"We Don't Have Enough Contempt for NBF"

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
What's the point here?.

Of course you will get people trying to take advantage or exaggerate or dismiss.

Stick to the facts.

Forrest lost 15 men the Union 220-250.

Under Confederate Law Black Union troops taken in federal uniform should be put to death and white officers who led them also.

Their were also loyal West Tennesseans in the garrison.

Forrest had done this before but was repulsed at Paducah that didn't stop him offering the same terms.

Troops in the Fort must have known they would be killed if they Surrendered that's why Bradford tried and failed to get them out.

The massacre happened as to Forrest role in it we don't know.

What does confuse me with Fort Pillow is that the women and children were evacuated the day before which means they knew he was coming so why didn't Booth get his men out when he could their were steamers available and why didn't he burn the barracks when he had a chance not at the last minute I can only presume he was told to hold the fort at all costs even if the Fort was untenable which it was unless of course Booth made that decision by himself.
"Stick to the facts.
Forrest lost 15 men the Union 220-250."


Probably less than 200. They were caught in a crossfire and many drowned in the river trying to get to the Union gunboats. That's part of the explanation for the high casualty rate.

"Under Confederate Law Black Union troops taken in federal uniform should be put to death and white officers who led them also."

That law said officers would be executed and black troops turned over to their state.

"The massacre happened as to Forrest role in it we don't know."

That's if you count a 70% survival rate to be a 'massacre.'
 

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Thx Danny I didn't know Forrest was derelict in not wiping out the garrison at Pillow.
Forrest was derelict in not wiping out the USCT force at Pillow. The very existence of USCT units posed a threat to the ideological foundation of confederate society.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Probably less than 200. They were caught in a crossfire and many drowned in the river trying to get to the Union gunboats. That's part of the explanation for the high casualty rate.

"The massacre happened as to Forrest role in it we don't know."

That's if you count a 70% survival rate to be a 'massacre.'
That's not to say there was any great disposition on part of the Confederates to spare life. Tennessee, along with Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas and several other places was "no quarter" territory.
 

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
"Stick to the facts.
Forrest lost 15 men the Union 220-250."


Probably less than 200. They were caught in a crossfire and many drowned in the river trying to get to the Union gunboats. That's part of the explanation for the high casualty rate.

"Under Confederate Law Black Union troops taken in federal uniform should be put to death and white officers who led them also."

That law said officers would be executed and black troops turned over to their state.

"The massacre happened as to Forrest role in it we don't know."

That's if you count a 70% survival rate to be a 'massacre.'

That's not to say there was any great disposition on part of the Confederates to spare life. Tennessee, along with Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas and several other places was "no quarter" territory.
No quarter not uncommon in civil wars. If we look at history most wars defeated either ended up dead or enslaved.
 

danny

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Hattiesburg
Local commanders kept it open to facilitate the illegal cotton trade.
Exactly. The same thing was happening all over the South as the Union armies advanced and occupied more and more territory. The USCT were used in these behind the lines areas. Politicians and Union generals were getting rich [illicitly of course] from the confiscated [stolen] cotton. Looting and destruction was a by product of stealing the cotton. Hence the pleas for help to Forrest.

The battle at Fort Pillow didn't occur in a vacuum.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Location
Southwest Mississippi
Exactly. The same thing was happening all over the South as the Union armies advanced and occupied more and more territory. The USCT were used in these behind the lines areas. Politicians and Union generals were getting rich [illicitly of course] from the confiscated [stolen] cotton. Looting and destruction was a by product of stealing the cotton. Hence the pleas for help to Forrest.

The battle at Fort Pillow didn't occur in a vacuum.
Sarcasm Alert

Say it ain't so !

"Righteous Union Generals" would never have taken advantage of such a devastated Southern civilian economy.
Much less exploiting such for their own personal financial profit.


The battle at Fort Pillow didn't occur in a vacuum.

That is very true.

Hence the pleas for help to Forrest.

And Bedford did respond.
 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
Exactly. The same thing was happening all over the South as the Union armies advanced and occupied more and more territory. The USCT were used in these behind the lines areas. Politicians and Union generals were getting rich [illicitly of course] from the confiscated [stolen] cotton. Looting and destruction was a by product of stealing the cotton. Hence the pleas for help to Forrest.

