Nathan Bedford Forest

[roberts]

I wonder when that photo of Bell was taken?? I've never seen and caption on the date it was taken. He eventually moved to California.

That photo appeared in the "The Photographic History of the Civil War, Volume 10" which was published in 1910 but the photo itself was not dated. I think that he was younger than the Wiki image below so maybe pre-war?

 

[DanSBHawk]

Captain Tyler tried to fool the Yankees into believing it was from Buford, However, not all the Yankees were fooled. At least not until today.

I see. Obviously the Yankees expected that the enemy would act like honorable men, not dishonorable liars.

 

[G Low]

Obviously the Yankees didn't know what the h*** was about to hit them…. And Perhaps opening the liquor barrels to early.

 

[DanSBHawk]

It was sent by Captain H. A. Tyler who demonstrated against Columbus on April 12, 1864 with his scouting party of 100 men. According to his diary he signed Buford's name to try to carry out a "game of bluff." The Union commander claimed to have seen through the charade and declined to surrender.

He used a threat of "no quarter" to try to scare the Union commander. It worked for Colonel Duckworth at Union City where the federals surrendered to an inferior force.

The Liebert Code which governed Union forces after 1863 banned the use of a threat of "no quarter" but interestingly it allowed the use of "no quarter" when a commander could not "cumber himself with prisoners." "No quarter" was also given to troops who fight in the uniform of their enemy or to troops whose own corps gives no quarter.

The Code was not adopted by the Confederacy.

From the perspective of the US officer, it came from Buford. How would he know that the confederates were lying?

But it's noted that you claim that this surrender demand was sent without authorization from Buford or Forrest. Unfortunately Tyler's diary doesn't seem to be online, so I'm unable to verify your claim.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Obviously the Yankees didn't know what the h*** was about to hit them…. And Perhaps opening the liquor barrels to early.

At Fort Pillow? Right. They were hit by some racist murderers who believed all black soldiers should be killed.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

With the death of competent garrison commander, Maj. Booth, earlier in the day (around 9 am), the inexperienced Maj. Bradford took over command. Apparently, on that same day he foolishly allowed garrison soldiers free access to whiskey stores within the fort. As a result, many of the garrison troops were in an intoxicated state by the time Forrest's troopers assailed the works. (Multiple credible postwar testimonies support this finding of intoxication of defenders).

 

[Nathan Stuart]

And Perhaps opening the liquor barrels to early.

With the death of competent garrison commander, Maj. Booth, earlier in the day (around 9 am), the inexperienced Maj. Bradford took over command. Apparently, on that same day Bradford foolishly allowed garrison soldiers free access to whiskey stores within the fort. As a result, many of the garrison troops were in an inebriated state by the time Forrest's troopers assailed the works. (Multiple credible postwar testimonies support this finding of intoxication of defenders).

Intoxication would seemingly explain the erratic, irrational and possibly provocative behavior of many of the fort's defenders during the combat that ensued.

 

[DanSBHawk]

There have always been people who have tried to rationalize and justify what happened at Fort Pillow.

The points that I tried to make were, first, that Forrest was never exonerated post-war for Fort Pillow as some were trying to claim with imaginary "inquiries," and second, there were other dishonorable and racist episodes in the same campaign, and third, Forrest never expressed any remorse or regret or took any responsibility for the Fort Pillow massacre.

So the claims of a late-life Forrest redemption are very suspect, in my opinion. He was not a particularly admirable or godly person.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Responding to the preceding post points made above.

Regarding the so-called 'Fort Pillow Massacre' - expressed in terms of the extraordinarily high proportion of Union casualties suffered there.

First point: Agree. Forrest was not/never exonerated post-war for Fort Pillow. But as far as I know, equally, he was not/never convicted or found guilty of any wrong-doing there. It could be argued that the hastily appointed (on Apr. 18) committee to report on what happened was a politically motivated partisan body designed to damage the reputation of an effective Southern field commander and to incentivize colored troops to fight in the field.

Second point: Irrelevant to consider in relation to Fort Pillow. (Thought each particular incident/situation needs to be evaluated on its own merits).

Third point: Agree. From what I've read on him, Forrest never afterwards personally expressed any remorse or regrets for the events at Fort Pillow.

Forrest certainly possessed personality flaws, but then who doesn't. (It seems some commentators are implying that he may be lying somewhere well along the psychopathy spectrum. But thought that would be difficult to dertermine without all the necessary facts and knowledge).

 

[roberts]

From the perspective of the US officer, it came from Buford. How would he know that the confederates were lying?

But it's noted that you claim that this surrender demand was sent without authorization from Buford or Forrest. Unfortunately Tyler's diary doesn't seem to be online, so I'm unable to verify your claim.

Of course Colonel Lawrence didn't know it wasn't Buford. That was the point of the bluff, Tyler wanted over 1,000 USCT to surrender to his 100 scouts. In these situations you don't know if someone is impersonating someone when passing notes.

Look at Fort Pillow, where neither of the two commanding officers who negotiated with Forrest used their real names.

