Unfortunately, we live in a time which has seen the rewriting of history to a significant degree over the past several decades. Little of what is presented as “history” is actually a reflection of the reality and documentable history of the period. Nathan Bedford Forrest is a primary example of this situation.

The fact is that Forrest’s life and his personal positions were far different from what is popularly presented.

While Forrest was at one time a slave dealer his policies survived.
They included: His personal prohibition on separating families; his policy of purchasing and reuniting familes that had been separated; his choice to bring new slaves into his home to be cleaned and clothed by his personal servants; his policy of giving passes to new slaves and offering them the opportunity to determine for themselves to whom they would wish to be sold; and maintaining a list of those to whom he would not sell because he knew them to be cruel.

Some slaves of cruel masters even came to Forrest to ask that he purchase them away from their abusive masters.

The likelihood that Forrest would sell a slave impregnated with his child, if such a thing can really be proven by more than family oral history, would be remote based on his recorded personal policies and acts. Perhaps DNA testing would settle what is obviously a troubling matter for Mr. Ward. If Mr. Ward would not agree to DNA testing to prove conclusively whether or not he is descended from Forrest one would be prompted to wonder why.

After all, anyone can claim descendancy from anyone. Family oral histories are not always reliable.

Regarding Forrest’s conduct toward Blacks during the War, the following is germaine:

“‘First With the Most’ Forrest” by Robert Selph Henry, Indianapolis,
IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1944, page 14 – “Forty-five of Forrest’s own slaves, indeed served through the war with him as teamsters. ‘I said to forty-five colored fellows on my plantation…’ Forrest told a Congressional committee after the war, ‘that I was going into the army; and that if they would go with me, if we got whipped they would be free anyhow, and that if we succeeded and slavery was perpetuated, if they would act faithfully with me to the end of the war, I would set them free. Eighteen months before the war closed I was satisfied that we were going to be defeated, and I gave those forty-five men, or forty-four of them, their free papers, for fear I might get killed.’”

When freed these men never left Forrest’s side and served as personal servants, cooks, teamsters, foragers, scouts, and eight of them served as Forrest’s personal armed bodyguards.

Is there proof that these men rode into combat with Forrest? Most definitely and from the most widely-accepted authoritative source:

Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol XVI Part I, pg. 805, Lt. Col.
Parkhurst’s Report (Ninth Michigan Infantry) on General Forrest’s attack at Murfreesboro, Tenn, July 13, 1862: “The forces attacking my camp were the First Regiment Texas Rangers, Colonel Wharton, and a battalion of the First Georgia Rangers, Colonel Morrison, and a large number of citizens of Rutherford County, many of whom had recently taken the oath of allegiance to the United States Government. There were also quite a number of negroes attached to the Texas and Georgia troops, who were armed and equipped, and took part in the several engagements with my forces during the day.”

Forrest later commented in 1871 that, “Those fellows never left me…and better Confederates did not live.”

The 1864 investigation of the Ft. Pillow “massacre” was wartime propaganda of the crudest sort. The intention was to inflame United States Colored Troops (USCT) to greater effort by making them believe that they could expect only death if they surrendered and provoke them to cruelty toward surrendered Confederates.

Their propaganda succeeded.

At the Battle of Marianna, Florida, on September 28, 1864, USCT briefly shot and clubbed surrendered Confederate Home Guard members until the 2nd Maine Cavalry restrained them. At Ft. Blakeley, Alabama, on April 9, 1865, USCT murdered significant numbers of surrendered Confederate soldiers by shooting, bayoneting, and clubbing them to death. When two white Union USCT officers tried to intervene both were shot by the Colored Troops. One officer died and the other was crippled for life.

In 1871 a Congressional investigation was convened to look into Forrest’s alleged involvement with the Klan and to revisit the Ft.
Pillow “massacre.” The investigation was chaired by Forrest’s old enemy, William Tecumseh Sherman, who told the press that, “We are here to investigate Forrest, charge Forrest, try Forrest, convict Forrest, and hang Forrest.”

The outcome of the 1871 investigation was twofold. The committee found no evidence that Forrest had participated in the formation of the Klan and that even the use of his name may well have been without his permission. They also found that there was no credible evidence that Forrest had ever participated in or directed any actions of the Klan.

“The reports of Committees, House of Representatives, second session, forty-second congress,” P. 7-449.

