...but after the war neither Forrest nor Chalmers were ever charged or tried by any authority, military or civilian. So what happened?
Read the book and then give a defense/opinion/fantasy/wish-list.The point is the Union thought it was rightfully so - so why didn't they go after Forrest?
You suppose wrong they certainly would have hung Forrest given half the chance like they did Champ Ferguson but one certainly does not hang a Lieutenant General without 100% evidence that he ordered the killing , Especially since they could not get hold of him during the war and they needed to keep the peace after the war.I suppose the reason they didn't have a trial of Forrest and/or Chalmers was because of several contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony collected by Congressmen Wade and Gooch. Also, there were reports that Wade and Gooch left out because it didn't fit their 'official' version of events. Such a trial would probably fall apart.
So your saying its all made up?. , I don't really know any massacre in History off the top of my head that was just made up normally they occurred because the term massacre is such a serious allegation.Too many survivors for there to have been a massacre.
It always amazed me that Forrest found god and racial harmony at the end of his life maybe guilt over Fort Pillow eventually caught up with him.
Don't disagree with that statement.Then a lot of battles will have to be reclassified as massacre.
They say a leopard never changes its spots , If your view is right then many deplorable people would have gotten away with cold blooded murder.The need to demonize people and make them pay for sins even their contemporary "enemies" didn't punish or prosecute or destroy them for makes me crazy. Who are any of us to say that policy was "misguided"? What do you want to do, dig him up and hang him?
Don't disagree with that statement.
They say a leopard never changes its spots , If your view is right then many deplorable people would have gotten away with cold blooded murder.
Forrest traded in Human beings had been involved in Murder and cruelty , Pardon me all over for presenting him in a negative light but I did state the answer we will never know.
And no I don't believe in redemption unless of course your trying to blag your way into heaven.
The need to demonize people and make them pay for sins even their contemporary "enemies" didn't punish or prosecute or destroy them for makes me crazy. Who are any of us to say that policy was "misguided"? What do you want to do, dig him up and hang him?
My argument is not whether Forrest should have been held responsible for the crimes he is/was accused of. My argument is whether or not he was capable of changing. I do find it curious that so many today seem to want some sort of punishment against people like him, who his enemies in war seem not to have punished. That's just my own curiosity.Do not take this the wrong way, I only wish to add for further thought upon considering absolute power over others..
I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means. You would hang a man of no position, like Ravaillac; but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greater names coupled with the greater crimes. You would spare these criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them, higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice; still more, still higher, for the sake of historical science.