I don't need you to verify my claim. If you are interested in researching the Columbus incident more then look at Wyeth's bio of Forrest where he outlines the affair and sources it back to the diary. That's online. Or you can look at where it was hashed out in the newspapers in 1867 when someone made the same claim as you that it was Forrest who sent the surrender demand. According to some of the reports that appeared in the news at that time, Colonel Lawrence was tempted to surrender because he believed the ruse and was fearful of an attack. His subordinates wanted to stall because re-enforcements were on the way and convinced him to reject the demand. Tyler claimed that he believed that Lawrence would fold in the face of a threat because he didn't have the stomach for combat. Hawkins who surrendered at Union City was also targeted based upon his reputation.

Colonel Lawrence's position was that he never gave any thought to surrender.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Of course Colonel Lawrence didn't know it wasn't Buford. That was the point of the bluff, Tyler wanted over 1,000 USCT to surrender to his 100 scouts. In these situations you don't know if someone is impersonating someone when passing notes.

Look at Fort Pillow, where neither of the two commanding officers who negotiated with Forrest used their real names.

I don't need you to verify my claim. If you are interested in researching the Columbus incident more then look at Wyeth's bio of Forrest where he outlines the affair and sources it back to the diary. That's online. Or you can look at where it was hashed out in the newspapers in 1867 when someone made the same claim as you that it was Forrest who sent the surrender demand. According to some of the reports that appeared in the news at that time, Colonel Lawrence was tempted to surrender because he believed the ruse and was fearful of an attack. His subordinates wanted to stall because re-enforcements were on the way and convinced him to reject the demand. Tyler claimed that he believed that Lawrence would fold in the face of a threat because he didn't have the stomach for combat. Hawkins who surrendered at Union City was also targeted based upon his reputation.

Colonel Lawrence's position was that he never gave any thought to surrender.

I don't need to read a biased bio of Forrest. His biographers have been spreading nonsense for over a century.

The fact is that Forrest - or his men - threatened no quarter numerous times during that campaign. And then they murdered US soldiers. Your characterization of something as a "bluff" is just a euphemism for dishonorable lie.

 

[G Low]

Who put these USCT soldiers in this position? They stuck these troops in ill prepared fortifications in too small a number for success. Lack of arms, cannon, ammo in poor service. Evidently had little care what happened to them. Area they knew would be hostile to the capture of Black Troops. Testimony from soldiers during the Congressional hearings. Federal Government failed to protect them. Some weren't even mustered and they didn't have officers for them. White Officers who they had to pay double to even do it.

Sherman, the commander of the District of Tennessee, ordered that the fort be abandoned in January 1864—about four months prior to the incident. Union Maj. Gen. Stephen A. Hurlbut, in command in West Tennessee, initially obeyed and then disregarded his superior's directive, evacuating the fort in January but then ordering it to be reoccupied in February.

 

[19thGeorgia]

From the federal government's "Lieber Code"-

"Art. 60.
It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter. No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give, and therefore will not expect, quarter; but a commander is permitted to direct his troops to give no quarter, in great straits, when his own salvation makes it impossible to cumber himself with prisoners."

This is basically license to murder Confederate troops and use it as an excuse. "We had to kill them to save ourselves" -who would challenge them?

My own great-grandfather (Confederate) was almost a victim of a "no quarter" situation. Unfortunately, his brother didn't make it out alive.

 

[Peace Society]

When he got his blood up, he was for certain sure Old Testament.

Just an aside opinion -
why do people associate OT with crunching things - Jere. 31:3, Micah 7:18-19
and NT with sweetness and light - Matt. 23:13-33 ?

 

[DanSBHawk]

From the federal government's "Lieber Code"-

"Art. 60.
It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter. No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give, and therefore will not expect, quarter; but a commander is permitted to direct his troops to give no quarter, in great straits, when his own salvation makes it impossible to cumber himself with prisoners."

This is basically license to murder Confederate troops and use it as an excuse. "We had to kill them to save ourselves" -who would challenge them?

My own great-grandfather (Confederate) was almost a victim of a "no quarter" situation. Unfortunately, his brother didn't make it out alive.

Key words - "In great straits."

Forrest and his men were not in desperate straits during that campaign and yet repeatedly gave "no quarter" ultimatums. So his post-war claims about following the laws of war were false.

Ultimately, Forrest was there and in command, and he bears full responsibility for the Fort Pillow massacre. Yet he never took responsibility or expressed any remorse.

 

[19thGeorgia]

Key words - "In great straits."

Forrest and his men were not in desperate straits during that campaign and yet repeatedly gave "no quarter" ultimatums. So his post-war claims about following the laws of war were false.

Ultimately, Forrest was there and in command, and he bears full responsibility for the Fort Pillow massacre. Yet he never took responsibility or expressed any remorse.

I wasn't trying to hold Forrest up to the Lieber Code. Not my point. I was showing how the federals - who complained of the Fort Pillows - set up their own insidious rule that would allow Union soldiers to murder Confederates without any consequences for their actions.