“The primary accusation before this board is that Gen. Forrest was a founder of The Klan, and its first Grand Wizard, So I shall address those accusations first. In 1871, Gen. Forrest was called before a congressional Committee along with 21 other ex-Confederate officers including Admiral Raphael Semmes, Gen. Wade Hampton, Gen. John B.
Gordon, and Gen. Braxton Bragg. Forrest testified before Congress personally over four hours .

Forrest took the witness stand June 27th,1871. Building a railroad in Tennessee at the time, Gen Forrest stated he ‘had done more , probably than any other man, to suppress these violence and difficulties and keep them down, had been vilified and abused in the (news) papers, and accused of things I never did while in the army and since. He had nothing to hide, wanted to see this matter settled, our country quite once more, and our people united and working together harmoniously.’

Asked if he knew of any men or combination of men violating the law or preventing the execution of the law: Gen Forest answered emphatically, ‘No.’ (A Committee member brought up a document suggesting otherwise, the 1868 newspaper article from the “Cincinnati Commercial”. That was their “evidence”, a news article.)

Forrest stated ‘…any information he had on the Klan was information given to him by others.’

Sen. Scott asked, ‘Did you take any steps in organizing an association or society under that prescript (Klan constitution)?’

Forrest: ‘I DID NOT’ Forrest further stated that ‘..he thought the Organization (Klan) started in middle Tennessee, although he did not know where. It is said I started it.’

Asked by Sen. Scott, ‘Did you start it, Is that true?’

Forrest: ‘No Sir, it is not.’

Asked if he had heard of the Knights of the white Camellia, a Klan-like organization in Louisiana,

Forrest: ‘Yes, they were reported to be there.’

Senator: ‘Were you a member of the order of the white Camellia?’

Forrest: ‘No Sir, I never was a member of the Knights of the white Camellia.’

Asked about the Klan :

Forrest: ‘It was a matter I knew very little about. All my efforts were addressed to stop it, disband it, and prevent it….I was trying to keep it down as much as possible.’

Forrest: ‘I talked with different people that I believed were connected to it, and urged the disbandment of it, that it should be broken up.’”

The following article appeared in the New York times June 27th, “Washington, 1871. Gen Forrest was before the Klu Klux Committee today, and his examination lasted four hours. After the examination, he remarked than the committee treated him with much courtesy and respect.”

Congressional records show that Gen. Forrest was absolved of all complicity in the founding or operation of the Ku Klux Klan, and he was certainly never a “Grand Wizard”. These committees had the utmost evidence and living witnesses at their disposal. The evidence precluded any Guilt or indictment of Gen. Forrest and the matter was closed before that body of final judgment in 1872.

The following findings in the Final report of this committee of Congress concluded, “The statement of these gentlemen (Forrest and Gordon) are full and explicit…the evidence fully sustains them.”

Regarding Ft. Pillow they found that although there were individual acts by Confederate soldiers there was no ordered or organized “massacre” and that Forrest had taken immediate action to stop such individual misdeeds as soon as he arrived on the scene. His horse had fallen and rolled on him the previous day and he was delayed by those resultant injuries.

They also found that two of the accusations of the most outrageous behavior were simply false.

Confederate forces were accused of burning Union barracks with wounded Union soldiers inside. Lieutenant Daniel Van Horn, Sixth U.S. Colored Heavy Artillery, whose report is contained in the Federal Official Records, documented that Lieutenant John D. Hill fired the barracks under orders of the Union commanding officer. Lieutenant Van Horn also reported, “There never was a surrender of the fort, both officers and men declaring they never would surrender or ask for quarter.”

Accusations that Confederates buried wounded USCT were also found to be false. This was determined by the testimony of Union officers to the effect that they has been put in charge of the burial of their dead and that no such live burials occurred.

Additionally Confederate records showed that Forrest forwarded 39 USCT to higher command as prisoners of war. The Federal Official Records contain a receipt from the Acting Master of the U.S. Steamer Silver Cloud to acknowledge that he had received from Forrest’s adjutant the most seriously wounded of the fort’s defenders, including 14 USCT.

It seems highly unlikely that someone committing a “massacre” would trouble himself by taking prisoners and certainly not by trying to ensure that the most severely wounded of those he supposedly “massacred”
received better medical care than he could provide.

An objective analysis of available evidence is available on our web site:

http://37thtexas.org/html/grandfab.html

After the War Forrest continued his life and by 1874 undertook actions which many of his fellow white Tennesseans found objectionable.

“Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography,” Jack Hurst, Chapter 33, Pg. 361
- “The rural west Tennessee town of Trenton saw racial trouble in 1874.
Two white men made themselves uninvited guests at a barbecue hosted by black residents. The host were insulted when the two men refused to pay for their dinner. It appears the two white men were fired on by the angry crowd. Sixteen of the barbequers were arrested by the Sheriff of Trenton. The posse had to defend itself from two attacks by groups of masked whites. At approximately 1:00 am, a group of masked men took the black citizens from the jail. They killed six on the edge of town. The others were never seen again. Forrest’s response to this incident was typical of the man and the attitudes he held throughout his life: ‘If I were entrusted with the proper authority I would capture and exterminate the white marauders who disgraced their race by this cowardly murder of Negroes.’”

The most clear example of this was documented by the Memphis Daily Avalanche as follows:

Memphis Daily Avalanche, July 6, 1875, 1.

“July 4, 1875 – Memphis, Tennessee -

Nathan Bedford Forrest was invited to speak by the Jubilee of Pole Bearers, a political and social organization in the post-war era comprised of Black Southerners. Miss Lou Lewis was introduced to General Forrest then presented him with a bouquet of flowers and said: ‘Mr.
Forrest – allow me to present you this bouquet as a token, of reconciliation, an offering of peace and good will.’

General Forrest received the flowers with a bow, and replied:

‘Miss Lewis, ladies and gentlemen – I accept these flowers as a token of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the South. I accept them more particularly, since they come from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God’s great earth who loves the ladies, it is myself.

This is a proud day for me. Having occupied the position I have for thirteen years, and being misunderstood by the colored race, I take this occasion to say that I am your friend. I am here as the representative of the Southern people – one that has been more maligned than any other.

I assure you that every man who was in the Confederate army is your friend. We were born on the same soil, breathe the same air, live in the same land, and why should we not be brothers and sisters.

When the war broke out I believed it to be my duty to fight for my country, and I did so. I came here with the jeers and sneers of a few white people, who did not think it right. I think it is right, and will do all I can to bring about harmony, peace and unity. I want to elevate every man, and to see you take your places in your shops, stores and offices.

I don’t propose to say anything about politics, but I want you to do as I do – go to the polls and select the best men to vote for. I feel that you are free men, I am a free man, and we can do as we please. I came here as a friend and whenever I can serve any of you I will do so.

We have one Union, one flag, one country; therefore, let us stand together. Although we differ in color, we should not differ in sentiment.

Many things have been said in regard to myself, and many reports circulated, which may perhaps be believed by some of you, but there are many around me who can contradict them. I have been many times in the heat of battle – oftener, perhaps, than any within the sound of my voice. Men have come to me to ask for quarter, both black and white, and I have shielded them.

Do your duty as citizens, and if any are oppressed, I will be your friend. I thank you for the flowers, and assure you that I am with you in heart and hand ‘”

Rather than looking to reinforce the onerous rewriting of factual history and continue to unjustly demonize Forrest to allow those who wish to perpetuate and accentuate division may I suggest that the most logical and commendable recommendation would be to campaign to have a bronze tablet displaying Forrest’s July 4, 1875, speech added to Forrest Park. Likely that would both coincide with Forrest’s sentiments and be supported by his descendants.

There are those who want to add a monument to Black Confederates to Forrest Park. That would be supported not only by the irrefutable facts of history, but also by the position of the National Park Service African American Civil War Web Project:

“STUPID IS FOREVER BUT IGNORANCE CAN BE FIXED”

Take a history class!

Or not:

On the way through this great conflict he even invented mobile warfare?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?Ǭ? That?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s the kind of warfare that would help America win two great world wars against fascism.

Just to your info:
WWI: You did the same everyone else did. Digging trenches. And you came way too late to claim the credit for that victory. PS: Germany?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s government in WWI was not fascism. Fascism was invented AFTER WWI!
WWII: Yes, mobile warfare. The Germans had to teach it you the hard way, but yeah, at least you learned from those lessons. Again, what did you take that long? The russians did most of the work.

The German Guy
IMPEACH BUSH!

is this website a joke, because JESUS WAS A HOMO, and so was Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Danny, here’s yer chance to rise to the occasion, boy! Y’all can pull out the stops on yer “lack of sources and bogus claims” crap that you copy and paste into yer posts? Or did Lew Rockwell document these as facts, too?

God is Love!
BBN