Did The Union Army Really Murder 18 CS Soldiers In Forrest Retaliation

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
6,839
Location
About 47 miles Northwest of the Canadian border
Agreed to cite the Lieber Code (which to be fair was not yet in effect but its sentiments in the atmosphere)

Art. 27: The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation than can the law of nations, of which it is a branch. Yet civilized nations acknowledge retaliation as the sternest feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage

Art. 28: Retaliation will, therefore, never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and moreover, cautiously and unavoidably; that is to say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence, and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution.

Unjust or inconsiderate retaliation removes the belligerents farther and farther from the mitigating rules of regular war, and by rapid steps leads them nearer to the internecine wars of savages.


That being said, if this did happen and Union authorities did not declare it to Forrest's command or the rebel government in a way similar to Mosby's letter to Sheridan one could very easily make the argument that it was not done cautiously as a means of protective retribution and rather as revenge and thus "war crime". The code may not stipulate declaring an act of retaliation but if you don't inform the enemy I don't see how you can argue you did it for the purposes of motivating them to cease and desist future injustices. If they did declare it, finding such a letter may make a fun research project for someone with the time and interest.
Prior notification was something that appears to have been an added requirement by Leiber's code which as you've noted was not in existence when the retaliatory act occurred November 1862. Vattel's Law of Nations that included the laws of war, had no requirement for prior notification that retaliation was going to take place. Vattel indicates that a notification be given that further acts of retaliation may continue if the enemy continues to disregard the laws of war:

"This leads us to speak of a kind of retaliation sometimes practised in war, under the name of reprisals. If the hostile general has, without any just reason, caused some prisoners to be hanged, we hang an equal number of his people, and of the same rank,—notifying to him that we will continue thus to retaliate, for the purpose of obliging him to observe the laws of war. It is a dreadful extremity thus to condemn a prisoner to atone, by a miserable death, for his general’s crime: and if we had previously [349] promised to spare the life of that prisoner, we cannot, without injustice, make him the subject of our reprisals. Nevertheless, as a prince or his general has a right to sacrifice his enemies’ lives to his own safety and that of his men, —it appears, that, if he has to do with an inhuman enemy who frequently commits such enormities, he is authorised to refuse quarter to some of the prisoners he takes, and to treat them as his people have been treated."
Emerich Vattel's Law of Nations, Book III, Chapter VIII, Section 142
 
Last edited:

Bruce Vail

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
4,130
Confederate Veteran is not a reliable source for accurate history. I am not saying that Comrade Richards is intentionally spreading falsehoods, but any recollection of this nature requires corroboration from other sources.
 
Joined
Sep 27, 2017
Messages
91
Location
Tallahassee, Florida
I think at this point I'm willing to take Mr. Richards' word that the death raffle happened, but the planned retaliatory executions I'm not sold on. Was probably called off by cooler heads is my guess.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Belfoured

Corporal
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
359
I came across this article in the Confederate Veterans magazine and it blew my mind to read this. If this is indeed true then it would fall into the category of "War Crimes" I have read most everything written on NBF and this one doesn't ring any bells. Forrest never order 18 Union soldiers shot. So the question is did the Union Army really shoot these guys based on a rumor?

View attachment 199881
Given that Comrade Richards states that he doesn't know if anyone was actually shot, you seem to be starting from the wrong point. That's entirely aside from all of the other problems with accounts such as these which are noted in the thread. I find it very difficult to believe that 18 POWs were executed in retaliation for actions by Forrest but that those facts remained hidden forever by the several necessary participants.
 

ucvrelics

Major
Forum Host
Joined
May 7, 2016
Messages
8,335
Location
Alabama
Given that Comrade Richards states that he doesn't know if anyone was actually shot, you seem to be starting from the wrong point. That's entirely aside from all of the other problems with accounts such as these which are noted in the thread. I find it very difficult to believe that 18 POWs were executed in retaliation for actions by Forrest but that those facts remained hidden forever by the several necessary participants.
Thats why my Thread Tilte was Did They?
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Messages
13,803
Location
Mississippi
As to Forrest executing prisoners, there's only one rather murky incident of that and that was during the Murfreesboro raid. At the time of the raid there were two scouts and two civilians accused of spying in the jail, sentenced to be executed. That event was interrupted by Forrest's raid, but the soldiers attempted to carry out their orders by shooting through the bars of the door. The four inside ran up to the wall and the soldiers couldn't lower their rifles enough to get them, and left. However, one came back and lit fire to the jail. After most of it was over, Forrest asked the men if it was true someone had tried to murder them. Yes, it was and the guy was present. "Point him out to me," said Forrest and one of the prisoners did. Later, there was a role call of the Union prisoners and this fellow didn't answer. "Pass on, " said Forrest, and that was all.
@diane .

Once again, you are a wealth of information about all things Forrest.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top