[Publisher's Note, by Gene Kizer, Jr. - Forrest's testimony continues with Part 2. To bring you up to date:

On June 27, 1871, in Washington, D.C., Nathan Bedford Forrest testified before the Joint Select Committee of the United States Congress on the Ku-Klux.ⁱ Forrest was called to testify because the Committee thought that he and Gen. John B. Gordon knew more about the KKK than anybody else.

Ever since the end of the War Between the States, Forrest has been falsely accused of being the grand wizard and founder of the KKK. However, John Allan Wyeth in his famous biography Life of General Nathan Bedford Forrest writes about Forrest's testimony:

Forrest testified that while he did not take an active part in the organization of the Ku-Klux, he knew that it was an association of citizens in his state (Tennessee) for self-protection. There was a great, widespread, and deep feeling of insecurity felt by those who had sympathized with the South in the war, as a result of Governor Brownlow's calling out the militia and his proclamation, which they had interpreted as a license for the state troops, without fear of punishment, to commit any kind of depredation against those lately in arms against the Union. Forrest stated that he had advised against all manner of violence on the part of the Southern people, and when the Loyal Leagues, for fear of the Ku-Klux, began to disband, he urged the disbanding of the other society.ⁱⁱ

The Committee believed Forrest and concluded in their final report:

The statements of these gentlemen (Forrest and Gordon) are full and explicit. . . . The evidence fully sustains them, and it is only necessary to turn to the official documents of Tennessee to show that all Forrest said about the alarm which prevailed during the administration of Governor Brownlow was strictly true. No State was ever reduced to such humiliation and degradation as that unhappy commonwealth during the years Brownlow ruled over her.ⁱⁱⁱ

Here is Part 2.]

Question. Who sent it to you?

Answer. That I cannot tell.

Question. Did it come anonymously?

Answer. Yes, sir; it came to me anonymously.

Question. What was the purport of it?

Answer. The purport of that constitution, as far as I recollect it now, was that the organization was formed for self-protection. The first obligation they took, if I recollect it aright, was to abide by and obey the laws of the country; to protect the weak; to protect the women and children; obligating themselves to stand by each other in case of insurrection or anything of that sort. I think that was about the substance of the obligation.

Question. Was it a secret organization?

Answer. I presume it was.

Question. Did it so purport to be in the constitution?

Answer. Yes, sir; I think so.

Question. The constitution require secrecy?

Answer. I think it required secrecy.

Question. Did it require the members of the society to obey the orders of all superior officers?

Answer. Yes, sir; I think so.

Question. Under what penalty?

Answer. I do not think there was any penalty attached; I do not recollect now.

Question. Did it refer to a ritual, or a mode of initiation?

Answer. I think it did.

Question. What was the name of the organization given in that constitution?

Answer. Ku-Klux.

Question. It was called Ku-Klux?

Answer. No, sir; it was not called Ku-Klux. I do not think there was any name given to it.

Question. No name given to it?

Answer. No, sir; I do not think there was. As well as I recollect, there were three stars in place of a name. I do not think there was any name given to it.

Question. That is, when it came to the name there was a blank, and stars in the blank?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Signifying that the name was to be kept secret?

Answer. You are to place your own construction on that.

Question. That is the way it stood--the name of the organization left blank, and stars in its place--that is the way it stood in the constitution?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Have you any idea how that came to be sent to you?

Answer. No, sir; I do not know how it came to be sent to me.

Question. From what point was it sent?

Answer. It was mailed from some place in Tennessee; I do not recollect now what point it was mailed from. I was getting at that time from fifty to one hundred letters a day, and had a private secretary writing all the time. I was receiving letters from all the Southern States, men complaining, being dissatisfied, persons whose friends had been killed, or their families insulted, and they were writing to me to know what they ought to do.

Question. Was there any request of any character to you in connection with this constitution?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. There was no written communication along with it?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. Nothing to signify from whom it came?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. Was there anything to show where it was printed?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. No printers name on it?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. No place at which it was printed?

Answer. No; there was nothing indicating where it was printed; there was nothing to indicate that; I am certain there was not.

Question. It was the constitution of a secret society, organized where?

Answer. Well, it did not say.

Question. Do you believe that constitution was the basis of the organization which you say existed in Tennessee?

Answer. I think it was.

Question. Did it require an organization in each county?

