Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
5000 years of military precedence dicates that razing a fort and putting its occupants under the axe is perfectly legitmate.
Forrest demonstrated in front of Fort Pillow. He offered them terms. They refused. He was within his rights to kill every single one of them.
What would Alexander have done? What would Ceasar have done?
My point is NOT to defend Gen. Forrest's actions at Fort Pillow. My point is to use the so called "Fort Pillow Massacer" to demostrate how new age abolitionist reconstructionsists continue to harp on that Devil Forrest while turning a blind eye to the autrocities of their blue clad soldiers.
It is a war crime! In case you never heard this, two wrongs still do not make a right.
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
There is a considerable number of civilizing years between ancient history and the middle-19th Century. What was acceptable 2000 years ago was no longer acceptable 150 years ago. What was acceptable 150 years ago is not acceptable now.
I don't believe Forrest ordered the excessive killing at Ft. Pillow. His "ultimatum" was standard operating procedure: the old, "if you make me do it, I'm not responsible" routine. Rather, there were USCT and Tennessee Tories in that fort and many of Forrest's troops had a few things to settle with either or both.
And, recognizing that the heat of battle can lead some excitable types into a state where they are quite incapable of thought, **it happens. Still does. Ever watch "Cops"? Or any video of law officers just beating the stuffing out of some guys they just dragged out of a car? When I see things like that, I think of Forrest's boys. Wrong? Certainly. Justifiable? No. Understandable? Yes.
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
It is a war crime! In case you never heard this, two wrongs still do not make a right.
Depends, under USA mil law its allowed to not take pows if the mil commander deems the circmastances rquire that course of action, in ww2 there were a couple such instances in retalition to SS action in which 24-72 hours of no pows orders were issued by Dv commnaders.
In the WBTS, a no pows order was given in 64 in the east by Butler along with use of civilans and pows as human shields, because he judged it necessary. Nice peice titled the gallant 300 on the CSA\officers used as human shields is online.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
The use of POWs and civilians as human shields was quite common on both sides. The courthouse in Vicksburg and Charleston comes to mind. Also the Columbia (it was Columbia, wasn't it?) incident when Forrest sent a message to the pursuing Union commander to please quit shelling the town because he had abandoned it. The shelling stopped.
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
The use of POWs and civilians as human shields was quite common on both sides. The courthouse in Vicksburg and Charleston comes to mind. Also the Columbia (it was Columbia, wasn't it?) incident when Forrest sent a message to the pursuing Union commander to please quit shelling the town because he had abandoned it. The shelling stopped.
In the practice of the time, this meant Columbia had become an "open city". In military usage, that means the defender has left and is making no effort to hold or defend the place, so the expectaion is the attacker will stop shelling/bombing the place and simply occupy it without resistance. There were a number of examples of this in WWII (Rome 1944, Brussels 1940, Paris 1940, Manila 1942, Athens 1944, etc.) The attacker usually honors this, but does not always do so (see Rome 1944).
A very clear and explicit use of the "open city" concept is the defense of New Orleans in 1862. Once Farragut had passed the forts and sailed upriver, the city was indefensible. Lovell withdrew the Confederate forces because he knew this, although he offered to return if the city government wanted him to do so. They had the good sense to say no. If the city had resisted, it would have been perfectly acceptable for Farragut to blow the levees above the city and flood it out.
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.
Prisoners of War- Pg 107 from the Revised Regulations for the US Army, 1861-It says:
Section 745. - Prisoners of war will be disarmed and set to the rear, and reported as soon as practicable to the head-quarters. The return of prisoners from the Head-Quarters of the Army to the War Department will specify the number, rank and corps.
Section 746. - The private property of prisoners will be duly respected, and each shall be treated with regard due to his rank. They are to obey the necessary orders given them. They receive for subsistence one ration each, without regard to rank; and the wounded are to be treated with [continued on page 108] the same care as the wounded of the army. Other allowences to them will depend on the conventions with the enemy. Prisoner's horses will be taken for the army.
Section 747. - Exchanges of prisoners and release of officers on parole depend on the orders of the General Commanding-in-Chief, under the instruction of the government.
End of quote from the 1861 Revised Rules and Regulations of the US Army.
Seems pretty clear cut and shows nothing to support a total massacre.
However, if there was attack of prisoners on their guards and they shot back in self defense--then, to me--the deaths would be justified.
However, it is my understanding that mass execution, to which General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson desired -- also known as the "Black Flag"--no prisoners; is disturbing. If the CSA had similar rules and regulations as above; it would be violation of said rules and regulations. It is in my opinion based on the above; it would be improper for the US Army.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
"Improper" looms as a bit incongruous during a rather fierce war. Rules tend to disappear from time to time. We can put our tsk-tsk imprimatur on them, but it remains that rules are broken. Regularly.
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
Depends, under USA mil law its allowed to not take pows if the mil commander deems the circmastances rquire that course of action, in ww2 there were a couple such instances in retalition to SS action in which 24-72 hours of no pows orders were issued by Dv commnaders.
In the WBTS, a no pows order was given in 64 in the east by Butler along with use of civilans and pows as human shields, because he judged it necessary. Nice peice titled the gallant 300 on the CSA\officers used as human shields is online.
Could you cite the law that allows for the murdering of POWs during the Civil War?
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
In referring to 1861 Revised Regulations for the Army of the United States; Articles of War; Article 23 through 28 covers what behaviors would not be tollerated; In a nutshell -- any provocation to engage in duals, fights, criminal activities, deserting the military, etc; was prohibited and subjected to court-martial; punishment deemed by court-martial would include death as a punishment.
I did not see any particular article that jumped out to me as allowing a killing of a Prisoner of War, other than in self defense. I will mention though striking a superior officer was cause for death as punishment in the Articles of War; Article 9.
I will add, that these articles did not make a difference between prisoner of war or an officer, non-commissioned officer and or enlisted man in the Union Army. In not seeing an exclusion in behavior between armies--I have to wonder (outloud in text form) if this was agreed to by both Governments and or Armies, e.g. USA and CSA.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
