Was it Brownlow's fault that the KKK was formed

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
From p.48 of Moyars
Ark. State Militia fought a force of 400 Klansman at Center Point, Ark. The 400 hundred Klansmen ran away and 60 were captured . The State Militia suffered one killed and five wounded. No account of the Ark State Militia being cowed by the mighty KKK . P.50 "By early 1869 the Klan had stopped functioning in Arkansas , laid low by the intimidation and force applied by strong counterinsurgent leaders.' At least in Ark the State Militia was not cowed by the mighty KKK.
Leftyhunter
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Is it true that as @CSA Today asserts that the North Carolina State Troops along with their leader the former Union commander of the Third North Carolina Mounted Infantry Union were cowed by the KKK during the Kirk-Holden War?
Using the book "Kirk's Raiders a notorious band of scoundrels and thieves" Matthew Bumgarner Tar Heel Press
p.90
Of the 600 troops Kirk recruited" 399 were under the legal age of military service and 64 were legally to old" Intrestingly enough Kirk could not recruit many of his former soldiers.
In no way did Kirk lead a disciplined well mannered fighting force he led a teen age mob. However the question remains were Kirk's mostly teenage force cowed by the might KKK?
P. 96
Federal Army Captain George P. Rodney described Kirk's men"the North Carolina State Troops under Col. Kirk are nothing more then an armed mob".
So did the KKK vanquish this armed mostly teenage mob?
When Gov. Holden had to disband the North Carolina State troops (p.101) some of the militia men where ambushed but no casualties were reported. A whole trainload of Kirk's men
were ambushed but none hurt.
Perhaps some of the Nc State Troops were killed or injured by the Klan but none so mentioned in the above book.
Perhaps there are credible sources to show that they were.
It is interesting if a bunch of teenagers cowed the Klan.
Leftyhunter

It was Col. Kirk that created the situation that led to the notorious Shelton Laurel massacre. He slipped in from East Tennessee stirred up the pro-union section of Madison County, North Carolina (Shelton Laurel) against their pro-Confederate neighbors and then hightailed it back to East Tennessee. He did something similar when things went sour after the Kirk-Holden War during Reconstruction.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
On p. 55 of Moyar's , Moyar's discuss"s the Colfax Massacre in La 1874. In Colfax an insurgent force did defeat the local black militia and ended up killing at least 69 militia men many of whom had surrendered. Moyar's points out that they were poorly led and trained. Moyar's also points out that when federal troops arrived the insurgents ran off and some were captured.
On p.56 Moyar's describes the battle of Liberty palace where 8,400 Whit League militia men beat a combined force of 3,600 state militia and local police. President Grant sent federal forces to La led by Lewis Merril. Merril's men were not attacked.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
It was Col. Kirk that created the situation that led to the notorious Shelton Laurel massacre. He slipped in from East Tennessee stirred up the pro-union section of Madison County, North Carolina (Shelton Laurel) against their pro-Confederate neighbors and then hightailed it back to East Tennessee. He did something similar when things went sour after the Kirk-Holden War during Reconstruction.
Or we could blame the actual folks who committed crimes against Southern people.If the Confederates would not of used force to protect their ability to own slaves in the future their would not of been a Civil War to begin with. Any luck finding sources that the U.S. Army and state militias were cowed by the KKK and other white terrorist organizations?
Leftyhunter
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Or we could blame the actual folks who committed crimes against Southern people.If the Confederates would not of used force to protect their ability to own slaves in the future their would not of been a Civil War to begin with. Any luck finding sources that the U.S. Army and state militias were cowed by the KKK and other white terrorist organizations?
Leftyhunter

I haven't seen any evidence that the US Army interacted in any way with either the KKK or the black militias. Grant's threat to use troops seemed sufficient to restore to power Carpetbagger governors in Louisiana and Arkansas.

A good source: Washington's KKK: The Union League During Southern Reconstruction by John Chodes and Dr. Clyde N. Wilson

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+union+league%3A+Washington%27s+Klan
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I haven't seen any evidence that the US Army interacted in any way with either the KKK or the black militias. Grant's threat to use troops seemed sufficient to restore to power Carpetbagger governors in Louisiana and Arkansas.

A good source: Washington's KKK: The Union League During Southern Reconstruction by John Chodes and Dr. Clyde N. Wilson

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+union+league%3A+Washington%27s+Klan
I have already posted evidence that indeed the U.S. Army did interact with the KKK and other white supremacist terrorist organizations. More actual fighting against white supremacist organizations was by state militias.
Leftyhunter
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
I have already posted evidence that indeed the U.S. Army did interact with the KKK and other white supremacist terrorist organizations. More actual fighting against white supremacist organizations was by state militias.
Leftyhunter

Assuming you consider all whites that fought against white carpetbagger and white scalawag rule as white supremacists the highlighted sentence is correct. This is covered in the recommended book.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Assuming you consider all whites that fought against white carpetbagger and white scalawag rule as white supremacists the highlighted sentence is correct. This is covered in the recommended book.
The above mentioned whites also fought to keep black people from exercising their civil rights. Are you arguing that the KKK and similar organizations were not using violence to achieve white supremacy?
Leftyhunter
 

Hawkins

Private
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
I haven't seen any evidence that the US Army interacted in any way with either the KKK or the black militias. Grant's threat to use troops seemed sufficient to restore to power Carpetbagger governors in Louisiana and Arkansas.

@CSA Today

A few questions regarding your source's claims as it regards to Arkansas.

