Questions about Nathan Bedford Forrest

10,402 Views | 67 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by BQ78
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Since I had been looking up stuff about Sully, Youtube has been suggesting videos about the civil war. Some have been about NBF, and one in particular seemed somewhat fair (had both proponents and detractors). One thing in that video that struck me was that one of the NBF fans was a black guy who's grand father or great grandfather served under him (I think he was one of his slaves, but I forget). Three (possible) facts the guy stated was that: 1) That when he was a slave trader, he never broke up families and actually purchased slaves from abusive masters and sold them to benevolent masters, 2) when NBF freed his slaves at the end of the war, every single one of them stayed with him (they also fought under him during the war), and 3) that after the war NBF quelled a possible race riot when he spoke to both the white and black leaders (making the point that if he was considered a racist, then the blacks never would have listened to him and nobody would have asked him to take that role).


I had always thought NBF was a hyper racist military genius that is worth studying for his military exploits, but not worth a damn in any other way. The BS being said about Sully and this video about NBF made me consider otherwise. I have tried to do some more internet research but there is TONS of contradictory claims. Some say he was the founder and grand wizard of the KKK, others say he was a not a founder and was at most a symbolic leader that the KKK tried to exploit for their own cause and that he actually worked to disband it. Another one said he made a speech to the Pole-Bearers association (which is claimed to be the predecessor of the NAACP), but I can't find anything on the Pole-Bearers association other than articles that make this same NBF claim. So that seems made up as hell.

So what's the story, history board?
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quick answer Hell of a military leader and innovator on the battlefield. Definitely a racist even in his day.

Be careful what your read about him on the internet he is very polarizing. Apologists make up things about him and his goodness to the black race. His critics will call him a murderer and super racist who founded the KKK.

Truth is in between. The only more polarizing topic than Forrest seems to be blacks in the Confederate Army.

I will address the Memphis Riot of 1866 comment head on. Forrest felt a little like I do now, society was out of control because white policemen killed black men. Forrest did not get involved at all and we only have vague letters from him stating what I just said. He did nothing to stop the riots only lamented that southern society was under attack.

He was probably affiliated with the KKK but broke his association due to increasing violence. When he testified about his association during a congressional hearing, he was completely evasive and did not answer questions and did not recall. Based on his clear and sharp mind it is unlikely that he didn't recall. He later said privately of his testimony, "I have been lying like a gentleman." So his actual involvement with the KKK is vague but based on how he acted when asked about it, he was at least protecting the organization.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is it true that all his slaves stood by him after he freed them?
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aTmAg said:

Is it true that all his slaves stood by him after he freed them?
It was not that uncommon for that to happen.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As Cougar said many slaves stayed with their masters after the war.

But with Forrest it was different. He freed his 45 slaves before the war was over but he did it only on the condition that they work as teamsters in his unit, so it may not been out of loyalty that they stayed but for the opportunity at freedom.

And let's address another lie of the apologists. Forrest was a shrewd businessman in the slave trade. He did divide slave families regularly as it was much more profitable to do that. If a customer needed a field hand he didn't want to have to buy a wife and kids too and Forrest wasn't going to tell the customer what he had to buy or the customer would go to the next trader who would sell him what he wanted. There are many historical bills of sales by Forrest's firm that demonstrate this fact.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rabid Cougar said:

aTmAg said:

Is it true that all his slaves stood by him after he freed them?
It was not that uncommon for that to happen.
It still means something for those that it did happen to. If I was getting abused, I sure as hell wouldn't stay.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQ78 said:

As Cougar said many slaves stayed with their masters after the war.

But with Forrest it was different. He freed his 45 slaves before the war was over but he did it only on the condition that they work as teamsters in his unit, so it may not been out of loyalty that they stayed but for the opportunity at freedom.

And let's address another lie of the apologists. Forrest was a shrewd businessman in the slave trade. He did divide slave families regularly as it was much more profitable to do that. If a customer needed a field hand he didn't want to have to buy a wife and kids too and Forrest wasn't going to tell the customer what he had to buy or the customer would go to the next trader who would sell him what he wanted. There are many historical bills of sales by Forrest's firm that demonstrate this fact.
Did they stay after the war was over? Or is that a lie?
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He left the freed slaves in Georgia and travelled home alone by train after the war. A few of the freed slaves eventually made their way back to Northern Mississippi and went back to work for Forrest on his plantation.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQ78 said:

He left the freed slaves in Georgia and travelled home alone by train after the war. A few of the freed slaves eventually made their way back to Northern Mississippi and went back to work for Forrest on his plantation.
Well so clearly that video is full of crap. They claimed that every last slave stayed with him. Seems like the grandson (or great grandson) of a NBF slave would have details like that correct.

