capt. G. W. Conway, Second Vice-President; Capt. N. K. Butler, Jr., Treasurer, and Mr. Jas. F. Thompson, Secretary. All of these gentlemen are gallant ex-Confederates. The design of the organization was a most commendable one, and its membership rapidly increased. It now has on its rolls over sixty names..."

Augusta Chronicle, December 17, 1875

Now if Andy had found 15 or 20 of these type 'resolutions' we might have some significant blow-back. Don't think he's going to find any more...
 
I, surprisingly enough, have to agree with Battalion on this one. I see blowback, but not what I would think would conform with the stereotypes of the times. You have some of the old hardliners who were castigating Forrest for wanting to get on with the process of reconciliation, but I would imagine that in general it was probably paged through with little interest. Just my opinion though.
 
We may need a dose of proper perspective here...

"A year ago a number of veterans of the cavalry of the Confederate States, resident in Augusta, decided to organize a Cavalry Survivors' Association for the purpose of preserving the records of the respective commands and for mutual aid. The idea was carried out successfully. An association was organized, Capt. W. B. Young was elected President; Capt. Edgewoth F. Eve, First Vice-President; Capt. G. W. Conway, Second Vice-President; Capt. N. K. Butler, Jr., Treasurer, and Mr. Jas. F. Thompson, Secretary. All of these gentlemen are gallant ex-Confederates. The design of the organization was a most commendable one, and its membership rapidly increased. It now has on its rolls over sixty names..."

Augusta Chronicle, December 17, 1875

Now if Andy had found 15 or 20 of these type 'resolutions' we might have some significant blow-back. Don't think he's going to find any more...


Can't wait to see a similar standard of "proper perspective" and significance based on numerical quantity applied to the next "black confederates" discussion.
 
We may need a dose of proper perspective here...

"A year ago a number of veterans of the cavalry of the Confederate States, resident in Augusta, decided to organize a Cavalry Survivors' Association for the purpose of preserving the records of the respective commands and for mutual aid. The idea was carried out successfully. An association was organized, Capt. W. B. Young was elected President; Capt. Edgewoth F. Eve, First Vice-President; Capt. G. W. Conway, Second Vice-President; Capt. N. K. Butler, Jr., Treasurer, and Mr. Jas. F. Thompson, Secretary. All of these gentlemen are gallant ex-Confederates. The design of the organization was a most commendable one, and its membership rapidly increased. It now has on its rolls over sixty names..."

Augusta Chronicle, December 17, 1875

Now if Andy had found 15 or 20 of these type 'resolutions' we might have some significant blow-back. Don't think he's going to find any more...

Proper perspective includes accurately characterizing Andy's post. He didn't say anything about significant blowback.

"by at least some of his former comrades in gray, now we know"
 
Bedford was nearing the end of his life. I'm sure he regreted many things he had done in his younger days and was, in my opinion, trying to make amends for his previous mistakes. Hence the "Pole Bearers Speech." His illness had surely already affected him and I'm sure he didn't give a rat's *** about what his former comrades in arms thought.
 
Bedford was nearing the end of his life. I'm sure he regreted many things he had done in his younger days and was, in my opinion, trying to make amends for his previous mistakes.

That may be part of it, but if so it's a distinctly "looking forward, not back" sort of amends, that leaves the specifics of the past unspoken. Sort of like the Lord of Swamp Castle in Holy Grail -- "Please! Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who-killed-who. . . ."

 
Last edited:
Andy’s posted image of the Augusta, Georgia Chronicle, July 31, 1875 is not real evidence of hatred and racism, or that someone is even mad about Forrest’s speech? Fake is what I call it, without references. The supplied image is not even good forgery work, and the content surely does not portray Gen. Forrest's attitude toward black folks. Andy accepts one single incident of a fake newspaper article purporting to be from the Survivor’s Association of the Cavalry of the Confederate States as absolute proof of racism, or that someone is mad, but refuses to consider the one single incident of Forrest's behavior where he shows kindness to a black child.
 
