Forrest Should Nathan Bedford Forrest be considered "a great general and an honorable man"?

Should Nathan Bedford Forrest be considered "a great general and an honorable man"?


  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Is there a citation to these speeches?
The article in the thread you provided is just some opinion piece by some random person with no citations.

I didn't start either of the threads.

I only provided these conversations for you as I thought you might find the discussions interesting.

The first thread is nine pages in length and the second is seven pages.

Within these 16 pages, point me to my specific post . . . and I'll be happy to provide a citation.

Otherwise, I would suggest you join the discussion and ask the CWT member that posted the speeches that you question.
 
Last edited:
Is there a citation to these speeches?

I’d love to believe it. I think it’d be a great story. But it’s a fact he started the kkk. If you say he changed and repented there needs to be first hand documentation of it. The article in the thread you provided is just some opinion piece by some random person with no citations.
Its a fact he started the KKK?

Most accounts I've read it was created by 6 veterans none of who were Forrest......

F.O. McCord, J.C. Lester, J.C. Jones, R.R. Reed, J.R. Crowe, and J.B Kennedy.....

Forrest joins later and is elected leader as it grows in size because of his fame.....but not sure where you get its fact he started it.

Its like Lincoln may have been the 1st Republician president....but he didn't start the party....he joined after others had...…..
 
Last edited:
Its a fact he started the KKK?

Most accounts I've read it was created by 6 veterans none of who were Forrest......

F.O. McCord, J.C. Lester, J.C. Jones, R.R. Reed, J.R. Crowe, and J.B Kennedy.....

Forrest joins later and is elected leader as it grows in size because of his fame.....but not sure where you get its fact he started it.

Its like Lincoln may have been the 1st Republician president....but he didn't start the party....he joined after others had...…..

You got me.. I wasn’t in the room when it was formed. He may have started if.. others may have. He definitely was in it early on at the very least. And I think that still fits with the spirit of the point I was attempting to make.
 
Its a fact he started the KKK?

Forrest did not start the KKK. We know he joined it, but left after a year of being a Grand Wizard. He described the KKK as a militant organization out to protect white Southerners from Republican organizations such as the G.A.R. and Union Leagues. But he later attempted to disband the KKK and distanced himself from it.
 
@cash I have a couple of questions for you. Have you ever researched the 1875 Independent Order of Pole-Bearers speech to black southerners Forrest gave? Do you believe in accepting people who change for the better after past mistakes they've made, and living up to them? Because all the stuff you're accusing Forrest of is before his attitudes towards race evolved.
 
@cash I have a couple of questions for you. Have you ever researched the 1875 Independent Order of Pole-Bearers speech to black southerners Forrest gave? Do you believe in accepting people who change for the better after past mistakes they've made, and living up to them? Because all the stuff you're accusing Forrest of is before his attitudes towards race evolved.

His speech to the Pole-Bearers was five years after the 15th Amendment was ratified and nine years after the Civil Rights Act. What he was doing was recognizing what had already happened and trying to turn it to political advantage. He was looking for votes for Democrats, not civil rights for blacks. As Andy's told us, there was a specific situation in Memphis in 1875, and Forrest was looking to control that situation. There was no miraculous conversion. It was just a realist counting votes and looking to master a particular situation. Blacks were asserting their rights already at the time, and were willing to confront those who opposed them, violently if necessary. Forrest wanted to gain control of that.

See Andy's post here: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/nathan-bedford-forrests-changing-beliefs.125777/#post-1359017

I know it's almost sacrilege to say this to the Forrest cult, but there's no evidence the man ever changed his mind. He wanted to control blacks. He didn't want them off doing their own thing. He couldn't do anything about giving them their civil rights because they already had them by law. He was looking to control their votes, and using the result of that vote to control them. He knew electing Democrats meant curtailing rights for blacks, and he was out to elect Democrats.

You can see the reporting on the event here:

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045160/1875-07-06/ed-1/seq-1.pdf

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045160/1875-07-06/ed-1/seq-4.pdf

Forrest claims that almost all confederate soldiers were friends of black folks. They had a funny way of showing it. They were such friends they perpetrated terrorism to intimidate and murder blacks. The perpetrated atrocities on black soldiers who surrendered during the Civil War.

