IN DEFENSE OF GENERAL NATHAN BEDFORD FORREST, CSA

Michael Climo, a California resident and member of Sons of Confederate Veterans, has written an article for Examiner.com, in which he clears up several misconceptions about Nathan Bedford Forrest.  We are reprinting the article below in its entirety, as online articles tend to disappear after a short time, especially ones that go against the "conventional wisdom."

IN DEFENSE OF NATHAN BEDFORD FORREST
by Michael Climo, California Sons of Confederate Veterans

General Nathan Bedford Forrest, CSA

It has been almost 150 years since the end of the War Between the States and Nathan Bedford Forrest remains known largely for three things – his talent and daring on the battlefield, the Fort Pillow “Massacre” and his role in the Ku Klux Klan. His military skills have earned him grudging respect by even the most ardent Yankee, but he is otherwise scorned as an unrepentant racist and murderer. But Forrest was not the one-dimensional villain that many uninformed people portray him to be.

In contrast, when Forrest enlisted in the Confederate Army in 1861, Forrest was worth roughly 1.5 million dollars. But unlike many of his contemporaries, Forrest never lost sight of the fact that he was dealing with people. Although it is probably safe to assume that he never considered blacks his equals he still followed a strict rule to never buy or sell a slave if it would break up a family. He would also reunite broken families by buying the individual members and then selling them as a family unit.

Nathan Bedford Forrest: The Slave Trader
Forrest is often reviled for his pre-war activity of trading slaves, and it’s true that not only was he a slave trader, he was quite successful at it. But by no means was he alone. U.S. senator James DeWolf of Bristol, Rhode Island was the most successful slave-trader in American history and he was responsible for transporting at least 10,000 Africans to the Americas. DeWolf curried favor with President Thomas Jefferson in order to continue in the trade long after it was outlawed. When DeWolf died in 1837 he was a multi-millionaire and considered the second-richest man in America.

Forrest was also determined that slaves should be treated humanely. He had a list of men that he refused to sell slaves to because they were known as cruel masters. Forrest also allowed newly purchased slaves a measure of self-determination that was unheard of in that day and age. He would give the slave a pass to move about town with the instructions to “find the man you would like to be your master, and I will then sell you to that man.”

Nathan Bedford Forrest: The Slave Owner
It would seem that Forrest was well-regarded by his own slaves as well. When he formed his own cavalry unit, he offered his male slaves the opportunity to ride with him and fight for the Confederacy. In return, if they served honorably, they would be given their freedom at war’s end, win or lose. Forty-five men accepted the offer, and 44 stayed with him through the end of the war. In 1863, well before the end of the war, Forrest drew up the papers freeing them all.

Of these 45 newly freed men, 44 stayed with him and continued to serve in the Confederate Army until the end of the war. The one other man returned home to nurse his dying wife. In 1876, Forrest wrote, “Those boys stayed with me…and better Confederates did not live…those among us during the war behaved in such a manner that I shall always respect them for it.” Throughout his writings, even in personal letters, Forrest consistently referred to slaves or free man as ‘colored’ or ‘black,’ which were the politically correct terms of his times.

Nathan Bedford Forrest: The Fort Pillow Incident
Recently, Glenn Beck and David Barton made statements on Beck’s program about Nathan Bedford Forrest that were completely inaccurate. Beck held up a sword that belonged to Forrest, that Barton claims was used at Fort Pillow to skin black Union soldiers alive. This is nothing more than false conjecture that has reached reprehensible levels over time. Fort Pillow was indeed a vicious battle, but the truth was clearly not presented by Beck and Barton. Perhaps they should actually read the U.S. Congressional inquiry into the matter.

Only two weeks after the battle the inquiry could not conclusively determine exactly what happened. Both sides failed to control the action, and only Forrest’s direct, personal intervention to stop the shooting saved many of the Union defenders left standing on the beach. Not satisfied with this Congressional inquiry, Union General William T. Sherman convened a not-so-impartial inquiry. He openly stated that he would try and convict General Forrest. However, Sherman’s inquiry also ended without substantive evidence to find Forrest culpable. However, if this actual record does not meet with your satisfaction perhaps Lt. Col. Edwin L. Kennedy, Jr., Assistant Professor, Department of Command and Leadership, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama review of the events at Fort Pillow will: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/nathan-bedford-forrest-and-the-battle-of-fort-pillow-1864.htm. With this evidence at hand, to you Mr. Beck and Mr. Barton I say this: You said it, now you prove it!

