Testimony of Nathan Bedford Forrest Before the Joint Select Committee of the U.S. Congress on the Ku-Klux, etc., Part 3

[Publisher's Note, by Gene Kizer, Jr. - Forrest's testimony continues with Part 3. 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 3.]

Question. That militia was organized under that proclamation, and substantially took possession of the police of the country?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. While they were in power, was it the fact that there were cases of rape, arson, house-breaking, and other crimes?

Answer. There were cases of that sort reported throughout the country; I do not know to what extent; and there were cases where they were tried and put in the penitentiary, and the governor pardoned them at once; they were turned loose; I merely heard of one or two cases, but I do not recollect them now.

By Mr. Van Trump:

Question. Was not the very name of Brownlow at that time a terror to the people of Tennessee?

Answer. It was; they were very much frightened.

By Mr. Beck:

Question. So that his militia were not regarded as being put out in good faith for the protection of the people, but to put down one party and elevate the other for his own political aggrandizement.

Answer. That was the understanding, and a great many men had to fly the country in East Tennessee; and a great many have not gone back yet. A great many who had been in the southern army were killed, when they returned home, by Union men. There was more bitterness there than in any other part of the country.

By Mr. Van Trump:

Question. East Tennessee was Brownlow's residence before he was governor?

Answer. Yes, sir.

By Mr. Beck:

Question. You say that whatever organization of Ku-Klux, or anything else, took place in the region of country with which you are familiar, it was gotten up through fear of depredations by the militia, and was the result of that state of things?

Answer. That is my understanding of it.

Question. And for the protection of themselves where the law was considered powerless?

Answer. According to my understanding, the organization was intended entirely as a protection to the people, to enforce the laws, and protect the people against outrages.

Question. Without any regard to whether they were perpetrated by democrats or republicans?

Answer. Yes, sir, I do not think that would make any difference; that is, that is my impression, while I do not know that is so; that was the general understanding in the community.

Question. So far as you had any understanding or information, was it to act upon elections in any shape or form?

Answer. No, sir, I never heard it said it was to have anything to do with elections.

By Mr. Van Trump:

Question. In Tennessee you did not care much about elections then?

Answer. A large portion of the people in the State were disfranchised, and they did not attempt to make any effort to carry elections.

By Mr. Beck:

Question. Did there not come a change for the better over Tennessee in 1868, in the management of their laws?

Answer. As I said before, this organization was dispersed.

By Mr. Stevenson:

Question. When was it dispersed?

Answer. In the early part of 1868.

Question. Do you mean in the spring of 1868?

Answer. Yes, sir; well, it might have been in the early part of the summer months; I cannot say, I do not know now.

By Mr. Beck:

Question. This communication, in the Cincinnati Commercial, bears date of the 1st of September, 1868. Were you speaking of the then existing state of things, or a previously existing state of things?

Answer. The letter I wrote was in answer to the letter this man had written.

Question. That was in September?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. And you think that at that time the organization had been disbanded?

Answer. Well, it must have been later than that; it must have been in the latter part of 1868, I reckon, that it was disbanded.

Question. Later than you first thought?

Answer. Yes, sir, I think it must have been in the latter part of 1868.

Question. The date of this communication would indicate that it was later than you first said?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. When was Senter elected governor of Tennessee; in 1868 or 1869?

Answer. I do not recollect; I have never voted, and have not paid any attention to the elections.

Question. You never have voted?

Answer. I voted a short time ago at Memphis for a subscription to build a railroad.

By Mr. Van Trump:

Question. That was not a political vote?

Answer. No, sir; I have never offered a political vote; that is the only vote I have case since the war.

By the Chairman:

Question. Did you vote in 1868?

Answer. No, sir.

By Mr. Beck:

Question. You could not?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. At that time there was a large number of men in Tennessee disfranchised?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. And you were one of them?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. When that organization was disbanded in 1868, what was the information you had as to the reason why it was disbanded?

Answer. That there was no further use for it; that the country was safe; that there was no apprehension of any trouble.

Question. You believed the laws would be vindicated without any interference of the people to protect themselves?

Answer. Yes, sir; Governor Brownlow had modified himself very much; the laws were going on and being respected and executed.

Question. Is that your understanding that persons who, of late, within the last year or two, have been disguising themselves and violating the law, have been doing it as mere temporary organizations?

Answer. I think it has been among wild young men and bad men; I do not think they have had any such organization.

Question. They have been called by the same name of the original organization that once existed?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. What is the length of your line of railroad?

Answer. It is two hundred and eighty miles.

Question. Running through the counties you have named?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. During the last year or two has there been any serious trouble among the people, white or black, along that line of road?

Answer. I have heard of but three cases. One is where they took out a man who had been arrested and put in jail for stealing horses. Another was at Greensboro in regard to the probate judge, who as a southern man living there. I understood these men came to his house; in fact, Judge Blackford came to me for protection, and I did protect him for a week.

By the Chairman:

Question. He was the probate judge?

Answer. Yes, sir; they got after him, but he made his escape.