Gideon Pillow also spoke at the meeting, urging blacks to disband all their political organizations because southern whites were their true friends. Uh-huh.

Forrest and Pillow were among the prominent white men the Pole Bearers invited to the picnic for peace and reconciliation.

All historical events have a context, and this is no exception.

The following month, Forrest wrote to Edmund W. Rucker, "our Election paste [sic] off quiet and for the Democratic party. The Civil Rights Bil [sic] has Setled [sic] the Republican party." In that same letter, he wrote, "the white people" need "only do as we have dun [sic] all work to gether [sic]." [quoted in Brian Steel Wills, A Battle From the Start: The Life of Nathan Bedford Forrest, p. 369]

Forrest had good reason to want blacks to believe he wanted reconciliation. "Living in a city whose only barbers were blacks, he had made it a postbellum practice never to patronize the same one twice in succession, lest a plot be hatched to slit his throat." [Jack Hurst, Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography, p. 366]

The 15th Amendment had been ratified five years earlier, and a presidential election was coming up in the following year. Forrest was a staunch Democrat and surely wanted as many votes for Democrats as possible.

This speech is less a demonstration of Forrest as a civil rights advocate and much, much more a demonstration of Forrest as a canny pol, looking to get black folks on board for the election of candidates who would work against their interests.
 
Thanks for posting all the speeches, as recorded by the Memphis Appeal. (The Avalanche had a different slant and some parts - such as Confederate soldiers being friends, one flag, sisters and brothers were edited from Forrest's speech.) It's also significant that all the speakers were also klansmen, and those who invited them to speak were black leaders who were or had been involved in less than stellar activities of some of the Loyal League, etc. In short, everybody knew riots like the ones they'd just had couldn't continue. Peace and conciliation therefore was the theme. Frankly, I think Forrest hit the mark more than the rest of the speakers! He really didn't speechify much about politics but the others did, especially Pillow. It's certain that the Democrats knew they needed the black vote to get back into power so there was a lot of make-nice, and there were many blacks who had decided their best bet was to make-nice also and vote Democrat. The organizers of the 4th of July event weren't politically motivated in any sense? Of course the whole thing was full of political canniness.

But.... Forrest was the only one who received strong criticism for his speech, and said more regarding equality than the others. He was the only one who was angrily censured for what he said and did. His was just about the shortest speech that day but it had a lot more meat in it than hot air, and that's why he got lumps for it. Some of his fellow speakers must have been giving him the side eye and scrunched eyebrows - what he said was not expected. More than a few of them felt he had kicked them in the shins. Black leaders were more than a little surprised.

His letter to Rucker was certainly candid but I don't see how it supports the contention that Forrest's speech was politically motivated in any way. His comments to his lawyer, who was suing the city of Memphis on his behalf, would count just as much. He told that gentleman, "I have seen all I wish to see of war. I want to be at peace with all." This lawsuit was about Memphis dissolving itself as a city to avoid paying off bonds purchased mainly from Forrest's company. His partner in this railroad venture was Minor Meriwether, a klansman at the time of Forrest's involvement with them - he ducked out of the partnership then addressed the aldermen of Memphis with this bright idea...and Forrest told him 'one of us might not leave the meeting alive' if he did this! He did it - with a pistol on the table in front of him, a pistol in his wife's purse and wearing a shirt with a special pocket in it for a knife. (Nobody failed to take Forrest seriously when he said something like that.) Later Forrest did patch things up with Meriwether and, interestingly, said he had thought Meriwether was using his influence against him. With whom Forrest left unspecified, but he was doing his best to reconcile matters in his life. This was part of the reason he dropped the lawsuit against Memphis for stiffing him - he wanted peace. It's possible revenge was in there - they didn't dare kill him but they could bankrupt him, which was next best thing. Next thing you know, he's living in a log cabin - right back where he came from!
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting all the speeches, as recorded by the Memphis Appeal. (The Avalanche had a different slant and some parts - such as Confederate soldiers being friends, one flag, sisters and brothers were edited from Forrest's speech.) It's also significant that all the speakers were also klansmen, and those who invited them to speak were black leaders who were or had been involved in less than stellar activities of some of the Loyal League, etc. In short, everybody knew riots like the ones they'd just had couldn't continue. Peace and conciliation therefore was the theme. Frankly, I think Forrest hit the mark more than the rest of the speakers! He really didn't speechify much about politics but the others did, especially Pillow. It's certain that the Democrats knew they needed the black vote to get back into power so there was a lot of make-nice, and there were many blacks who had decided their best bet was to make-nice also and vote Democrat. The organizers of the 4th of July event weren't politically motivated in any sense? Of course the whole thing was full of political canniness.