"Forrest was there and in command, and he bears full responsibility for the Fort Pillow massacre."

There were several instances of Confederates being massacred and Southern civilians being murdered. Were any Union soldiers or officers ever held accountable? or take responsibility for their actions? Not a one.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I wasn't trying to hold Forrest up to the Lieber Code. Not my point. I was showing how the federals - who complained of the Fort Pillows - set up their own insidious rule that would allow Union soldiers to murder Confederates without any consequences for their actions.

"Forrest was there and in command, and he bears full responsibility for the Fort Pillow massacre."

There were several instances of Confederates being massacred and Southern civilians being murdered. Were any Union soldiers or officers ever held accountable? or take responsibility for their actions? Not a one.

There were many atrocities committed by people other than Forrest - on both sides. This thread is about Forrest. It's not a general discussion on atrocities, or even on all racial atrocities.

Regarding your issue with the wording of the Lieber Code, can you name any US generals that routinely threatened confederate troops with "no quarter?"

 

[roberts]

There were many atrocities committed by people other than Forrest - on both sides. This thread is about Forrest. It's not a general discussion on atrocities, or even on all racial atrocities.

Regarding your issue with the wording of the Lieber Code, can you name any US generals that routinely threatened confederate troops with "no quarter?"

You deflect the previous post as being off topic because this is all about Forrest and then ask for Union generals who threatened "no quarter" LOL

But here's an example of a call for no quarter against Forrest.

At candle lit ceremonies in Memphis, General Stephen Hurlburt asked USCT troops to kneel and take an oath, swearing no quarter to Forrest. These men entered the battle of Tishomingo Creek wearing badges that proclaimed "no quarter to Forrest." However, they removed them shortly thereafter without authorization from General Hurlburt.

 

[DanSBHawk]

You deflect the previous post as being off topic because this is all about Forrest and then ask for Union generals who threatened "no quarter" LOL

But here's an example of a call for no quarter against Forrest.

At candle lit ceremonies in Memphis, General Stephen Hurlburt asked USCT troops to kneel and take an oath, swearing no quarter to Forrest. These men entered the battle of Tishomingo Creek wearing badges that proclaimed "no quarter to Forrest." However, they removed them shortly thereafter without authorization from General Hurlburt.

I asked for examples because the poster claimed the wording was basically a license to murder confederate soldiers. I wondered if there were any examples of US generals using it that way.

So your Hurlbut example is him basically proposing retaliation for Forrest's murders of USCT. That's a pretty weak example. Both sides took retaliatory measures when the other side committed heinous acts. "You slaughter our foragers, we'll execute some of your POW's." I was asking if any US general routinely threatened no quarter like Forrest did. Forrest and his men threatened no quarter at least 4 times during that campaign and then actually followed through with murdering soldiers at Fort Pillow.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

can you name any US generals that routinely threatened confederate troops with "no quarter?"

In Mo (and KS), where lawlessness prevailed, from early in the war Union military authorities adoped 'no quarters' policies to deal with the exponents (both partisan rangers and guerrillas) of irregular warfare there.

On Mar. 13, '62, M-G Halleck issued General Orders No. 2 to U.S. forces operating in MO, that in part stated, ...".....Maj. Gen. Sterling Price has issued commissions or licenses ..... in this State ..... to raise 'guerrilla forces' ..... every man who enlists in such an organization forfeits his life and becomes an outlaw. All persons are hereby warned that if they join any guerrilla band they will not, if captured, be treated as ordinary prisoners of war, but will be hung as robbers and murderers. Their lives shall atone for the barbarity of their general,"... (See 'OR': Vol. 8, @ pp 611-12).

On a similar vein, advising on tactics to employ against Confederate partisan rangers fighting in the same region, Union M-G Samuel Curtis in a correspondence to subordinates on Sep. 29, '62, stated, ..."They deserve no quarters; no terms of civilized warfare. Pursue, strike, and destroy the reptiles, and report to these headquarters as often as possible."... (See 'OR': Vol. 13, @ pp. 688-89).

Regarding relevant events in TN, preceding the 'Fort Pillow Massacre'.

In west TN, Col. Hurst and his 6th. TN (Union) Cavalry summarily executed on the spot several captured officers and troopers of Forrest's command, apparently acting on orders issued on Jun. 17, 64, by Gen. William Sooy Smith to 'grub up' west Tennessee.. (See 'OR': Vol. 32, Part 2, @ p. 124).

In yet another example. Lt. Col. James Brownlow, commanding the 1st. TN (Union) Cavalry, apparently established a practice of 'no quarter' by Federal cavalry operating in TN at the end of '63. In his report following a mounted skirmish that occurred at Yankeetown, TN, Brownlow states, ...'I would take no prisoners"... ('OR': Vol. 31, Part 1, @ p.591).

Indications here are: Seems some Union mounted units operating in MO and west TN from '62 through to '64, at least, may have been practising 'no quarter' in armed engagements with the enemy, following orders received from the top.