However, your anecdote seems to provide evidence for the "NBF good" camp. I assume it took a lot of effort for a slave to make his way from Georgia to Mississippi back in those days. The fact that they did so to rejoin NBF would imply that he treated them well. And that is before his "conversion".
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aTmAg said:

Rabid Cougar said:

aTmAg said:

Is it true that all his slaves stood by him after he freed them?
It was not that uncommon for that to happen.
It still means something for those that it did happen to. If I was getting abused, I sure as hell wouldn't stay.
No doubt about it.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Another question... Was the Pole-Bearers a real association? Or is that made up?
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Could be, I don't know, sounds like a local Memphis thing if it was real. The fact that only record of it on-line is associated with Forrest makes me wonder. The Memphis papers are on-line now going back to that time so I would think we would get a hit for the organization outside of the Forrest speech.
CT'97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The problem with these videos is that they can basically say whatever they want based on only a slim shred of truth or none at all and everyone believes it because it's put together well and matches something they want to believe. No need for sources or a bibliography or supporting material to back up statements.
Texas A&M - 144 years of tradition, unimpeded by progress.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CT'97 said:

The problem with these videos is that they can basically say whatever they want based on only a slim shred of truth or none at all and everyone believes it because it's put together well and matches something they want to believe. No need for sources or a bibliography or supporting material to back up statements.
Yeah, I get that. That's why I'm looking across the internet for more evidence. I don't have time to read a bunch of NBF books at the moment. But I assume many here have read that stuff.

There seems to be just as much BS coming from the anti-NBF side. Such as claims that he was the founder of the KKK and stuff like that. There is a video by Matt Atkinson (Ranger/historian at Gettysburg) about NBF that I put most of my stock in at the moment. He seems pretty authoritative. He gives evidence for both sides, and then clearly states his personal opinion from that evidence.

My current opinion on his character is that NBF was racist (by today's standards) early in his life, but became less so as he got older. If the Pole-bearer story is true, then I'd go as far saying that it's a sort of a redemption story. But I'm not sold on that yet.
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
NBF was the Confederate commander whose troops massacred 300 negro Union soldiers at Ft Pillow after they attempted to surrender. Ft. Pillow
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
74OA said:

NBF was the Confederate commander whose troops massacred 300 negro Union soldiers at Ft Pillow after they attempted to surrender. Ft. Pillow
Read a book about NBF. His men said that the men in Ft. Pillow were trying to escape to gunboats in the river. When they were cut off, they threw down arms and surrendered.

But when they perceived the tide of battle changing, they picked up their rifles and began fighting again.

Would like to hear BQ78's take.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
74OA said:

NBF was the Confederate commander whose troops massacred 300 negro Union soldiers at Ft Pillow after they attempted to surrender. Ft. Pillow
According to wiki, only 221 union soldiers were killed in total. 2/3rd black and 1/3 white (I don't know if that means of the 221, or that 2/3rs of the blacks serving were killed). I think it's clear that a massacre happened. What I find less clear is if NBF was to blame (other than being unable to control his men).

The accounts of this incident vary widely:

Quote:

Two days after the battle Achilles V. Clark, a Confederate soldier, wrote his sister a letter about what he witnessed in the fight. Clark stated: " 'The poor deluded negroes would run up to our men fall upon their knees and with uplifted hands scream for mercy but they were ordered to their feet and then shot down. The white men fared but little better. Their fort turned out to be a great slaughter penblood human blood stood about in pools and brains could have been gathered up in any quantity. I with several others tried to stop the butchery and at one point had partially succeededbut Gen. Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs and the carnage continued.' "

Confederate Samuel Caldwell said the Union soldiers had refused to surrender "which incensed our men & if General Forrest had not run between our men and the Yanks with his pistol and saber drawn not a man would have been spared."

Private Ellis Falls, a black Union soldier, said that Forrest ordered the Confederates to "quit fighting."

Private Major Williams, a Union soldier, said he heard one Confederate officer shout that the blacks should be killed and then another Confederate officer contradicted him and said that Forrest had ordered them to capture the blacks and return them to their masters.

One captured Federal, Charles Fitch, ran up to Forrest and asked for protection. When Fitch said he was from Iowa, Forrest then said: "What in hell are you down here for? I have a great mind to have you killed for being down here." Forrest then told one of his soldiers to keep Fitch safe.

