Artemis Barca
Private
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2017
- Location
- Memphis
Since this is a civil war specific forum. I'm gonna assume that I can skip some of the normal backstory and go into actual analysis and of course, spectulation lol.
Well I think everyone can agree for better or worse, Nathan Bedford Forrest was hands down the most captivating figure of the war. Part man part and arguably the best pure fighter the Western Hemisphere ever produced.
Please don't take that as me praising ANYTHING resembling the mans moral compass... I don't think most of the best warriors in history were people you would want to move in next door lol..
Well the most controversial act , perpetrated by the wars most controversial figure was the battle of/massacare of Fort Pillow.
In a nutshell...
There is a small fort called fort pillow. That has changed hands multiple times. With soldiers on both sides losing comrades in arms as the fort changed hands. It was also garrisoned by an "integrated " US army as the fort had become a semi safe haven for escaped slaves. So you had a few hundred white and a few hundred black troops.
Nathan Bedford Forrest would led a raid to take back the fort and end up charged as a war criminal.
The actual events at fort pillow are hotels debated.
But basically everyone agrees on this...
Forrest had the fort TOTALLY out numbered, surrounded and out gunned. He offered the fort terms and promised if they surrenedered they would be treated as POW's but if he was forced to charge the battlements, no quarter would be given. The Union negotiator asked if the POW status would include the black troops?
The confederacy had a VERY HARDLINE policy tward black union soldiers. They were to be considered escape slaves and either hung or returned into bondage.
Well Forrest goes out on a limb and against the wishes of his subordinates, promises the black soldiers POW status as well.
Well the union troops holding the fort don't buy it. They all assume the black troops will be executed.
(Personally I doubt forrests ruling would have stood anyway. I assume that sets a precedent far above forrests pay grade and would have been swiftly over turned, but that's kinda irrelevant to the topic.)
So the union troops reject forrests offer. The raid is carried out as planned.
Forrest loses about 12 men taking the fort and the union troops fight until the fort is completely overwhelmed and then attempt to surrender. Only to be chased down and slaughtered by the confederate troops.
Which is an obvious breach of the articles of war.. even if an offer of surrender is rejected. A killing surrendering soldiers is still a war crime.
Appearently "no take backsies" is not a get out of jail free card for the articles of war lol.
So pretty much everyone agrees on those things. The controversy stems from the actions of Forrest himself.
The traditional union story goes..
Forrest personally ordered that no quarter was to be given and led the charge executing countless surrendering prisoners by his own hand.
The traditional confederate side is that Forrest was at the rear of the military action and in fact was forced to draw saber and pistol and put his own body in between his men and any survivors to stop the slaughter once he arrived.
(My theory..)
I think it all happened....
I think Forrest was ****** about his terms being rejected... the fight was already over. There was no need for his men to risk their lives taking a fort so thoroughly out gunned.
Breach of the articles of war or not. For basically all of human history you had until the seize equipment touched the walls to surrender and get quarter. Once the attacking force touches your walls. All bets are off and the commanding officer will usually allow the soldiers to rape and pillage whatever city or fort.
Forrest had gone out on a very long, very thin limb when he offered POW status to the black troops and from his own mouth said the consequences of that rejection would be "no quarter given."
I completely reject the notion that the closest thing to an Alexander the civil War produced chose to remain at the rear.. Forrest was as much of a frontline commander as they come.
I think Forrest was mad they rejected his "very good" (from his pov) terms . Which turned into a righteous fury after losing the dozen or so men as his unit charged the fort.
So imho the union story is likely true. Yes he probably did sanction and participate in the slaughter..
BUT WAIT!
However, I think after the initial clash of battle was over and the executions of the surrendering soldiers began in earnest. It got gratuitous really fast.
I think "no quarter given" seemed like a good idea in theory, but after Forrests adrenaline and blood lust began to subside the reality of the horror he was witnessing began to set in... and along with that came the realization that he was the commanding officer and thus every inch of it was 100% his responsibility.
I think Forrest then commanded his men to stop, but for his men the bloodlust was still in full swing.
They ignored his commands and the situation required Forrest to pull his saber and pistol and threaten his own men to end the carnage.