By Mr. Beck:

Question. In what county was that?

Answer. In Hale County.

Question. How long ago?

Answer. I suppose five or six months ago.

Question. That was the horse thief?

Answer. No, sir; these men went there and turned out the horse thief. They went down after Blackford, who made his escape. I myself came there the next day, and he came to me and I protected him until he went away; finally he left the country. I do not know where he went. I heard that he had been appointed as an agent in the mail service; probably, in Alabama.

Question. What was the pretext for annoying him?

Answer. He was looked upon as a man who had given a great deal of bad advice to the negroes, and kept them in confusion, and off the plantations. He was a southern man, who had been in the confederate army, and had gone over to the radical party. He had large meetings of the negroes at his house, firing around and shooting, and it had become very dissatisfactory to the people. He was a drinking man, and when drunk would make threats. I do not myself believe there was any harm in him. I had had a great deal to do with him; he and I had canvassed two counties together.

By Mr. Van Trump:

Question. Canvassed for railroads?

Answer. Yes, sir; he assisted me in my elections. In fact I had the assistance of republicans in all the elections I held in each country, except Greene County.

By the Chairman:

Question. Upon the question of local subscriptions to railroads?

Answer. Yes, sir.

By Mr. Van Trump:

Question. There has been some intimation in the testimony about your road being used to carry men in disguise. Has there been anything of that sort done on your road with your knowledge or consent?

Answer. I am satisfied there has been nothing of that sort done.

By the Chairman:

Question. Is your road finished?

Answer. Fifty miles, on which I am running trains every day.

By Mr. Coburn:

Question. Where?

Answer. From Marion Junction out to Warrior River, near Eutaw.

By Mr. Beck:

Question. The attack on Blackford was because of his official misconduct?

Answer. I understood so; they never understood whether it was by white men or by black men; they were all strangers there, I understood. They were in the street, and I believe they got down and went into the hotel.

Question. Were they disguised?

Answer. I do not think they had any disguises on their faces at all.

Question. Blackford was not hurt?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. You have stated two cases; what was the third case?

Answer. That was the case in Pontotoc; I do not think anybody was hurt there, except that one of the men who were in disguise was killed.

By Mr. Stevenson:

Question. Do you refer to the attack on Flournoy?

Answer. That case and the two cases of Boyd and Blackford are the only three cases I have heard of on the line of my road. And the cases of Boyd and Flournoy were on the portions of the road that were not being worked at the time; we were not occupying that portion of the road; but at Greensboro we were working on the road.

By Mr. Beck:

Question. Has there been any difficulty with your hands along the line of your road?

Answer. Not a bit.

Question. Do you work many negroes?

Answer. I have about four hundred.

Question. They vote as they please, as far as you know?

Answer. They voted as they pleased at the last election. About three hundred had come from North Carolina, but they were not entitled to vote; had not been in Alabama long enough; they had been working a portion of the time in Mississippi, and they did not vote. But all those who were entitled to vote voted without any molestation. I said when I started out with my roads that railroads had no politics; that I wanted the assistance of everybody; that railroads were for the general good of the whole country. We have had no political discussion along the line of my road; we have had no difficulty. I hired three hundred colored men in North Carolina, and they worked for me twelve months; their time was out last May; they were paid off. About one hundred and fifty of them returned, and a portion of them, in fact I think all but about fifteen, have come back. They got one-half of their money monthly until the end of the year, when they were paid off.

Question. You say you canvassed every civil district in those counties for your railroad?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. In the course of that canvass did there seem to be any difficulty in enforcing the laws where you have been, and protecting men in their lives, liberty, and property?

Answer. I have not heard of any; the laws are regularly executed.

Question. In the course of your experience have you heard of a man being molested for his political opinions upon one side or the other?

Answer. This man Blackford I supposed was molested because he was thought to be tampering with the negroes and preventing them from working.

Question. It was believed that he had gone out of the legitimate sphere of politics, and perhaps advised violence?

Answer. Yes, sir.

By the Chairman:

Question. Had Blackford advised violence?

Answer. It was a rumor through the town that he had been talking with the negroes.

Question. Had he been advising violence?

Answer. I heard him once advise violence when we were canvassing together. He was drunk. I do not think he was responsible then. He came to me the next day and said that he was ashamed of himself; that was at Hay's Mound.

Question. What did he say?

Answer. I do not recollect exactly his words; but it was something about fighting their own way, having their own way, and if people did not let them have it, make them do it; stand up to them; it was very offensive. While I did not think much of it, southern men did who were there and heard it. I told him that we ought not to let such things as that get into the road. I was very much abused by some of the presses in Alabama for having anything to do with Blackford, and was accused of being a radical myself. The papers went on to abuse me about going over to the republican party.

Question. Was the substance of what Blackford said that they should assert their rights?

Answer. It was in a loose, drunken way that he was talking to them; I do not think he really knew what he was saying.

By Mr. Stevenson:

Question. You have stated the substance of what he said?

Answer. Yes, sir.

By Mr. Beck:

Question. That they ought to take their rights if they were not given to them, and he would stand by them?