First Sergeant Wilbur Gaylord of the 6th U.S. Heavy Artillery, a black soldier, was wounded as the Confederates came over the wall. He offered to surrender and was taken prisoner. But at the same time he saw a Confederate soldier "shoot down three black men who were begging for their lives, and who had surrendered."
The first quote is from one of NBF's sergeants and is pretty damning, but the others are from the federal side (including black soldiers) and they are the opposite. Assuming there is no personal animosity between Clark and NBF, I can't think of a good explanation of the disparity in the stories.

I have read that there was an official investigation by the USG after the war and that Forrest was absolved. But we absolved many of the obviously guilty Japanese war criminals during WW2, and so that may not mean much of anything.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Argghhhh, I had a brilliant response but when I hit post it disappeared, took too long I guess. But I'll try to recreate it here:

The entire Ft. Pillow episode is like a microcosm of Forrest's life it is polarizing and full of news and fake news and as a result the truth is hard to discern.

Forrest famously said that he had 29 horses shot out from under him during the war and that he personally killed 30 Yankees during the war so he came out a horse ahead. Well the day of Ft. Pillow one of those 29 horses died and Forrest took a severe tumble and was shaken up to the point that according to staff members he was sitting in the shade of a tree during most of the "Post-surrender" casualties recovering from the fall. So he definitely lost some tactical control of his command during the battle. However that is not an excuse, as a commander has to instill the proper discipline in his command. When told something untoward was happening Forrest seem nonplussed and did not take any immediate action. Eventually when the fort was confirmed to have fallen he sent an order for all firing to cease. Although there are accounts of him being on the field, his staff says he wasn't due to his earlier injury.

Ft. Pillow had a garrison of about 600 men. 400 were black and the other 200 whites were Tennessee Unionists who some of Forrest's men knew. This combination of black troops and "traitorous" Tennesseans were enough to put Forrest's command on edge even without the events that transpired during and after the battle. So here are some facts that might point us toward what might have happened:

Upon investing Ft. Pillow, Forrest attempted to parlay surrender. A Confederate sergeant who said he was at the parlay said the Federals were brash and said Forrest would never take the fort and if he did he should not provide the Federals any quarter. To me this story doesn't hold water but the fact he seems to be saying that the victim "asked for it" is admitting something bad happened.

Several Confederate accounts say the killing began before the fort surrendered, in fact right after the Confederates passed over the earthworks. Soldiers black and white were killed trying to surrender, although the blacks seemed to have taken the brunt of the untoward killing. Several Confederates said the soldiers threw down their arms and raised their hands in surrender but were shot down; some went to their knees and pleaded for mercy but were told to stand up and shot anyway.

20 minutes after the assault began the fort flag was struck in surrender but the killing still continued at the base of the bluff next to the river. Many soldiers on the river's edge jumped into the river to avoid the massacre and tired to get to barges but they were either shot or drowned.

The Navy gunboats claimed that as soon as they saw the flag come down they ceased firing on the fort. But many Confederates claimed they continued to fire on the fort which raised their ire.

Both sides say Federal soldiers surrendered and then took up arms again. But was that Yankee treachery or realization that the Black Flag had been raised by the Confederates and there was no quarter to be had?

Several Eyewitness Confederate accounts in letters and diaries state that they were horrified by what happened at Ft Pillow. It was bad enough that some Confederate soldiers began hiding Federal soldiers from their compadres to save their lives.

There are Federal accounts (black and white) of Forrest being present (but as I said above I don't think he was). The accounts range from him ordering the killing and encouraging his men to keep it up, to him trying to stop it to the point in one account by a black soldier that he shot one of his own men on the spot, to stop the killing.

66% of the entire garrison was killed a very high figure for such a short fight (35% of the white garrison was killed). Member of the joint Confederate-US Navy burial crew during the truce afterward noted that there were an inordinate number of soldiers shot in the head, many of them showing powder burns near the entry wounds and many of those were found below the bluff.

Forrest in his Official Report noted that this engagement showed that black troops were incapable of standing up to Southeners.

IMO, something untoward happened at Ft. Pillow committed by Forrest's command that should not have occurred. But much like the Battle of Lexington in the Revolutionary War and who fired the first shot, we will probably never know for sure the entire truth.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What does "found below the bluff" mean?


BTW, wiki says that "The Union flag was still flying over the fort, which indicated that the force had not formally surrendered." So that is wrong in your view?
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Most of the massacre occurred below the bluff on the riverbank.

I believe the untoward killing started before the flag came down and continued after it had come down.
gigemhilo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The contradictory statements about Forrest from Union witnesses and Forrest's subordinate officer could be explained by the subordinate officer covering his butt after the war.

Just a thought.
gigemhilo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The contradictory statements about Forrest from Union witnesses and Forrest's subordinate officer could be explained by the subordinate officer covering his butt after the war.