Quote:

In a report to Lincoln in May, 1864, from Memphis, General Daniel Sickles estimated the value of the supplies moving southward at $500,000 a week. Through a government Cotton Bureau set up by General Kirby Smith, the largely autonomous Trans-Mississippi Department of the Confederacy by the summer of 1864 had earned $30 million in specie by trading in cotton. Although Confederate authorities led by President Davis denounced trading with the Yankee enemy as inherently corrupting and demoralizing, in practice they looked the other way.

Lincoln also understood that the demoralization that was inseparable from the trade cut both ways. Confederate, as well as Union, officers were bribed to look the other way. The cotton and sugar planters eager to make money again, to say nothing of the countless small farmers in the South desperate to fend off impoverishment, who abandoned the Confederacy by trading with the enemy of the Confederate state, progressively sapped the will of Southern civilians to continue the war.

William L. Barney University of North Carolina.

End Quote.

Say it ain't so !

"Righteous Union Generals" would never have taken advantage of such a devastated Southern civilian economy.
Much less exploiting such for their own personal financial profit.
I'm just going to leave you the quote I posted no need for words i think the Quote explains it all.
 

wausaubob

Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Whether the so called massacre ever happened, Nathan Forrest was treated differently than William Quantrill and other raiders. If the battle did get out of control, it was a battle between soldiers with guns in their hands, not an incident involving non combatants.
Therefore as the war proceeded, Sherman was more concerned with Forrest' raiding capacity than the incident at Fort Pillow. As the war was ending Thomas was corresponding with Forrest. Even James Wilson and his command defeated Forrest and his cavalry, but Forrest was not hunted down and murdered. That contrasts with the treatment of even John Morgan, who was considered an outlaw in a uniform.
Whatever happened at Fort Pillow was far different than what happened at Lawrence, Kansas or Chambersburg, PA.
 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
That quote does explain very much.

" General Daniel Sickles estimated ... "

I'm not sure if Sickles is a reputable source for much about anything.
Dan Sickles was many things but corrupt was not one of them.

If you read the Quote properly he is mentioning the amount of goods going SOUTH not North meaning the Confederates were buying Yankee goods while selling Cotton to the North in direct violation of both Government's.

This process had to involve both corrupt Union and Confederate officers to work.

I'm sure even Bedford knew about this being the shrewd business man he was however their is no direct evidence to show he was involved in any way or none that I could find.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Sherman could have used someone who could read Forrest' mind like you. LOL But seriously you should have done better than when you read my mind and decided I was someone's Lost Cause compadre. I know that you intended to dismiss any disagreement in this discussion but I am not lost.

Forrest was an abolitionist at the end of the war. He admitted that he had been wrong about slavery. He never admitted that his role in the war was wrong.

Forrest lied to the Congressional committee in response to some questions. He denied knowledge that he certainly had.

Forrest was not the founder of the Klan but he was a member and leader for several months between 1867 and 1869. During this time the political wing of the Klan was successful in regaining control of some state governments from Republicans. He did seek to disband the Klan and later turned on it completely.

Forrest experienced great success and terrible failure during Reconstruction in his business endeavors.

Forrest has long been a flashpoint in cultural wars and various people use him to promote their agendas. This started even before the end of the war and continues even now. The agendas have varied over the last 150 years.

People exploit Forrest by grossly over simplifying the man and when necessary spin facts and even make up lies. This is not restricted to one side or group for even though there are fans and detractors their ends have changed over time.

How many lies do you know that have been told on old Bedford over the years?
If you knew why I used you as a reference you probably would have refrained from posting this hodge-podge of unsolicited excerpts from a hagiography. I used your quotes to debunk that one member's justification of slavery. The point was that a 21st blogger justified slavery through the law in the culture norm of the 19th century era, but you claimed NBF denounced slavery and became a abolitionist. Therefore, NBF thought contempt for himself. My objective was to use a pro-NBF member's words to impugn and undermine another pro-NBF member's words, and it worked. That's all. Thank you.

Whether the so called massacre ever happened, Nathan Forrest was treated differently than William Quantrill and other raiders. If the battle did get out of control, it was a battle between soldiers with guns in their hands, not an incident involving non combatants.
Therefore as the war proceeded, Sherman was more concerned with Forrest' raiding capacity than the incident at Fort Pillow. As the war was ending Thomas was corresponding with Forrest. Even James Wilson and his command defeated Forrest and his cavalry, but Forrest was not hunted down and murdered. That contrasts with the treatment of even John Morgan, who was considered an outlaw in a uniform.
Whatever happened at Fort Pillow was far different than what happened at Lawrence, Kansas or Chambersburg, PA.