But.... Forrest was the only one who received strong criticism for his speech, and said more regarding equality than the others. He was the only one who was angrily censured for what he said and did. His was just about the shortest speech that day but it had a lot more meat in it than hot air, and that's why he got lumps for it. Some of his fellow speakers must have been giving him the side eye and scrunched eyebrows - what he said was not expected. More than a few of them felt he had kicked them in the shins. Black leaders were more than a little surprised.

His letter to Rucker was certainly candid but I don't see how it supports the contention that Forrest's speech was politically motivated in any way. His comments to his lawyer, who was suing the city of Memphis on his behalf, would count just as much. He told that gentleman, "I have seen all I wish to see of war. I want to be at peace with all." This lawsuit was about Memphis dissolving itself as a city to avoid paying off bonds purchased mainly from Forrest's company. His partner in this railroad venture was Minor Meriwether, a klansman at the time of Forrest's involvement with them - he ducked out of the partnership then addressed the aldermen of Memphis with this bright idea...and Forrest told him 'one of us might not leave the meeting alive' if he did this! He did it - with a pistol on the table in front of him, a pistol in his wife's purse and wearing a shirt with a special pocket in it for a knife. (Nobody failed to take Forrest seriously when he said something like that.) Later Forrest did patch things up with Meriwether and, interestingly, said he had thought Meriwether was using his influence against him. With whom Forrest left unspecified, but he was doing his best to reconcile matters in his life. This was part of the reason he dropped the lawsuit against Memphis for stiffing him - he wanted peace. It's possible revenge was in there - they didn't dare kill him but they could bankrupt him, which was next best thing. Next thing you know, he's living in a log cabin - right back where he came from!

I suppose we could not see how it supports Forrest being politically motivated if we simply ignore the letter and the entire context and simply look at that speech as if it were standing alone in a vacuum.
 
I suppose we could not see how it supports Forrest being politically motivated if we simply ignore the letter and the entire context and simply look at that speech as if it were standing alone in a vacuum.

That's usually how the speech is looked at! That's why I was happy you put the whole she-bang out there. When you see what other speakers were saying, and who they were, it puts the whole meeting into proper perspective...and the Rucker letter as well.
 
His speech to the Pole-Bearers was five years after the 15th Amendment was ratified and nine years after the Civil Rights Act. What he was doing was recognizing what had already happened and trying to turn it to political advantage. He was looking for votes for Democrats, not civil rights for blacks. As Andy's told us, there was a specific situation in Memphis in 1875, and Forrest was looking to control that situation. There was no miraculous conversion. It was just a realist counting votes and looking to master a particular situation. Blacks were asserting their rights already at the time, and were willing to confront those who opposed them, violently if necessary. Forrest wanted to gain control of that.

See Andy's post here: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/nathan-bedford-forrests-changing-beliefs.125777/#post-1359017

I know it's almost sacrilege to say this to the Forrest cult, but there's no evidence the man ever changed his mind. He wanted to control blacks. He didn't want them off doing their own thing. He couldn't do anything about giving them their civil rights because they already had them by law. He was looking to control their votes, and using the result of that vote to control them. He knew electing Democrats meant curtailing rights for blacks, and he was out to elect Democrats.

You can see the reporting on the event here:

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045160/1875-07-06/ed-1/seq-1.pdf

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045160/1875-07-06/ed-1/seq-4.pdf

Forrest claims that almost all confederate soldiers were friends of black folks. They had a funny way of showing it. They were such friends they perpetrated terrorism to intimidate and murder blacks. The perpetrated atrocities on black soldiers who surrendered during the Civil War.