Just a thought.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Exactly!

That is why the best sources are the ones written before the controversy brewed up on a national level.

For example, the Confederate source that aTm and I both cited about the troops surrendering and going to their knees to beg mercy is considered highly reliable it was written by a soldier in a letter to his family within five days of the event.

aTm also quoted a Confederate officer who said Forrest personally tried to stop the killing. That one is exactly what you are saying, it was written years after the war when Forrest reputation was being attacked for Ft. Pillow and as I said, his staff said he was under the tree during the action because he had been injured.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
gigemhilo said:

The contradictory statements about Forrest from Union witnesses and Forrest's subordinate officer could be explained by the subordinate officer covering his butt after the war.

Just a thought.
It could have been animosity too. Another of NBF's subordinates shot him in an assassination attempt because NBF was kicking him out. This is where NBFs quote of "Nobody kills me and lives to tell about it" comes from (NBF was told his wound was fatal).

Maybe NBF was like Michael Jordan where he pissed off his own teammates a lot.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Maybe NBF was like Michael Jordan where he pissed off his own teammates a lot.
One thing I recall from the NBF book was how he transformed in battle. Sort of went crazy, was an amazingly fearless and fierce fighter.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQ78 said:

Exactly!

That is why the best sources are the ones written before the controversy brewed up on a national level.

For example, the Confederate source that aTm and I both cited about the troops surrendering and going to their knees to beg mercy is considered highly reliable it was written by a soldier in a letter to his family within five days of the event.

aTm also quoted a Confederate officer who said Forrest personally tried to stop the killing. That one is exactly what you are saying, it was written years after the war when Forrest reputation was being attacked for Ft. Pillow and as I said, his staff said he was under the tree during the action because he had been injured.
I think he may be saying the opposite of you. I think he is saying that perhaps Clark wrote that to cover his own ass in case controversy ever came from it.

If NBF really did behave in the way that Clark writes, then I can't imagine all those union witnesses defending him. Why would they do that? I would want NBF to burn in hell if he did that stuff to me.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CanyonAg77 said:

Quote:

Maybe NBF was like Michael Jordan where he pissed off his own teammates a lot.
One thing I recall from the NBF book was how he transformed in battle. Sort of went crazy, was an amazingly fearless and fierce fighter.
I can't believe he survived. I'm no expert, but it seems that he took it too far (or it's exaggerated). If he had gotten himself killed, the war effort would have been much worse off for the South. It's like a star QB taking a stupid risk/hit for a 21 yard gain rather than a mere 20 yard gain (assuming he easily got the first down).

Edit: However, perhaps this sort of thinking may be why I'm an internet warrior and he was a real warrior and why I wouldn't have been 1/10th the general he was.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't think Clark was covering his butt in a letter home, that probably isn't going to do that. I only question Clark's account of what he didn't know. I have no doubt some of the men may have said Forrest ordered the killing but there is no evidence or account of that. I don't believe Forrest made an appearance during the massacre based on staff reports and that he headed to the place where his dying brother was before it was over. So Clark is probably wrong about why the killing continued but I have no doubt about the accuracy of what he actually saw, because others told similar tales.

The cover NBF's butt quote I was speaking of is the one from Caldwell. I believe it was written well after the war stating Forrest personally tried to stop the carnage; no he was already heading to his dying brother's bedside, while the carnage continued.

If he was talking about Clark and not Caldwell, than maybe we weren't agreeing.

Quote:

could be explained by the subordinate officer covering his butt after the war.
I thought by "his" in his post he was speaking of Forrest, which I believe is true for Caldwell. But if he meant Clark than I misunderstood.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think we are all on the same page now anyway.

BTW, I understand that a USG investigation cleared NBF of Ft. Pillow. Is that legit? Or did they let him off to "heal the nation" and crap like that? Were there other such investigations that ended in indictments?

Edit: Ah I see the Andersonville commander was executed. So that makes me think the NBF exoneration is legit.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The only investigation by congress that I am aware of is the one during the war where they had witnesses that said Forrest killed women, nailed blacks to fences alive and then set the fences on fire, they certainly gave no exoneration. Forrest was questioned by congress about Fort Pillow when he was at the hearing about the KKK but his memory was "pretty faulty" on recalling Ft. Pillow as well.

As to an exoneration it never occurred that I know of. There were calls to have him tired but nothing came of it. Wirz of Andersonville was just a major so executing him shortly after the war did not raise the sort of ire that executing a Lt. General and war hero would have.
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So, despite NBF's deliberate evasiveness after the war and over a century of Southern efforts to sanitize his record, would you say there is nonetheless enough historical evidence to conclude:

NBF commanded troops who committed an atrocity at Fort Pillow, even if evidence of his personal involvement is sketchy?