Answer. Well, I cannot say whether it did not; I do not know whether they had an organization in each country or not.

Question. Did the constitution require it?

Answer. I think not.

Question. Was there a mode of getting up subordinate and superior organizations?

Answer. Well, I presume there was; I do not recollect now. Well, if I had thought this thing would have come up in that shape, I would have tried to have gotten hold of one of these prescripts, as they were called, to give to you.

Question. Is it your impression that there were subordinate camps, or lodges, or divisions, whatever they were called, in each county?

Answer. Well, yes, sir; I reckon there was.

Question. Under the control of a superior officer in the county?

Answer. Yes, sir; I presume that was the intention of it.

Question. Were they required to report to a superior organization in the State?

Answer. I do not think they were; I do not recollect that they were.

Question. In the account of this interview you are represented as saying, "This list of names is forwarded to the grand commander of the State, who is thus enabled to know who are our friends and who are not."

Answer. I do not think there is anything in this prescript indicating anything of that sort.

Question. There may not be a "grand commander;" may there not be a chief officer of this organization in the State?

Answer. I do not know whether there was or not.

Question. You read the prescript?

Answer. Yes, sir; there was no name given in the prescript.

Question. I am not speaking of the name of the man; but was there not such an officer, to be appointed or selected in the State?

Answer. It looks as if there would be in an organization of that sort.

Question. Is not that your impression, that there was a State organization, organizations in the counties, and interior organizations in the counties?

Answer. No, sir; I did not consider it a State organization.

Question. Then each county was an organization in itself?

Answer. There might have been an organization in the State, but, from all the information I could get, it was laid off in counties of the State. I think this organization was more in the neighborhood of places where there was danger of persons being molested, or in large negro counties, where they were fearful that the negroes would rise up. I think that is where the organization existed mostly. I do not think it existed at all in the poorer neighborhoods, where there was no danger of insurrection. There were a great many fires at that time, burning of gin-houses, mills, etc.

Question. Had there been any disturbance of that kind in your neighborhood?

Answer. No, sir; there was no difficulty there in my neighborhood, with one exception.

Question. Did you act upon that prescript?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. Did you take any steps for organizing under it?

Answer. I do not think I am compelled to answer any question that would implicate me in anything. I believe the law does not require that I should do anything of the sort.

Question. Do you place your declination to answer upon that ground?

Answer. I do not.

Question. I only wish to know your reasons for declining to answer. I will communicate to you the fact that there is an act of Congress which provides that such a reason shall not excuse a witness from answering. I you desire, I will read it to you. It is as follows:

"That the provision of the second section of the act entitled 'An act more effectually to enforce the attendance of witnesses on the summons of either House of Congress, and to compel them to discover testimony,' approved January 24, 1867, be amended, altered, and repealed, so as to read as follows: That the testimony of a witness examined and testifying before either House of Congress, or any committee of either House of  Congress, shall not be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding against such witness in any court of justice: Provided, however, That no official paper or record produced by such witness on such examination shall be held or taken to be included within the privilege of said evidence so to protect such witness from any criminal proceeding as aforesaid; and not witness shall hereafter be allowed to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper touching which he shall be examined by either House of Congress or any committee of either House, for the reason that his testimony touching such fact, or the production of such paper, may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed to exempt any witness from prosecution and punishment for purjury (sic) committed by him in testifying as aforesaid."

I will repeat the question: Did you take any steps for organizing an association or society under that prescription?

Answer. I did not.

Question. Did you communicate it to any other person for the purpose of having an organization made?

Answer. The organization was made, I presume, before I ever saw the prescript or knew anything about it.

Question. Did you communicate this prescript, or any copy of it, to any person, for the purpose of enabling them to organize under it?

Answer. I never sent out any of the prescripts, or anything of that kind, to any one.

Question. Did you give this particular prescript, or any copy of it, to anybody, so that they might use it for organizing under it?

Answer. I have just stated that I never gave our any or sent out any for the purpose of organizing.

Question. I am now inquiring about this particular prescript, not about distributing others.

Answer. No, sir, I never did; I burned that one up.

Question. Did you show it to any one, read it to any one, or allow any one to read it?

Answer. I am not able to answer that question; I do not recollect whether I ever did or not; I might have shown it and I might not have shown it; I do not recollect.