What specific threat of troops and how did it restore power?
Which Governor(s) do they refer to as Carpetbaggers?
In what context to they discuss the Millita Wars and how does that fit into their narrative?
What sources do they use to support their claims concerning the Union League in Arkansas? Please be brief, but specific.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Hello all,

Long time reader, first-time poster. So, please forgive if I make a mistake. While I can not speak for the entire South, I can say that for Arkansas cower isn't the word I would use. If anything, the actions by the KKK and similar organizations spawned a military response. In my limited study of the Freedmen's Bureau records, I have found several instances of Bureau agents reporting violence by groups of "lawless characters" and requests troops to suppress these individuals were made. I have even found an instance in which General Edward O. C. Ord, assistant commissioner for the Bureau in Arkansas, gave a verbal order to an agent to request troops from the HQ in Little Rock to go after these types of individuals in 1867. Before and after the accession of Powell Clayton to the governorship in 1868, we see the continuation and expansion of the violence. The response wasn't to cower but is referred to as the Militia Wars. However, I would note that Arkansas might be the exception and not the rule during this era. Please examine the following links for more information.

Militia Wars of 1868-1869: http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?search=1&entryID=7904
Powell Clayton: http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=94
Daniel Phillips Upham:http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=1790

Randy

P.S. Fun fact. Two of the commanders of the militia, Capt. Samuel W. Mallory and Major James T. Watson, were former Bureau agents.
Interesting information. It seems to suggest that the military authorities were not intimidated by the Klan and did not "cower".
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
@leftyhunter

What do you want to bet that @CSA Today's source deals primarily with the Brooks/Baxter War and ignores the Millia Wars?

Brooks-Baxter Wars: http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2276
Hi Hawkins,
I just read the article. It doesn't appear to be a battle between the Klan vs Republicans unless I missed something. The fedeal forces certainly don't appear to be cowed. Catterson was an effective Arkansas State Milita leader who was not cowed by the KKK to say the least.
Absolutely Reconstruction was not a textbook example of effective counterinsurgency.
Leftyhunter
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
There would have been violence no matter what - some people would do that if everything was coming up roses. What I'm saying is Brownlow's harsh policies and outright persecution caused men like Forrest to go this route, when otherwise they would not. In fact, they would have worked to stop violence. There's a reason the klan started in Tennessee and not another Southern state.

Brownlow put a 5k bounty on the prior TNs
Govenors head, Green. Green lead the succession movement.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Then why wasn't the brave men of the Klan able to defeat the ragtag teen age North Carolina State Troops?
Instead all they could do was take potshots at them when they left.
Leftyhunter

First of all, most of Holden's black Union League militia were adults and not teenagers. Secondly, they proved so unreliable, the governor had to call in hired guns from east Tennessee. Then too, when Grant refused to back Holden, Kirk and his mercenaries hightailed it back to Tennessee so fast potshots would have been about all anyone could have gotten in.
 

diane

Retired User
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Location
State of Jefferson
Isham Harris was the one who approached Forrest about taking his troops to Missouri and continuing the fight in the Trans-Mississippi, which was a project Davis cherished as well. Better a part of the Confederacy than none of it in their view. Forrest was not a man to fight in a burning house with a sprinkling can. "You gentlemen may do as you dam well please. I'm-a going home." He was also approached by others of Harris' disposition to head for Mexico and set up the Confederacy there - wouldn't take much to knock Maximillian off his throne. That idea only had appeal to Forrest after a good taste of what 'home' was like under Brownlow - but even then he knew that while it wouldn't take much to kick out Maxmillian it would take something to kick out the French, who would without a doubt show up. Davis and company didn't have it. After repeated and frequent visits by Union soldiers, payment of exorbitant fines for murky offenses, lawsuits designed to break his piggy bank, and being denied citizenship after completing all requirements, well, Forrest was looking for something to use as a tool against Brownlow and the radical Republicans. The KKK was that suitable tool.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
No nothing happens in a vacuum, every action has an equal or greater reaction . When you blame the side you dislike for their actions while ignoring the side you favor you only get half the story. .....the half you agree with. Reconstruction was a terrible period for the South Lincoln's death assured that and gave Stanton and the radical republican elements sway. It became a punitive evolution. People will only take so much **** before some respond and others support them.
It does strike me odd some seem to argue that by the US disenfranchising part of the population before the war they should have expected resistance, then turn around and seem to argue that a disenfranchised population should have been happy and not organized any resistance postwar...........would think perhaps saying disenfranchising people was wrong in both cases would be a little more appropriate.....
 

diane

Retired User
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Location
State of Jefferson
It does strike me odd some seem to argue that by the US disenfranchising part of the population before the war they should have expected resistance, then turn around and seem to argue that a disenfranchised population should have been happy and not organized any resistance postwar...........would think perhaps saying disenfranchising people was wrong in both cases would be a little more appropriate.....

It helps this along, that's for sure! That and Brownlow's penchant for throwing out the vote of whole counties because they didn't pass his smell test. Stanton was in charge of the Union occupation of the South, so he bears some responsibilities for not curtailing Brownlow's abuse of power. That he accomplished by tripping up Johnson's more liberal agenda. By the time the whole thing got to Grant, he finally had the authority to mash the klan but it was too little too late by then. Do have to hand it to Brownlow for standing up to the klan in Tennessee but it's hard to say if he was brave or just ornery crazy.
 

Similar threads

Top