Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Forrest had good reason to bear a grudge against the Tennessee Tories in Ft. Pillow. They had been terrorizing "his people" for months. He also had good reason to not be involved in the subsequent massacre.
Yes. The numbers alone indicate a much too high percentage of KIA. What the numbers do not tell us is whether Forrest encouraged it or participated in it. Therefore, I cannot conclude that he was personally guilty. Sherman reached the same conclusion. Through his minion or the Congressional Committee, he saw very quickly that Forrest couldn't be convicted. The evidence was simply not there.
Forrest's men simply got their blood boiling and vented their rage against the Tories and the USCT. That sort of thing happens and happened. If someone forgot to lower the flag or issue an order to cease fire, that's quite incidental. It was overkill. But Forrest can't be shown to be responsible for it.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Forrest said he wasn't. I believe him. Yes, he was in command of the attacking force. That makes him the officer to whom questions would normally be directed and they were. As I recall there was a Union gunboat or two involved as well. Must have been a bit of a confusing mess. From what I 'know' of the character of this man, he could not have been expected to vent his anger at black soldiers or any other kind, unless they were threatening. He just wasn't like that. He captured, by his own count, upwards of thirty thousand prisoners in the war. Curious that none of the other incidents caused this same, I suspect political, uproar. Forrest, as has been stated before, became a civil rights proponent after the war. He liked black folks; they had afforded him a good living prior to 1859.
__________________
Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
Lets be true if there was justice for the fallen at FT. Pillow then Forrest would have had peace in life... no justifying, no explaining only peace...
Actually Forrest did find peace towards the end of his life, as he accepted the faith. "In the providence of God I am in a way to discharge soon every obligation I owe to man" he said to his preacher.
Justice for the fallen? He, God, repays a man for what he has done; he brings upon him what his conduct deserves. (Job 34:11). Forrest believed so.
It's a useless argument, gentlemen. Can't pin Fort Pillow on Forrest.
As I've said over and over again, I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
If Sherman's minion couldn't find a reason to pin it on NBF (and I'll bet a steak dinner that Sherman would have very much liked to have named NBF a war criminal), then Sherman couldn't either.
Now, this is why I get frustrated sometimes. No matter how many times I show that the investigation showed there was a massacre, no matter how many times I show that the military investigation was never completed, no matter how many times I show there were no conclusions from the military investigation beyond there was a massacre, it seems nobody reads the posts because the same bogus claims are made time after time. And Sherman's bark was worse than his bite. He wasn't vindictive at all after the war. Even if Forrest came out and claimed responsibility for Fort Sumter after the war, Sherman would have sat down with Forrest and shared that steak dinner.
What the numbers do not tell us is whether Forrest encouraged it or participated in it. Therefore, I cannot conclude that he was personally guilty.
And if we look at the eyewitness testimony, it conflicts as to whether he ordered it or not. If you stop right here, I'm with you all the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
Sherman reached the same conclusion. Through his minion or the Congressional Committee, he saw very quickly that Forrest couldn't be convicted. The evidence was simply not there.
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sherman came to NO conclusions. The investigation was taken over by the Congress. The Joint Committee said Forrest was guilty, but as it was a politically tainted conclusion we can't give it much in the way of credibility. Forrest couldn't be convicted because Forrest wasn't in custody at the time.
Forrest had good reason to bear a grudge against the Tennessee Tories in Ft. Pillow. They had been terrorizing "his people" for months. He also had good reason to not be involved in the subsequent massacre.
Yes. The numbers alone indicate a much too high percentage of KIA. What the numbers do not tell us is whether Forrest encouraged it or participated in it. Therefore, I cannot conclude that he was personally guilty. Sherman reached the same conclusion. Through his minion or the Congressional Committee, he saw very quickly that Forrest couldn't be convicted. The evidence was simply not there.
Forrest's men simply got their blood boiling and vented their rage against the Tories and the USCT. That sort of thing happens and happened. If someone forgot to lower the flag or issue an order to cease fire, that's quite incidental. It was overkill. But Forrest can't be shown to be responsible for it.
ole
What people need to understand to begin with is that casualtuies in such an assault are very often horrendous, whether or not there is a "massacre".
In this particular case, the redoubt was badly laid out, subject to reverse plunging fire from higher ground the Confederates occupied early in the day, while the Yankee troops could not fire into the low ground near the ramparts without exposing themselves against the skyline to fire from sharpshooters close by and under cover. It was also possible for the Rebels to get into the dry moat without being fired upon, and the six cannon on the wall could not be depressed enough to fire on the approach to the wall.
We also need to bring in the incompetence of the defense plan. After Booth was killed (9 AM) Major Bradshaw was in command. His ability is questionable: he was a lawyer, a Tennessee Unionist. He sent his brother out to arrange the details of this dumb idea with the commander of the gunboat New Era. Unfortuantely, that Captain decides it is too risky, that Forrest might turn those six guns on him and sink his gunboat, so he steams out into the river and leaves the Union troops fatally exposed on the riverbank.
Then there is the known fact that men on both sides were drinking that afternoon before the assault. And that at least some of the Rebels and the white TN Union troops were from Dyer County, knew one another, and had plenty of real and perceived offenses between them. There are stories of men -- white men -- being called out of the huddled crowd on the riverbank by name and then shot down. The Union TN troops had been riding about the county for some week flying a "black flag" and abusing the local Confederate supporters. Many of them may have been killed outright at the end, but they weren't exactly innocents.
It is also worth noting that the USCT had taken casualties that morning, being the troops Bradshaw sent out to try to retake the barracks. One USCT sergeant said they had taken heavy casualties before the 4 PM assault: probably 25 men or more already down.
Then we need to remember that there was NO surrender of the fort, and that according to both Union and Confederate testimony the firing stopped about 20 minutes after the Confederates chopped down the flag. In fact, it seems to have been Forrest and his senior officers who stopped it, with Forrest supposedly running out between the lines with his revolver and saber waving to get his men to stop.
There is no doubt some men were killed in a fashion that can be called "massacre". Many more were slaughtered because of incompetent Union leadership. And many more were killed because that is simply the nature of a hand-to-hand assault on a fortified position.
So what we know is that at least 226 Union men died, white and black. Is there anyone who wants to say which part of that was "massacre" and which merely the normal horror of war?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
First, I assume the bodies of the victims of the FT. Pillow massacre are in a know resting place.
I propose that the bodies be exhumed by forensic experts and have them study the remains. I believe with modern forensic science could tell us from the remains if there was a massacre at Ft. Pillow or not.
It is the only way to bring truth and maybe justice to the poor souls lost at Ft. Pillow.
It would either clear Forrest are make him the demon he should be known for...
How bad do we want to know the truth about Ft. Pillow?
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
Post-mortem forensics are going to prove nothing. How do you determine that this body was killed in the course of battle or killed as a wanton act of murder?
It was a vicious fight and there are legitimate reasons for the ferocity. I usually go to the statistics. Rarely is a 50 percent KIA recorded for a defending force. For me, the difference between a 30 percent KIA and a 50 percent KIA is evidence of some wanton killing. If one wishes to define wanton killing as a massacre, so be it. If one would rather define it as heat of battle, so be it. To me, many more were killed than necessary to gain control of the fort.
There are persuasive reasons for the overkill, but it remains that many were unnecessarily killed. A massacre? That might be an extreme description, but it works for me.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