The tragedy of Ft Pillow has been ignored and the focus now is to prove it wasn't that severe and to lessen NBF's role in that event. But it happened, so whether it was a massacre, pogrom or atrocity is irrelevant. Even though the proof is scanty on both fronts the probabilities suggest he had a major role in that event because he had a penchant for violence. I'll play Devil's advocate: both sides need to know that every battalion has its atrocities. IMO, no need to discuss it.

However, you touched on something that interests when you said Sherman was more concerned with NBF's raiding capacity. I agree with this assumption because I studied NBF's generalship and according to war strategy he never reached medocrity. He was merely a pest and never remotely bogged down the Union Army from cutting off the Mississippi. The Lost Cause camp claims he was some Homeric throwback, ala Ajax with the leadership ability of Julius Cesar but the best he did was divert resources. His purported military genius ability never even stopped resources from coming into the area. A person with supposedly that much talent, intellect and military prowess would have done a better than just diverting resources. He underperformed. His tactics didn't even stop the Union from securing a supply line in Tupelo. What did he do that was so great? All his so-called victories were against rank opponents. I would love to know would he did militarily to stop the Union? From what I read is that he never remotely stopped that juggernaut.

There have been contemporary armies who had the same amount of men and resources and used the same hit and run tactics and were bombed into almost oblivion that wreaked way more havoc and lasted way longer than NBF command. Actually NBF had more of a advantage than these primitive contemporary armies because they couldn't carpet bomb in his era. He had the classic triad for guerilla warfare: an analogous net of sympathizers, supporters and actives. Intelligence is critical to irregular warfare. Wherever the Yankees went, there were rebel eyes watching them and then broadcasting over a network of neighbors and friends, a web connection over which news traveled fast. Then he would hit, then run.

From the perspective of the twenty-first century, it's easy to see that such insurgencies were and remain capable of paralyzing whole armies, turning them into targets emasculating them strategically, and that's because modern insurgents just did that and were carpet bombed into almost oblivion. Yet the main reason Sherman never realized the potential and danger was there was because that it never materialized. For all their tactical success, Forrest and his raiders never succeeded in bogging down the Northern invaders, from piercing the heart of the Confederacy. Forrest and his insurgents underperformed. And from an understanding of irregular warfare, this is puzzling. Okay, he had all those great military attributes that were mentioned above, but accomplished nothing. He underperformed. I could be wrong, so if anyone thinks they can grade his war performance to debunk my post then more power to them.

He proved his ability as both a successful slave trader and as a field commander. A lot of successful people fail in business, Grant being one.

You first said this: Being a man of considerable ability Forrest would have risen high even if slavery was not present. I responded to your post with this: The historical record disagrees with you. NBF failed at a railroad venture after slavery ended? Evidently, he didn't have much ability outside of selling slaves. You went right back to his success as a slave owner when the issue was what how successful was he after abolition of slavery? Even that the one member said he had success and failures during Reconstruction, and alluded to grading him with a (C). The problem is that there's no proof to your initial assertions. I don't want to trample on the man's grave but he didn't die successful, and that throws a wrench into your theory.

His command was during the Civil War, not after the war like you said. Evidently, your time tables are wrong. You said he would have risen if slavery was not present, but talked about his command ability. Whatever. I don't believe he was a successful commander. More like an insubordinate, who was useless within the chain of command. See the above post for the rest. Nevertheless, stick to your original assertions that he would have been successful without slavery. Sorry. But it never materialized. What he did as a slave owner and commander were obviously at the same time slavery was still intact. You can't prove that he would have been successful without slavery, because it never happened.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Exactly. The same thing was happening all over the South as the Union armies advanced and occupied more and more territory. The USCT were used in these behind the lines areas. Politicians and Union generals were getting rich [illicitly of course] from the confiscated [stolen] cotton. Looting and destruction was a by product of stealing the cotton. Hence the pleas for help to Forrest.

The battle at Fort Pillow didn't occur in a vacuum.