Answer. Yes, sir; it was in a boasting, bragging, drunken manner, that I did not think amounted to anything. There were some who tried to make something out of it; but I tried to excuse Blackford on the ground that he was drunk. I wanted the subscriptions and tried to carry all the votes I could. I set out by saying that railroads had no politics. I do not think they ought to have or will have as long as I can help it.

By the Chairman:

Question. I have here before me a communication published in a paper called the Southern Argus, at Selma; do you know that paper?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Is it a democratic paper?

Answer. I cannot tell you really what its politics are.

Question. The communication is very short; I will read it. It is from the Southern Argus, published at Selma, Alabama, February 3, 1871:

The Late Greensboro Affair.

"To the editor of the Argus:

"Sir: I see from your article in your last issue, January 27, that you accuse a body of disguised men of going to Greensboro, on Tuesday last, and releasing a man from the jail in that place who had been confined for horse stealing. We inform you, sir, that your author has told a malicious falsehood. The man who was released on that evening was not confined for horse stealing, but for killing a negro and the taking of a Yankee's horse, openly, that it might enable him to make his escape from a court (like Blackford's) of injustice; and we say to you, sir, that the party did not visit Greensboro on that evening for the purpose of releasing his man McCrary, but for the purpose of catching and giving Mr. Blackford what he lawfully deserves, and will get before the 1st day of March. We do not communicate to you for the purpose of clearing ourselves of but one thing, and that is the release of a horse-thief. Sir, it is not our object to release thieves; but, on the other hand, it is our sworn duty to bring them all to justice; and we in this section of country intend and will see that all thieves shall be punished to the extent of the law; and in cases where the law cannot reach them, the party that released the man in Greensboro will give them all they deserve, and perhaps a little more.

"Yours, truly, &c.,

"K. W. C."

"P.S.--The writer is a subscriber to your paper, and would be pleased to see this and an additional article by you in your next issue.

"K.

"Alabama, January 31, 1871."

Is the sentiment contained in that article really a sentiment which receives countenance in the community?

Answer. I do not think so. I never read that article; I heard it spoken of and very much condemned by the best men in the county.

Question. You think, then, that the sentiment there that killing a negro is a less offense than stealing a horse---

Answer. I never heard of this man killing a negro.

Question. This writer says: "We do not communicate to you for the purpose of clearing ourselves of but one thing, and that is the release of a horse-thief. Sir, it is not our object to release thieves * * *  The man who was released on that evening was not confined for horse-sealing, but for killing a negro." Is that the sentiment sustained there at all--that it is a lighter offense to kill a negro than to steal horses?

Answer. No, sir; there is no man who believes that the offense of killing a negro is less than killing a white man.

My Mr. Stevenson:

Question. Did you know who this correspondent was who published the account of the interview with you?

Answer. I never saw him before.

Question. When you saw him did you learn who he was?

Answer. Yes, sir; he told me who he was afterward.

Question. You got his name?

Answer. I do not think I did at the time.

Question. When?

Answer. After the article was written.

Question. Did you get it from the communication?

Answer. Probably he told me his name. I reckon he did; but it was just as I say to you; I was in that condition that I do not recollect anything. I was suffering from a sick-headache, and had started to my house.

Question. Did he walk along with you?

Answer. I sat on the steps for three or four minutes, and then he walked along to my gate.

Question. How far?

Answer. Sixty or eighty yards.

Question. You walked along talking?

Answer. Very little, I think.

Question. May it not well be that you were in such a condition at that time that you do not remember now what you did say?

Answer. I do not pretend to say that I recollect all that was said.

Question. How many men did you surrender at the end of the war?

Answer. About 6,000; I think between six and seven thousand.

Question. Was it not about 7,000?

Answer. Well, it is likely it was. I do not recollect the number now.

Question. You would have been more likely to have remembered in 1868 than now?

Answer. No, sir; I do not think I would.

Question. Did you accept a parole at that time?

Answer. I did, and issued an address when I did accept the parole--I do not know whether you have had it or not--it was published in all your papers. I said to my men that they had been good soldiers and could be good citizens; that they should go home and obey the laws of the country. And so far as I know, not one soldier who served under me has been molested for any offense since the war.

Question. Were you pardoned?

Answer. I was.

Question. How?

Answer. By President Johnson.

Question. By a special pardon?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. When?

Answer. In 1868, probably, immediately after this proclamation. I was then on my plantation in Mississippi, and I felt it to be the duty of every good man to try to restore a good condition of things to the country. I went to Jackson and made my application for a pardon to Governor Sharkey, in order that others might do it.

Question. Did not the general amnesty cover your case?

Answer. I think it did; I never held a political office in my life.

Question. Did you speak with this correspondent about the bad state of things in Tennessee, about Brownlow and his proceedings?

Answer. It is more than likely we did have some conversation about that.

Question. Was the condition of things pretty bad about that time?

Answer. There was great turmoil all over the country.

Question. Excitement running high?

Answer. Yes, sir; on both sides.

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.