Gideon Pillow also spoke at the meeting, urging blacks to disband all their political organizations because southern whites were their true friends. Uh-huh.

Forrest and Pillow were among the prominent white men the Pole Bearers invited to the picnic for peace and reconciliation.

All historical events have a context, and this is no exception.

The following month, Forrest wrote to Edmund W. Rucker, "our Election paste [sic] off quiet and for the Democratic party. The Civil Rights Bil [sic] has Setled [sic] the Republican party." In that same letter, he wrote, "the white people" need "only do as we have dun [sic] all work to gether [sic]." [quoted in Brian Steel Wills, A Battle From the Start: The Life of Nathan Bedford Forrest, p. 369]

Forrest had good reason to want blacks to believe he wanted reconciliation. "Living in a city whose only barbers were blacks, he had made it a postbellum practice never to patronize the same one twice in succession, lest a plot be hatched to slit his throat." [Jack Hurst, Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography, p. 366]

The 15th Amendment had been ratified five years earlier, and a presidential election was coming up in the following year. Forrest was a staunch Democrat and surely wanted as many votes for Democrats as possible.

This speech is less a demonstration of Forrest as a civil rights advocate and much, much more a demonstration of Forrest as a canny pol, looking to get black folks on board for the election of candidates who would work against their interests.

Thank you for answering thoroughly . That seems to make a lot of sense.
 
Forrest was an early member of the Ku Klux Klan , which was formed by six veterans of the Confederate Army in Pulaski, Tennessee during the spring of 1866,and soon expanded throughout the state and beyond. Forrest became involved sometime in late 1866 or early 1867. A common report is that Forrest arrived in Nashville in April 1867 while the Klan was meeting at the Maxwell House Hotel, probably at the encouragement of a state Klan leader, former Confederate general George Gordon. The organization had grown to the point where an experienced commander was needed, and Forrest was well-suited to the role. In Room 10 of the Maxwell, Forrest was sworn in as a member by John W. Morton. Brian Steel Wills quotes two KKK members who identified Forrest as a Klan leader.] James R. Crowe stated, "After the order grew to large numbers we found it necessary to have someone of large experience to command. We chose General Forrest". Another member wrote, "N. B. Forest of Confederate fame was at our head, and was known as the Grand Wizard. I heard him make a speech in one of our Dens".The title "Grand Wizard" was chosen because General Forrest had been known as "The Wizard of the Saddle" during the war. According to Jack Hurst's 1993 biography, "Two years after Appomattox, Forrest was reincarnated as grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. As the Klan's first national leader, he became the Lost Cause's avenging angel, galvanizing a loose collection of boyish secret social clubs into a reactionary instrument of terror still feared today."Forrest was the Klan's first and only Grand Wizard, and he was active in recruitment for the Klan from 1867 to 1868.
Following the war, the United States Congress began passing the Reconstruction Acts to lay out requirements for the former Confederate States to be readmitted to the Union,[ to include ratification of the Fourteenth (1868), and Fifteenth (1870) Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth addressed citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws for former slaves, while the Fifteenth specifically secured the voting rights of black men.According to Wills, in the August 1867 state elections the Klan was relatively restrained in its actions. White Americans who made up the KKK hoped to persuade black voters that a return to their pre-war state of bondage was in their best interest. Forrest assisted in maintaining order. It was after these efforts failed that Klan violence and intimidation escalated and became widespread.[] Author Andrew Ward, however, writes, "In the spring of 1867, Forrest and his dragoons launched a campaign of midnight parades; 'ghost' masquerades; and 'whipping' and even 'killing Negro voters and white Republicans, to scare blacks off voting and running for office'".
In an 1868 interview by a Cincinnati newspaper, Forrest claimed that the Klan had 40,000 members in Tennessee and 550,000 total members throughout the Southern states. He said he sympathized with them, but denied any formal connection. He claimed he could muster thousands of men himself. He described the Klan as "a protective political military organization... The members are sworn to recognize the government of the United States... Its objects originally were protection against Loyal Leagues and the Grand Army of the Republic...". After only a year as Grand Wizard, in January 1869, faced with an ungovernable membership employing methods that seemed increasingly counterproductive, Forrest dissolved the Klan, ordered their costumes destroyed",and withdrew from participation. His declaration had little effect, however, and few Klansmen destroyed their robes and hoods.[
After the lynch mob murder of four blacks, arrested for defending themselves at a barbecue, Forrest wrote to Tennessee Governor John C. Brown in August 1874 and "volunteered to help ‘exterminate’ those men responsible for the continued violence against the blacks", offering "to exterminate the white marauders who disgrace their race by this cowardly murder of Negroes".