Question. Were there any organizations of this order, whatever it may be, in your neighborhood after that time?

Answer. I presume there were before.

Question. Where there any afterward?

Answer. I think there were.

Question. Do you know any of the members of them?

Answer. No, sir, not now, I do not recollect the members of them.

Question. Did you know at that time who were the members?

Answer. I do not remember.

Question. Can you now tell us who were the members, or any single member, of that organization?

Answer. [After a pause.] Well, that is a question I do not want to answer now.

Question. You decline to answer?

Answer. I would prefer to have a little time, if you will permit me.

By Mr. Stevenson:

Question. What is your reason for wanting time?

Answer. I want to study up and find out who they were, if I have got to answer the question; that is the reason.

By the Chairman:

Question. What length of time will you probably require?

Answer. Well, sir, I do not know that I could say now, as I am in the midst of this examination. I would like you to pass that over for the present and let me have some time to think it over.

Question. Do you remember whether there were any signs or pass-words referred to in the prescript?

Answer. I think there were.

Question. Were they given in it, or did the prescript refer to a ritual or mode of initiation for the signs?

Answer. I think the prescript referred to a ritual.

Question. Do you know what any of those signs and pass-words were?

Answer. I did know, but I have not thought of it in two years, and I do not know that I could give one of them.

Question. If you can give one now, do so.

Answer. I do not believe I could. You will have to let that pass over a little while, if it is necessary to answer it, for it is a matter that has gone out of my knowledge for eighteen months or two years; I have not thought of it in that time.

Question. Your impression is that the pass-words and signs were not given in the prescript, but were referred to in the ritual or mode of initiation?

Answer. I am not able to answer that question; I do not know whether they were or not.

Question. Have you ever seen those signs used among any of the men in Alabama or Mississippi.

Answer. I never had; I have never seen the organization together.

Question. Or in Tennessee?

Answer. I have never seen the organization together in numbers.

Question. Well, without seeing it together, have you ever seen those signs used for the purpose of recognition between individuals?

Answer. Yes, sir, I think I have.

Question. You recognized the signs?

Answer. Well, yes, I understood it.

Question. Understanding it, then, do you still wish time to consider whether you could give them or not?

Answer. I cannot give you one of them correctly now to save my life, I have no idea I could. It was a matter I knew very little about; I had very little to do with it. All my efforts were addressed to stop it, disband it, and prevent it.

Question. How did you get to know the sign?

Answer. It was given to me by one who, I supposed, was on of the members.

Question. Did he understand you to be one?

Answer. No, sir, not at that time.

Question. How came he to give it to you?

Answer. I asked him to give it to me in order that I might try and check the thing; I was trying to keep it down as much as possible.

Question. Who was he?

Answer. This man Saunders, who, I told you, died at Asheville, North Carolina; he was poisoned by his wife there.

Question. When was it?

Answer. In 1867; the early part of 1867.

Question. Were you trying to suppress the organization, or the outrages you speak of?

Answer. I was trying to suppress the outrages.

Question. Outages committed by colored men?

Answer. By all people; my object was to keep peace.

Question. Did you want to suppress that organization?

Answer. Yes, sir; I did suppress it.

Question. How?

Answer. Had it broken up and disbanded.

Question. What influence did you exert in disbanding it?

Answer. I talked with different people that I believed were connected with it, and urged its disbandment, that it should be broken up.

Question. In the light of that statement, is it not probable that this part of the account of the interview with you is correct?

"Since its organization the leagues have quit killing and murdering our people. There were some foolish young men who put masks on their faces, and rode over the country, frightening negroes; but orders have been issued to stop that, and it has ceased."

Answer. I never uttered such words; I did not talk to that man twenty words.

Question. You say you were trying to stop the proceedings, and that they did stop?

Answer. Yes, sir; and I think they completely stopped. I do not hear of anything of that kind now--of difficulties there--any more than I hear of them here. I think that since 1868 that organization has been disbanded. I do not think there has been any organization together; if there has been, it has been by irresponsible parties, without any organization at all.

Question. What was the object of their pass-word?

Answer. I presume like any other pass-word.

Question. What was their pass-word?

Answer. I cannot tell you now.

Question. Did you know?

Answer. At one time I believe I did know one of their pass-words, but I have forgotten what it was.

Question. Was it Shiloh?

