Connie Chastain over at SHPG, or as Brooks Simpson calls it, "The gift that keeps on giving," has posed a new question. Take a look.
This new uproar about Silas Chandler can only be in response to Kevin Levin's new co-authored article in the Civil War Times, which is available now. This new article by the way, has already seen some scrutiny by certain SHPG advocates to which Kevin has issued a challenge. But back to Connie's question.
Primary Source evidence? I don't know of any that says Nathan Bedford Forrest organized and founded the Ku Klux Klan. So that means....none? How about Nathan Beford Forrest's overall involvement with the klan? Well, we can use Google and our good friend wikipedia to run a small search that might have some results.
Scroll down to the notes section and look at "38."
An oral account from an eye witness does count as a primary source. So.....one?
This is not an attempt at history from Connie Chastain, nor has she ever made such attempt. She simply does not care about history. It does not fit her agenda. This is just another step in pushing "Confederate Heritage." Kevin Levin and Myra Chandler Simpson have put in the man hours to present a piece of scholarship. What we should do is peer review it. What this is above is just another attempt to be argumentative and to bash others. Connie's attempt at critique this time, is an irrelevant gesture to the understanding Silas Chandler. What she is advocating is that if we accept one, we must accept the other. I'm not buying it. If there is one primary source account that says Forrest was in the Klan, I'm not buying that either. There is nothing there to cross reference and so I say not determinable. If someone would like to drop a comment below referencing more material on that matter, I would be more than grateful. However, in regards to Silas; it has been shown on numerous occasions that the information saying he is a Confederate soldier is misinterpreted by many. Most information about him exists on the internet in the "Black Confederate" pages of SCV websites.
So to answer your question Connie; not. Forrest is in the lead 1-0 with my preliminary search. My question is, have you actually read the article yet?
Note #38
ReplyDelete^ Hurst pp. 284–285. Wills p. 336. Wills quotes two KKK members who identified Forrest as a Klan leader. James R. Crowe stated, “After the order grew to large numbers we found it necessary to have someone of large experience to command. We chose General Forrest.” Another member wrote, “N. B. Forest of Confederate fame was at our head, and was known as the Grand Wizard. I heard him make a speech in one of our Dens.”
Crowe doesn't say what Forrest DID. For the umpteenth time, what did he DO as "KKK leader"? Crowe's not even talking about Forrest, really. He's talking about "WE" -- the "we" who elected him. So what this is, is an eyewitness account of PEOPLE ELECTING Forrest. It doesn't say whether he accepted. It doesn't say whether he actually commanded the organization. It doesn't say a syllable about what he did.
"Another member" (anonymous sources don't impress me) says, "N. B. Forest of Confederate fame was at our head, and was known as the Grand Wizard. I heard him make a speech in one of our Dens.” According to this "eyewitness" who has no name, apparently, (and thus could actually have been made up, along with his quote), Forrest made as speech. He MADE A SPEECH. Whoopee. I'm looking for reliable, historical, primary source evidence of TERRORIST ACTIVITY on the part of Nathan Bedford Forrest, and you give me speechifying....
"What she is advocating is that if we accept one, we must accept the other. I'm not buying it. If there is one primary source account that says Forrest was in the Klan, I'm not buying that either. There is nothing there to cross reference and so I say not determinable. If someone would like to drop a comment below referencing more material on that matter, I would be more than grateful. However, in regards to Silas; it has been shown on numerous occasions that the information saying he is a Confederate soldier is misinterpreted by many. Most information about him exists on the internet in the "Black Confederate" pages of SCV websites."
ReplyDeleteSo to answer your question Connie; not. Forrest is in the lead 1-0 with my preliminary search. My question is, have you actually read the article yet? "
That is from a source on the internet which I referenced above while also stating that I did not accept it without the ability to cross reference. Nor do I accept that without the actual book that could very well identify your anonymous member. Maybe you should be more careful in your responses next time.
By the way, you did not answer the question.
Rob, my point about Silas Chandler wasn't made to "prove" he was a soldier. I'm saying that if the evidence that he was a soldier is paltry and inconclusive, the evidence that Forrest was a KKK terrorist is just as paltry and inconclusive; yet "Silas Chandler, Confederate Soldier" is not taught in schools but "Nathan Bedford Forrest, KKK Terrorist Leader" is taught from border to border and coast to coast. If he is PROVED to have been a KKK terrorist leader on the lack of evidence, Chandler is proved to have been a Confederate soldier, on the same.
ReplyDeleteConnie said, "I'm saying that if the evidence that he was a soldier is paltry and inconclusive, the evidence that Forrest was a KKK terrorist is just as paltry and inconclusive; yet "Silas Chandler, Confederate Soldier" is not taught in schools but "Nathan Bedford Forrest, KKK Terrorist Leader" is taught from border to border and coast to coast."
ReplyDeleteLet me explain to you how this works. When someone brings forth a theory in historical research. The tactic is to disprove the theory not to draw a comparison. Why? Because the context is different. Forrest is not even listed on AKS or GPS standards. Only a classroom summary of the Klan is given as a reaction to reconstruction. So your argument is baseless on paper. I am not in every classroom in Georgia so I do not know what other teachers project. I can tell you what I teach. That a convention designated Forrest as Imperial Wizard. He may or may not have been there and a lot of his participation is in dispute.
I posted above that I would like for someone more fluent in his history to bring forth some new information as my focus is not on him.
Now to point out the differences or specifically your comments here, "If he is PROVED to have been a KKK terrorist leader on the lack of evidence, Chandler is proved to have been a Confederate soldier, on the same."
Actually the difference is that Kevin and Myra have used their information to cast enough doubt on the subject that it is unbelievable. In accordance with that narrative, they have not only caste enough doubt, but proven the Black Confederate Soldier implication to be false. Forrest on the other hand, has not had an authority vindicate him or his actions. As I also stated in other posts, it has been a while since I read Willis's book so I can't remember his methodology and research. But the fact remains, he was declared Imperial Wizard, there was never any cry out that he disapproved of this. SCV members for years in Confederate Veteran Magazines rallied around the fact that he was. People in the 1920's immortalized him this way. And why give the order to disband if he was not a leader or a member at least? Ultimately, I am more interested in his actions as a member. Why did violence cause him to disband the Klan? Those are the things that I want to know.
In closing, you still haven't answered the question.