Andy’s posted image of the Augusta, Georgia Chronicle, July 31, 1875 is not real evidence of hatred and racism, or that someone is even mad about Forrest’s speech? Fake is what I call it, without references. The supplied image is not even good forgery work, and the content surely does not portray Gen. Forrest's attitude toward black folks. Andy accepts one single incident of a fake newspaper article purporting to be from the Survivor’s Association of the Cavalry of the Confederate States as absolute proof of racism, or that someone is mad, but refuses to consider the one single incident of Forrest's behavior where he shows kindness to a black child.

You left a rather more inflammatory note on my blog earlier. Here was my reply (your words in bold):

Thanks for taking time to comment. You wrote:

You call this evidence of hatred and racism?

No, I didn't call it that.

I offer it as evidence that at least some Confederate veterans were quite upset with Forrest's actions at the Pole-Bearers meeting. I'd never come across that before, and it seemed worth mentioning. One often reads about Forrest's address, but not much about other Confederates' reaction to it.

Fake is what I call it. Where is your references? This is not even good forgery work.
It's real, Terry. I provided a reference and a link to a digitized copy of the article. Look it up yourself.

You have a nice day, Terry.
 
Your link purporting to be evidence of the "reference and a link to a digitized copy of the article" points back to your own blog "Dead Confederates." Sorry, but that's not good evidence of anything, but your own opinion. As for being inflammatory, the name of your blog sums up the word "inflammatory" pretty good. My opinion is that you didn't post this bit of fiction for historical purposes as you claim, but to inflame the rhetoric against the South, Gen Nathan Bedford Forrest, AND dead Confederates, of which I take offense too.
 
Your link purporting to be evidence of the "reference and a link to a digitized copy of the article" points back to your own blog "Dead Confederates." Sorry, but that's not good evidence of anything, but your own opinion.

It's a PDF file of the original article, downloaded from GenealogyBank.com and stored on my file server, so interested folks without a subscription can view it. But you have the full reference, so you can look up the original document yourself. It's at the top of the second column of p. 4.

As for being inflammatory, the name of your blog sums up the word "inflammatory" pretty good. My opinion is that you didn't post this bit of fiction for historical purposes as you claim, but to inflame the rhetoric against the South, Gen Nathan Bedford Forrest, AND dead Confederates, of which I take offense too.

You have a nice day, Terry.
 
Your link purporting to be evidence of the "reference and a link to a digitized copy of the article" points back to your own blog "Dead Confederates." Sorry, but that's not good evidence of anything, but your own opinion. As for being inflammatory, the name of your blog sums up the word "inflammatory" pretty good. My opinion is that you didn't post this bit of fiction for historical purposes as you claim, but to inflame the rhetoric against the South, Gen Nathan Bedford Forrest, AND dead Confederates, of which I take offense too.

Terry, Andy and I often disagree but since I've been here following his posts and reading his stuff I can say without reservation that he is a first class historian with an penchant for accuracy regardless of whose ox gets gored. He is not anti-Confederate per se but demands from others the same thing he strives to achieve, historical accuracy. My advice is to stay, read and learn and to tone down the rhetoric a tad. You'll enjoy it better.
 
Terry, Andy and I often disagree but since I've been here following his posts and reading his stuff I can say without reservation that he is a first class historian with an penchant for accuracy regardless of whose ox gets gored. He is not anti-Confederate per se but demands from others the same thing he strives to achieve, historical accuracy. My advice is to stay, read and learn and to tone down the rhetoric a tad. You'll enjoy it better.
Terry, Ditto the above. Andy is a very genial and accurate man in all cases from my experience. My advice is pump the brakes, settle in and you will find a community you can rely on here to give you the real deal.
 
Forrest was an excellent general, but not a great supported of civil rights. I was led to understand the Forrest spent his early life buying, selling, and owning slaves. After the war not only did not believe the former slaves should be free, he believed they should be allowed to vote or have any civil rights or social or legal status. Forrest believed blacks were inferior and could never be anything but inferior. Why would anyone believe he was a racist?
 
Back
Top