Fort Pillow

Forrest was the grand wizard, so the order came from him, whether he wrote a draft and had it edited by someone else or dictated it or wrote it himself.

"This order as above given was presented to me by Major Robert Donnell, who was Grand Scribe of the 'Invisible Empire' in 1869, for this history, and he stated that the Ku Klux Klan was not disbanded until 1877, but this order was General Forrest’s method of misleading those who were attempting to dissolve it after the Anti-Ku Klux Act was passed." [Susan Lawrence Davis, _Authentic History, Ku Klux Klan, 1865-1877,_ p. 128]

Regards,
Cash
Do you have the text of this order?
 
Forrest was the Grand Wizard, and the order came from the Grand Wizard. Aren't you the one who claimed Forrest disbanded the KKK? This was the order that originated that claim.

QED.


Regards,
Cash

QED is one of my favorite abbreviations and I highly endorse it. My parting position on this interesting evaluation of the 'document' we don't really have:

Forrest was referred to several times as the Grand Wizard, whatever that entailed. I suspect Gordon and Morton were the 'leaders' of the den to which Forrest belonged. I don't know and there are no records, apparently. It would indeed be interesting to see the original document. A signature would have considerable bearing on it's origin. Forrest may well have initiated the document; that is only speculation from all of us. It ain't a bad document, if he did or didn't. I have many times repeated the notion that Forrest attempted to disband the klan. I didn't originate that idea as you well know. Perhaps none of us should 'report the press'.

Someone needed to disband an organization that wasn't exactly following the feeble laws of the period and was beginning to go beyond necessity. Forrest had the fortitude to attempt such an effort and I'd like to think he did. I thank you for exposing this order, be it real or not.
 
Accusing someone of being a proponent of murder is not a personal attack?

Let's refresh our memories on the sentence in question:

"Battalion is quite fond of pointing out that there doesn't seem to have been any kind of formal surrender at Ft Pillow and therefore it was perfectly alright to murder unarmed men who had surrendered in cold blood."

Pointing out that someone excuses historical figures of murder because there was no formal surrender of the fort is not a personal attack. It is showing the logical result of the position taken.

Regards,
Cash
 
Let's refresh our memories on the sentence in question:

"Battalion is quite fond of pointing out that there doesn't seem to have been any kind of formal surrender at Ft Pillow and therefore it was perfectly alright to murder unarmed men who had surrendered in cold blood."

Pointing out that someone excuses historical figures of murder because there was no formal surrender of the fort is not a personal attack. It is showing the logical result of the position taken.

Regards,
Cash
I never made any statement that "it was perfectly alright to murder unarmed men who had surrendered in cold blood."

And to insinuate that is an attack.
 
I never made any statement that "it was perfectly alright to murder unarmed men who had surrendered in cold blood."

And to insinuate that is an attack.

You excused the killings because the fort had not been formally surrendered. Pointing that out is not a personal attack.

Regards,
Cash
 
You excused the killings because the fort had not been formally surrendered. Pointing that out is not a personal attack.
Regards,
Cash
You are mis-representing my statements.

I haven't "excused" any killings.
 
Then I eagerly wait for you to condemn the murder of USCT troops at Ft Pillow. There is ample evidence presented throughout this thread that men were murdered after they surrendered. If statements are so often mis-represented might I suggest you clarify your position.
 
Then clarify your position Battalion, it shouldn't be that difficult. As I've said: I eagerly wait your condemnation of the murder of USCT men at Ft Pillow. If you aren't willing to clarify your position then methinks you doth protest too much.
 
Then don't clarify it to me, clarify it to everyone else on the board. After all it's rather obvious this board has a rather wide viewership. If you are unable to clarify to them, well it seems rather obvious you protest too much.

In other words clarify your position to the world. I don't really care what you say or think of me, you know that. My opinion of the US & CS soldier is rather clear to anyone who wishes to look. So IMO is yours.
 
Let's put this thread back on track. Here is my conclusion from what I've studied of the event... from way back on page twenty something.

Yet still no other action comparable to Ft Pillow... so much for context.

Allow me to make something pointedly clear. I do not believe a majority of men under Forrest nor Forrest himself did the actions I consider so despicable; a minority did. That any black man survived at all is testement that Forrest did something to stop it and that not all of his command participated. Those men are long dead, some made up for their crimes, some were killed in battle later some were never punished except by God. War is an ugly thing and nasty things happen; justice has been done.

Denying that there was any kind of murder at Ft Pillow... flies in the face of everything I have ever read upon the subject. Upon reading numerous period accounts and letters referencing the effect Ft Pillow had upon the Union Cause... Ft Pillow galvanized the USCT into an attitude that cost the CS and it villianized a man that bears responsability only in that he was in command.

Was Forrest a good man? I don't know I won't judge him, what I do know is that he was one hell of a fighting man, one of the best of his age. For that if for nothing else I respect him, his accomplishments and his actions as a soldeir hold few equals. His men, well most of them, were MEN; fighting men who accomplished much and made their commander immortal.

In a simple erturning to the original premise of this thread that Cash put forward. No, Forrest was not responsible for the murders at Ft Pillow.

The idea that nothing out of the ordinary happened there is so ridiculous that it might be comical if there was not the overriding feel that those who put forward such a premise downplay any negative of the CS and scream out attention to any perceived wrong, real or imagined, toward the south. The society of the professional Victim. Victim, not something I would call the south of the CS they fought too well to be called victims.
 
Have to chunk in my opinion, too. Everything I've read about NBF discusses his ability to focus single-mindedly on what needed to be done, even to the detriment of other matters (I'm seeing some ADHD here). May I suggest he was not where he could see the main mayhem taking place, focused on the gunboats as was reported, and certainly, did not try to control his troops until it was too late? That is a far cry from attacking the fort and gleefully instructing his men to kill the black troops. I'm sure they were quite capable of doing that on their own -- all it took was a couple of guys with some followers to carry out the deed. I also suspect many men who knew the truth simply never came forward with their stories, either because they were involved or were afraid they'd be persecuted (by either side) after the event. If you didn't see anything, you must therefore be innocent. Happens all the time with crimes and riots.
 
We've pretty much determined (well, many of us at least), that Forrest didn't run up to Ft. Pillow to clean out that nest of vipers and just chase them home. Nor did he go up there to kill them all. We can guess his intentions as well as those of some of his men who had family in the area who'd been terrorized and robbed and otherwise abused.

I can be wrong, but I get the idea that NW Tennessee wasn't exactly populated by gentlemen who gained satisfaction with a formal , dawn ritual calling for seconds and judges and witnesses. Of course, Forrest had to know the nature of his riders, which doesn't mean he wasn't confident that he could control them when the blood was high.

The situation is eerily similar to that at Ft. Pocahantas with S.D. Lee.

Executing enemy combatants was certainly more common than official accounts would have us believe. Ft. Pillow just made the newpapers. We don't see accounts of four captured pickets shot while attempting to escape. One can't really believe that sort of thing didn't happen.

Of course there was more than a bit of excessive slaughter in the confusion at Ft. Pillow. The question is how much and who to pin it on. I'll submit that it doesn't make much difference now.

Ole
 
I hate to sound nitpicky, but in the interests of proper identification of the guilty (or at least disturbing): Fitzhugh, not Stephen Dill, Lee.
 
I hate to sound nitpicky, but in the interests of proper identification of the guilty (or at least disturbing): Fitzhugh, not Stephen Dill, Lee.

Thank you for that. Fitzhugh can probably defend himself, though he was far from the stature of Lt. Gen. Stephen Dill Lee.
 
Back
Top