It appears to me, from this Wiki article, Nathan Bedford Forrest was not a part of the men that formed the KKK. It does appear, however, that they encouraged him to lead the group, because of his popularity. It also appears, he left the KKK after becoming disenchanted with their methods.

 
"Honorable" will always be less than an objective description.
"Great general" can be more of an objective description.
I could not make a judgement on Forrest as to his honor. He is caught too much in the emotions of the last 155 years.
However, it is easy to state that, as a military leader, Forrest did better than most officers during the Civil War.
The business at Fort Pillow will never be completely understood, as, important, basic information about what went on is lost, and probably will never be found.
 
Forrest did not start the KKK. We know he joined it, but left after a year of being a Grand Wizard. He described the KKK as a militant organization out to protect white Southerners from Republican organizations such as the G.A.R. and Union Leagues. But he later attempted to disband the KKK and distanced himself from it.
I believe he was at minimum one of the founding members. I understand the KKK filled in for rule and order during a lawless time... but it’s quite possible - if I were a betting man i’d Say even probable - that part of that rule and order they sought was maintaining a white mans place above a former slave... and that would be from the very beginning. You don’t know what was stated between these guys early on you can’t say that wasn’t his intent but let’s be honest - it was formed by a bunch of former confederates - who supported slavery- who were not happy about losing and all the destruction in their community and it’s very clear that if not at the very inception then shortly thereafter it is basically a domestic terrorist organization.... it’s not inconceivable that at the very beginning these guys- Forrest included given his past opinions - felt keeping black folks under their thumb was part of their job.
 
I believe he was at minimum one of the founding members. I understand the KKK filled in for rule and order during a lawless time... but it’s quite possible - if I were a betting man i’d Say even probable - that part of that rule and order they sought was maintaining a white mans place above a former slave... and that would be from the very beginning. You don’t know what was stated between these guys early on you can’t say that wasn’t his intent but let’s be honest - it was formed by a bunch of former confederates - who supported slavery- who were not happy about losing and all the destruction in their community and it’s very clear that if not at the very inception then shortly thereafter it is basically a domestic terrorist organization.... it’s not inconceivable that at the very beginning these guys- Forrest included given his past opinions - felt keeping black folks under their thumb was part of their job.

No, he wasn't at all a founder but he was looking for a group like that. There's some well-grounded doubt that he was even actually a real member. They were more than happy to have someone of his stature supporting them - that was the main thing. At that point, nobody was doing very well at making adjustments to the new order of things!
 
No, he wasn't at all a founder but he was looking for a group like that. There's some well-grounded doubt that he was even actually a real member. They were more than happy to have someone of his stature supporting them - that was the main thing. At that point, nobody was doing very well at making adjustments to the new order of things!
Link?
 

Nothing to link to! You can find his oath-taking in Morton's Artillery and read his statement in the report of the War Secretary on the klan hearings. The doubt is this: Forrest met up with Morton and asked about the klan, and Morton was high enough up to give him the oath of membership. They went out to an empty field for this but Forrest interrupted him mid-way through and said, "You dam little fool! Don't you know I run the whole outfit?" Well, he didn't but the oath wasn't taken. Then he was lined up for the induction ceremony at a meeting place but didn't show - they inducted him anyway. So...when he told Congress he wasn't a member and never had been, he was probably telling the truth.
 
Isn't there enough talk about Forrest being a member of the Klan?
Isn't there enough proof he was not?
There are links all over the web that state he was not a member.
There are plenty of books on Forrest that state he was not a member.
There are plenty of books that say he was?

It all depends on YOU, we take in facts and/or information with our own filters.

But in this case, the most liberal web sites state he was not a founding member, so what
does that tell us?
 
Back
Top