Nathan Bedford Forrest: The White Knights
To some extent, Forrest’s association with the Klu Klux Klan has been exaggerated over the years. True, in 1865 he helped form the Knights of the White Camellia, but Forrest’s Knights differed greatly from the modern image of the Klan. Today’s Klan would find the founding members of the White Knights highly objectionable because several of these former Confederate officers were Jewish. Forrest’s original vision was of a political and fraternal group, and the goal was to fight the excesses of the Freedman’s Bureau and the Federal occupation troops.

That intent obviously became badly warped even early on, and some members adopted a violent approach. When these members refused to stop what amounted to terrorism or to give up wearing masks, Forrest asked for the group to disband and renounced his association with them. The modern Klan that we know actually dates back less than 100 years. Founded in Gary, Indiana, in 1915, the Klan may claim they are the legacy of Forrest’s Knights of the White Camellia, but their philosophies and practices bear little resemblance to the views actually held by Forrest himself.

In 1871 a Congressional committee composed of Radical Republicans investigated the Klan, its origins, its activities and the possible involvement of former Confederate leaders. They had the current facts at-hand and the men they were investigating testified before them. Among those compelled to testify was Forrest. The Committee, which would have liked nothing better than to be able to charge and try Forrest, concluded in its official findings that Forrest did not found the Klan, was not the Klan's leader, did not advise the Klan and instead worked only to have the Klan disband. See "The reports of Committees, House of Representatives, second session, forty-second congress," P. 7-449. Again with this evidence at hand I say to all of you disbelievers, prove it otherwise.

Nathan Bedford Forrest: After the War
Both Forrest’s public speeches and private writings spoke of peace and reconciliation. This began as early as his farewell address to his troops in 1865. He explained, “Reason dictates and humanity demands that no more blood to be shed. Fully realizing and feeling that such is the case, it is your duty and mine to lay down our arms, submit to the powers that be, and to aid in restoring peace and establishing law and order throughout the land.”

He also instructed his men that “Civil war, such as you have just passed through naturally engenders feelings of animosity, hatred and revenge. It is our duty to divest ourselves of all such feelings; and as far as it is in our power to do so, to cultivate friendly feelings towards those with whom we have so long contended…”

Forrest was invited to speak often in the years following the war, and he encouraged support for the U.S. government and Constitution, and acceptance of free blacks as political and legal equals. His last public speech was in 1875 at a Fourth of July BBQ held by the Independent Order of Pole Bearers, an early black civil rights organization in Memphis. Although many of his white contemporaries urged him to decline the invitation, Forrest ignored their advice.

Speaking to the group, Forrest said, “I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence…and shall do all in my power to elevate every man, to depress none. I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going.” He also encouraged them to vote, saying “I don’t propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office.”

While I do not claim that Nathan Bedford Forrest was a saint and deserves consideration as a civil rights pioneer, an objective look at history shows that he was a far more complicated man than is often portrayed.

Surviving the Current Anti-Confederate Intifada

Our politically correct culture strongly dictates what we may think, say or believe, and that culture now dictates hatred and intolerance towards the Confederacy, and a rigid insistence on a Northern biased historical interpretation thereof.  As a result, we are now involved in a national hysteria that requires all Confederate flags, symbols, songs and monuments to be censored and suppressed.

We do not agree and we will resist societal pressure to conform to the Northern Myth, the falsehood that the North invaded the South to free the slaves, and that the former was benevolent and good, and the latter villainous and evil.  Meanwhile, however, we need to cope with the situation.  Here are my thoughts:

1.  Due to anti-Confederate hysteria, this blog will not disclose the membership of Camp 1440 without the prior permission of individual members.  The reason is simple:  some radical groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center for example, may call your employer and attempt to get you fired.  Or, they may list you as a "racist" on their website.  These people are vicious and unprincipled.  There is no reason why any member of the SCV should expose himself and his family to economic hardship and joblessness that may arise from mindless discrimination.  

2.  For those who wish to comment on this blog, feel free to adopt a pseudonym, as opposed to using your real name in the messaging system.  Give yourself a nickname so that you can comment anonymously, like Cooter, NCRebel, Grits, Smokey, etc.

3.  Don't despair.  We will get through this.  Irrational hysteria sometimes sweeps the nation, but then dies away when rational thought returns.  Meanwhile, we will develop strategies to refute the myths and defend our ancestors, while protecting our membership from persecution.