Which imho makes almost everyone's account work.
Thoughts.
Well I think everyone can agree for better or worse, Nathan Bedford Forrest was hands down the most captivating figure of the war. Part man part and arguably the best pure fighter the Western Hemisphere ever produced.
Please don't take that as me praising ANYTHING resembling the mans moral compass... I don't think most of the best warriors in history were people you would want to move in next door lol..
Well the most controversial act , perpetrated by the wars most controversial figure was the battle of/massacare of Fort Pillow.
In a nutshell...
There is a small fort called fort pillow. That has changed hands multiple times. With soldiers on both sides losing comrades in arms as the fort changed hands. It was also garrisoned by an "integrated " US army as the fort had become a semi safe haven for escaped slaves. So you had a few hundred white and a few hundred black troops.
Nathan Bedford Forrest would led a raid to take back the fort and end up charged as a war criminal.
The actual events at fort pillow are hotels debated.
But basically everyone agrees on this...
Forrest had the fort TOTALLY out numbered, surrounded and out gunned. He offered the fort terms and promised if they surrenedered they would be treated as POW's but if he was forced to charge the battlements, no quarter would be given. The Union negotiator asked if the POW status would include the black troops?
The confederacy had a VERY HARDLINE policy tward black union soldiers. They were to be considered escape slaves and either hung or returned into bondage.
Well Forrest goes out on a limb and against the wishes of his subordinates, promises the black soldiers POW status as well.
Well the union troops holding the fort don't buy it. They all assume the black troops will be executed.
(Personally I doubt forrests ruling would have stood anyway. I assume that sets a precedent far above forrests pay grade and would have been swiftly over turned, but that's kinda irrelevant to the topic.)
So the union troops reject forrests offer. The raid is carried out as planned.
Forrest loses about 12 men taking the fort and the union troops fight until the fort is completely overwhelmed and then attempt to surrender. Only to be chased down and slaughtered by the confederate troops.
Which is an obvious breach of the articles of war.. even if an offer of surrender is rejected. A killing surrendering soldiers is still a war crime.
Appearently "no take backsies" is not a get out of jail free card for the articles of war lol.
So pretty much everyone agrees on those things. The controversy stems from the actions of Forrest himself.
The traditional union story goes..
Forrest personally ordered that no quarter was to be given and led the charge executing countless surrendering prisoners by his own hand.
The traditional confederate side is that Forrest was at the rear of the military action and in fact was forced to draw saber and pistol and put his own body in between his men and any survivors to stop the slaughter once he arrived.
(My theory..)
I think it all happened....
I think Forrest was ****** about his terms being rejected... the fight was already over. There was no need for his men to risk their lives taking a fort so thoroughly out gunned.
Breach of the articles of war or not. For basically all of human history you had until the seize equipment touched the walls to surrender and get quarter. Once the attacking force touches your walls. All bets are off and the commanding officer will usually allow the soldiers to rape and pillage whatever city or fort.
Forrest had gone out on a very long, very thin limb when he offered POW status to the black troops and from his own mouth said the consequences of that rejection would be "no quarter given."
I completely reject the notion that the closest thing to an Alexander the civil War produced chose to remain at the rear.. Forrest was as much of a frontline commander as they come.
I think Forrest was mad they rejected his "very good" (from his pov) terms . Which turned into a righteous fury after losing the dozen or so men as his unit charged the fort.
So imho the union story is likely true. Yes he probably did sanction and participate in the slaughter..
BUT WAIT!
However, I think after the initial clash of battle was over and the executions of the surrendering soldiers began in earnest. It got gratuitous really fast.
I think "no quarter given" seemed like a good idea in theory, but after Forrests adrenaline and blood lust began to subside the reality of the horror he was witnessing began to set in... and along with that came the realization that he was the commanding officer and thus every inch of it was 100% his responsibility.
I think Forrest then commanded his men to stop, but for his men the bloodlust was still in full swing.
They ignored his commands and the situation required Forrest to pull his saber and pistol and threaten his own men to end the carnage.
Which imho makes almost everyone's account work.
Thoughts.