Restricted Forrest Bust at Tennessee State Capitol.

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
...but after the war neither Forrest nor Chalmers were ever charged or tried by any authority, military or civilian. So what happened?

Ever hear the phrase, "Let 'em up easy?"
The point is the Union thought it was rightfully so - so why didn't they go after Forrest?
Read the book and then give a defense/opinion/fantasy/wish-list.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
The reason why Forrest wasn't tried and executed, is the same as why other confederates weren't tried and executed.

A misguided policy to forgive and forget and move on.
 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
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.
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.

Was Forrest guilty? We will never know.

Was some of his troops guilty of killing unarmed soldiers? Absolutely to many accounts of the massacre exist for it not to have happened and the word massacre is not lightly used its reserved for the worst atrocities.
 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
Too many survivors for there to have been a massacre.
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.

Regardless how many survived even if half a dozen were shot after they surrendered its still a massacre the only thing your disputing is the number of men involved so are you saying nobody was killed after they surrendered are we just discounting eye witness accounts as blatant Northern propaganda as well as Confederate accounts.

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.
 

Booklady

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Location
New England
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.

Why would it amaze you? Do you not believe in the power of redemption, that a person can turn his life around and do good? Ever hear of the Apostle Paul (that murderer!)? How about John Newton (that slave trader!)?

I don't have a dog in any hunt that involves Nathan B. Forrest except as a human being. How can you be amazed that there was any good in him? The line between good and evil wasn't the Mason Dixon line, it's not between left and right, Union and Confederates. As Solzhenitsyn famously said, “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

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?
 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
Then a lot of battles will have to be reclassified as massacre.
Don't disagree with that statement.
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?
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.
 

Booklady

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Location
New England
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.

Given the number of people in history who actually have changed and done subsequent good, your lack of belief in redemption is astonishing. John Newton, for example, "traded in human beings." I bet you know a song he wrote after his own redemption.
 

shooter too

Private
Joined
Mar 4, 2021
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?


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.

https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html
 

Booklady

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Location
New England
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.

https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html
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.
 
Top