NBF was a founding member of the KKK, even if evidence of his role as Grand Wizard is sketchy?


terata
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"His men said that the men in Ft. Pillow were trying to escape to gunboats in the river."

I had read that too. In Steel Wills book I think he stated they were retrograding to rifle pits with full charged weapons. However, it's been a while since I read it, and I have slept since then. I have been to Fort Pillow and walked all over it, (it's a park) and I recommend any who are interested do the same, if the opportunity is available.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
74OA said:

NBF was a founding member of the KKK, even if evidence of his role as Grand Wizard is sketchy?
From what I can tell, it seems pretty conclusive that he was not a founder of the KKK. Whether or not he ever was a Grand Wizard is sketchy.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To the first question, yes.

To the second question, unknown but as I said earlier he was at least protective of the Klan during his testimony before congress.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQ78,

I just found this web page. How full of S is it? Here are the highlights (or lowlights if they are lies):

Quote:

Gen. Forrest was NOT the 'first Grand Wizard of the KKK'. For the correct information on that, here are the actual documented facts :
Actually, the "kuklos" was started in Pulaski, Tennessee, just before Christmas 1865, by six ex-Confederate officers, and was a sort of social club for Confederate officers.
Nathan Bedford Forrest had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of the Ku Klux Klan.
And even within the history of the Klan, differences must be noted between the Klan of the 1860s and the Klan of today.
The KKK that was reorganized in 1915 had a reputation as a bigoted and sometimes violent organization, fueled by hate and ignorance and thriving on fear and intimidation. But that wasn't always the case. The original KKK of the 1860s was organized as a fun club, or social club, for Confederate veterans. Many historians agree that if a YMCA had been available in the town of Pulaski, Tenn., the KKK might never have existed. It was also a social aid and welfare society whose main purpose was to protect those who had been dispossessed by the War, while helping maintain law and order during the so-called "Reconstruction".
I've read other defenders say that NBR left the KKK when the violence started and actually helped (or ordered) it to be disbanded. The above contradicts that.

Quote:

Not only did this early kkk have thousands of Black members, there was an all-black kkk chapter in Nashville at one time. (credit goes to Lochlainn Seabrook for that documented info).
I have NEVER heard this. Any idea who this Lochlainn Seabrook guy is?

Quote:

On Dec. 24, 1865, six young Confederate veterans met in the law office of Judge Thomas M. Jones, near the courthouse square in Pulaski. Their names were James R. Crowe, Calvin E. Jones, John B. Kennedy, John C. Lester, Frank O. McCord, and Richard B. Reed. All had been CSA officers and were lawyers, except Kennedy and McCord, who had each served as a private in the Confederate army. The meeting resulted in the idea of forming a social club, an 1860s version of the VFW or American Legion.
Notice, Gen. Forrest was not present at the founding meeting.
Their number quickly grew, and in meetings that followed, the men selected a name based on the Greek word "kuklos" meaning circle, from which they derived the name Ku Klux. Perhaps bowing to their Scotch-Irish ancestry, and to add alliteration to the name, they included "clan," spelled with a K. And so, quite innocently, a new social club called the Ku Klux Klan was created to provide recreation for Confederate veterans.


I have no idea why this picture does not work. It's of a plaque that lists the first 6 founding members of the KKK (NBF is not on it). To me, this is the only aspect of the NBR/KKK story that I believe (that he wasn't a founder):



This doesn't pass my smell test:
Quote:

Forrest's words went unheeded. The Memphis & Selma Railroad was organized by Forrest after the war to help rebuild the South's transportation and to build the 'new South'. Forrest took it upon himself to hire blacks as architects, construction engineers and foremen, train engineers and conductors, and other high level jobs. In the North, blacks were prohibited from holding such jobs.
I would imagine there weren't a whole lot of architects, engineers, etc. in the freed slave community.

Quote:

When Forrest was 'elected' Grand Wizard of the Klan in mid-1867 at the Maxwell House Hotel in Nashville, he wasn't even in town. He was 'elected' in absentia. That doesn't count as 'being elected'. The best scholarly research shows that Forrest never "led the Klan," he never "rode with" the Klan, nor did he ever own any Klan paraphernalia. It has been speculated by many that the reason for his name being submitted for the election was partly a prank, and mostly to discredit him for his work toward black equality such as his hiring practices for his railroad company. Forrest was a civil rights pioneer.

Anyway.. what do you think BQ78?




Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.