Answer. No, sir, I never heard that given as a pass-word.

Question. When you got the sign and the pass-word, did you not also get the name of the organization, so as to be able to fill the blank in the prescript?

Answer. Well, I believe it was called the Ku-Klux organization; I do not know whether the young man gave it to me at that time or not. It was in the road, when we were talking about it.

Question. Then you at least had the confidence of the organization?

Answer. I had the confidence of the southern people, I think.

Question. Was there any political object whatever in this organization?

Answer. There never was, that I ever heard of.

Question. You say you have seen this sign recognized; where?

Answer. The sign I saw recognized, I believe--well, I do not recollect now where it was; whether in the house or on the road.

Question. Was it in Tennessee?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Did you ever see it recognized any place else?

Answer. No, sir, I never did.

Question. Against whom did this organization operate?

Answer. I do not think it operated against any person particularly; I think it was, as I said before, an organization for the protection of southern people against mobs, and rapes, and things of that sort. I never knew any portion of the organization to commit any deed.

Question. Did you never understand that they went out and took persons from their homes and whipped them?

Answer. That was the newspaper rumor.

Question. Of all those you have heard of being whipped were any democrats?

Answer. Well, I do not know that they were; I do not recollect whether they were democrats or what they were. I heard of some men who had been stealing horses being whipped, and I heard of men being whipped who had been whipping their wives; and I heard of negroes being whipped who had been committing outrages, or something of that sort--caught on the road with things in their possession. They were thrashed.

Question. Did you ever hear of any other persons except those charged with offenses of this kind being visited by this party?

Answer. I heard of Boyd and others being killed; but that came more directly under my eye, from the fact that I was building my road and passing through the country there.

Question. Was it not your information that the men who killed Boyd came there in the same kind of uniform and disguise as was used by these men in Tennessee?

Answer. I never heard; I understood they were disguised, but I never understood what was the disguise.

Question. What was the manner in which these men were disguised in Tennessee?

Answer. In almost every shape.

Question. Did they have masks over their faces?

Answer. I think some had masks.

Question. Did they have high caps on their heads?

Answer. Some of them had caps, some had none at all.

Question. Did they have loose gowns?

Answer. I do not think there was any uniform that they adopted. I heard of some having on black gowns, some red gowns, and some with white sheets wrapped around them. I do not think there was any uniform.

By Mr. Beck:

Question. How long since you have read over this article in the Cincinnati Commercial of September 1, 1868, purporting to give the interview with you?

Answer. I have never read it since shortly after it was published. It was a matter like many others. There were a great many things said in regard to myself that I looked upon as gotten up merely to affect the elections in the North. I felt that was the object of it. I passed it by, and have not thought of it since.

Question. They have been in the habit of writing a great many things about you in the newspapers.

Answer. Particularly about that time the papers were full of them, not only all the papers, but people all over the Northern States were making speeches denouncing me; at least they were reported in the papers.

Question. You did not profess to answer what you saw generally in the newspapers?

Answer. I did not; I felt it was useless, that it would have no effect.

Question. You do not even now know the contents of this article, except such portions of it as the Chairman has read to you to-day?

Answer. I do not; I do not recollect having read it since that time.

By Mr. Poland:

Question. The letter which you wrote yourself, and which was published, you wrote after reading the article in the newspaper?

Answer. Yes, sir; I wrote that letter after reading the article in the paper.

Question. You then knew what it was?

Answer. Yes, sir.

By Mr. Beck:

Question. This is your letter:

"Memphis, September 3, 1868. (right justified in text)

"Dear Sir: I have just read your letter in the Commercial, giving a report of our conversation on Friday last. I do not think you would intentionally misrepresent me, but you have done so, and I supposed you mistook my meaning. The portions of your letter to which I object are correct in the following paragraphs:

"I promise the legislature my personal influence and aid in maintaining order and enforcing the laws. I have never advised the people to resist any law, but to submit to the laws until they can be corrected by lawful legislation.

"I said the militia bill would occasion no trouble, unless they violated the law by carrying out the governor's proclamation, which I believe to be unconstitutional and in violence of law, in shooting men down without trial, as recommended by that proclamation.

"I said it was reported, and I believed the report, that there are 40,000 Ku-Klux in Tennessee; and I believe the organization stronger in other States. I meant to imply, when I said that the Ku-Klux recognized the Federal Government, that they would obey all State laws. They recognized all laws and will obey them, so I have been informed, in protecting peaceable citizens from oppression from any quarter.