In spite of this popular wave of hatred against the Confederacy, our ranks are stronger than ever.  Applications for membership have been pouring in, and Headquarters in Tennessee are two months behind in processing new applications.

There are a number of websites, blogs and FaceBook pages that defend Confederate history.  These are a wealth of information.  I will list them later for your perusal.  Meanwhile, think about ways to turn the ignorance around, and fight back effectively.

"The New Intolerance" -- An Essay by Patrick J. Buchanan, Member, SCV

The New Intolerance
by  Patrick J. Buchanan
04/09/2010

"This was a recognition of American terrorists."

That is CNN's Roland Martin's summary judgment of the 258,000 men and boys who fell fighting for the Confederacy in a war that cost as many American lives as World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq combined.

Martin reflects the hysteria that seized Obamaville on hearing that Gov. Bob McDonnell had declared Confederate History Month in the Old Dominion. Virginia leads the nation in Civil War (sic) battlefields.

So loud was the howling that in 24 hours McDonnell had backpedaled and issued an apology that he had not mentioned slavery.

Unfortunately, the governor missed a teaching moment -- at the outset of the 150th anniversary of America's bloodiest war.

Slavery was indeed evil, but it existed in the Americas a century before the oldest of our founding fathers was even born. Five of our first seven presidents were slaveholders.

But Virginia did not secede in defense of slavery. Indeed, when Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated, March 4, 1861, Virginia was still in the Union. Only South Carolina, Georgia and the five Gulf states had seceded and created the Confederate States of America.

At the firing on Fort Sumter, April 12-13, 1865, the first shots of the Civil War (sic), Virginia was still inside the Union. Indeed, there were more slave states in the Union than in the Confederacy. But, on April 15, Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 volunteers from the state militias to march south and crush the new Confederacy.

Two days later, April 17, Virginia seceded rather than provide soldiers or militia to participate in a war on their brethren. North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas followed Virginia out over the same issue. They would not be a party to a war on their kinfolk.

Slavery was not the cause of this war. Secession was -- that and Lincoln's determination to drown the nation in blood if necessary to make the Union whole again.

Nor did Lincoln ever deny it.

In his first inaugural, Lincoln sought to appease the states that had seceded by endorsing a constitutional amendment to make slavery permanent in the 15 states where it then existed. He even offered to help the Southern states run down fugitive slaves.

In 1862, Lincoln wrote Horace Greeley that if he could restore the Union without freeing one slave he would do it. The Emancipation Proclamation of Jan. 1, 1863, freed only those slaves Lincoln had no power to free -- those still under Confederate rule. As for slaves in the Union states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, they remained the property of their owners.

As for "terrorists," no army fought more honorably than Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Few deny that.

The great terrorist in that war was William Tecumseh Sherman, who violated all the known rules of war by looting, burning and pillaging on his infamous March to the Sea from Atlanta to Savannah. Sherman would later be given command of the war against the Plains Indians and advocate extermination of the Sioux.

"The only good Indian is a dead Indian" is attributed both to Sherman and Gen. Phil Sheridan, who burned the Shenandoah and carried out Sherman's ruthless policy against the Indians. Both have statues and circles named for them in Washington, D.C.

If Martin thinks Sherman a hero, he might study what happened to the slave women of Columbia, S.C., when "Uncle Billy's" boys in blue arrived to burn the city.

What of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, at whose request McDonnell issued his proclamation? What racist deeds have they perpetrated of late?

They tend the graves of Confederate dead and place flags on Memorial Day. They contributed to the restoration of the home of Jefferson Davis, damaged by Hurricane Katrina. They publish the Confederate Veteran, a magazine that relates stories of the ancestors they love to remember. They join environmentalists in fighting to preserve Civil War (sic) battlefields. They do re-enactments of Civil War (sic) battles with men and boys whose ancestors fought for the Union. And they defend the monuments to their ancestors and the flag under which they fought.

Why are they vilified?

Because they are Southern white Christian men -- none of whom defends slavery, but all of whom are defiantly proud of the South, its ancient faith and their forefathers who fell in the Lost Cause.

Undeniably, the Civil War (sic) ended in the abolition of slavery and restoration of the Union. But the Southern states believed they had the same right to rid themselves of a government to which they no longer felt allegiance as did Washington, Jefferson and Madison, all slave-owners, who could no longer give loyalty to the king of England.

Consider closely this latest skirmish in a culture war that may yet make an end to any idea of nationhood, and you will see whence the real hate is coming. It is not from Gov. McDonnell or the Sons of Confederate Veterans.