"I did not say that any man's house was picketed. I did not mean to convey the idea that I would raise any troops, and, more than that, no man could do it in five days, if they were organized.

"I said that General Grant was at Holly Springs and not at Corinth; I said the charge against him was false, but I did not use the word 'liar.'

"I cannot consent to remain silent in this matter; for if I do, under an incorrect impression of my personal views, I might be looked upon as one desiring a conflict, when, in truth, I am so adverse to anything of the kind that I will make any honorable sacrifice to avoid it.

"Hoping that I may have this explanation placed before your readers, I remain, very respectfully," &c.

Did I understand you to tell the Chairman that you did not undertake to correct all the misrepresentations of the correspondence, but only such things as you thought did you personal injustice?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Leaving the false misrepresentations to stand for what they were worth?

Answer. That is what I intended to do. In fact, I did not want to go into a long detail of the thing. I said to this gentleman that I believed there was such an organization from the best information that I could get. But as to the numbers I did not tell him, because I knew nothing about the numbers. I said to him that I did not believe there would be any conflict with the people of Tennessee, unless the militia went out and attempted to destroy the people, as Governor Brownlow's proclamation indicated.

Question. What was your understanding of that proclamation of Brownlow? I have forgotten all about it.

Answer. I have not read the proclamation since it first came out. I was very actively engaged, and have been since that time, in trying to build railroads and establish factories and foundries in the country. I have been traveling and working all the time, and I have not thought anything about these things. My recollection of his proclamation is that the militia should not be punished, or would not be punished, for any depredations they might commit upon rebels; that the people there would be treated as rebels, &c.; intimating that if a man killed a man who had been in the southern army, there would be nothing done with him.

By Mr. Van Trump:

Question. That proclamation was issued after the close of the war?

Answer. Yes, sir; in 1866 or 1867, I believe; about the time of this organization.

Question. Do you not know the fact that these leagues were organized before the Ku-Klux was heard of?

Answer. I do not know whether it was or not; but that was my understanding--that this organization was organized after the proclamation and after those leagues.

By Mr. Beck:

Question. What was the effect upon the people of Tennessee as to their sense of security of life and property, and the safety of their wives and children, after that proclamation of Brownlow; whatever may have been the language of it, what impression was produced upon the people of Tennessee by it?

Answer. It produced a great deal of fear and trepidation on the part of the people; they feared the militia would undertake to carry out the idea of the proclamation.

By Mr. Van Trump:

Question. It was a kind of amnesty for any future depredations this militia might commit.

Answer. Yes, sir; that was the intent of the proclamation; at least the southern people so looked upon it. If a man belonging to the militia should shoot you and me down, if we were southern men, there would be nothing done to him.

By Mr. Beck:

Question. That was the impression made upon the people?

Answer. Yes, sir; and then the Loyal League coming in about the same time, and these rapes being committed, and the impudent colored people constantly toting about arms, firing in the night-time, created a great deal of uneasiness in the thick neighborhoods, where there were negroes; but in the poorer neighborhoods I do not think that insecurity was felt.

Question. Were the white people disarmed by Brownlow's orders, and forbidden, in organized bodies, to carry arms?

Answer. I think so; I do not recollect now.

Question. Was that the fact?

Answer. That was the understanding.

Question. Were the militia composed mostly of colored men?

Answer. No, sir; not in that part of the State; I think that in the middle portion of the State the most of them were white men, but I think some colored troops were out.

To Be Continued

ⁱ United States Congress. Joint Select Committee On The Condition Of Affairs In The Late Insurrectionary States, Luke P Poland, John Scott, and Woodrow Wilson Collection. Report of the Joint select committee appointed to inquire into the condition of affairs in the late insurrectionary states, so far as regards the execution of laws, and the safety of the lives and property of the citizens of the United States and Testimony taken. [Washington, Govt. print. off, 1872] Web https://lccn.loc.gov/35031867. Forrest's testimony is in Volume XIII, Miscellaneous and Florida.

ⁱⁱ John Allan Wyeth, That Devil Forrest, Life of General Nathan Bedford Forrest (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1959), 550-551.

ⁱⁱⁱ Ibid.