Do you have copies of their bank accounts, or proof where they stashed their money? No, so you claims are hearsay.
 

wausaubob

Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
If you knew why I used you as a reference you probably would have refrained from posting this hodge-podge of unsolicited excerpts from a hagiography. I used your quotes to debunk that one member's justification of slavery. The point was that a 21st blogger justified slavery through the law in the culture norm of the 19th century era, but you claimed NBF denounced slavery and became a abolitionist. Therefore, NBF thought contempt for himself. My objective was to use a pro-NBF member's words to impugn and undermine another pro-NBF member's words, and it worked. That's all. Thank you.



The tragedy of Ft Pillow has been ignored and the focus now is to prove it wasn't that severe and to lessen NBF's role in that event. But it happened, so whether it was a massacre, pogrom or atrocity is irrelevant. Even though the proof is scanty on both fronts the probabilities suggest he had a major role in that event because he had a penchant for violence. I'll play Devil's advocate: both sides need to know that every battalion has its atrocities. IMO, no need to discuss it.

However, you touched on something that interests when you said Sherman was more concerned with NBF's raiding capacity. I agree with this assumption because I studied NBF's generalship and according to war strategy he never reached medocrity. He was merely a pest and never remotely bogged down the Union Army from cutting off the Mississippi. The Lost Cause camp claims he was some Homeric throwback, ala Ajax with the leadership ability of Julius Cesar but the best he did was divert resources. His purported military genius ability never even stopped resources from coming into the area. A person with supposedly that much talent, intellect and military prowess would have done a better than just diverting resources. He underperformed. His tactics didn't even stop the Union from securing a supply line in Tupelo. What did he do that was so great? All his so-called victories were against rank opponents. I would love to know would he did militarily to stop the Union? From what I read is that he never remotely stopped that juggernaut.

There have been contemporary armies who had the same amount of men and resources and used the same hit and run tactics and were bombed into almost oblivion that wreaked way more havoc and lasted way longer than NBF command. Actually NBF had more of a advantage than these primitive contemporary armies because they couldn't carpet bomb in his era. He had the classic triad for guerilla warfare: an analogous net of sympathizers, supporters and actives. Intelligence is critical to irregular warfare. Wherever the Yankees went, there were rebel eyes watching them and then broadcasting over a network of neighbors and friends, a web connection over which news traveled fast. Then he would hit, then run.

From the perspective of the twenty-first century, it's easy to see that such insurgencies were and remain capable of paralyzing whole armies, turning them into targets emasculating them strategically, and that's because modern insurgents just did that and were carpet bombed into almost oblivion. Yet the main reason Sherman never realized the potential and danger was there was because that it never materialized. For all their tactical success, Forrest and his raiders never succeeded in bogging down the Northern invaders, from piercing the heart of the Confederacy. Forrest and his insurgents underperformed. And from an understanding of irregular warfare, this is puzzling. Okay, he had all those great military attributes that were mentioned above, but accomplished nothing. He underperformed. I could be wrong, so if anyone thinks they can grade his war performance to debunk my post then more power to them.



You first said this: Being a man of considerable ability Forrest would have risen high even if slavery was not present. I responded to your post with this: The historical record disagrees with you. NBF failed at a railroad venture after slavery ended? Evidently, he didn't have much ability outside of selling slaves. You went right back to his success as a slave owner when the issue was what how successful was he after abolition of slavery? Even that the one member said he had success and failures during Reconstruction, and alluded to grading him with a (C). The problem is that there's no proof to your initial assertions. I don't want to trample on the man's grave but he didn't die successful, and that throws a wrench into your theory.

His command was during the Civil War, not after the war like you said. Evidently, your time tables are wrong. You said he would have risen if slavery was not present, but talked about his command ability. Whatever. I don't believe he was a successful commander. More like an insubordinate, who was useless within the chain of command. See the above post for the rest. Nevertheless, stick to your original assertions that he would have been successful without slavery. Sorry. But it never materialized. What he did as a slave owner and commander were obviously at the same time slavery was still intact. You can't prove that he would have been successful without slavery, because it never happened.
General Forrest was a tactical genius. But he did not understand operations and campaigns. So he was often fighting a fight that did not matter in a place that was unimportant. And Fort Pillow was a good example. OK, he captured a US post that was promoting the buying and selling of cotton. As soon as the US freed up some gunboats and a brigade of infantry, they were going to retake it. And Forrest never tried to hold Fort Pillow is my recollection.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
General Forrest was a tactical genius. But he did not understand operations and campaigns. So he was often fighting a fight that did not matter in a place that was unimportant. And Fort Pillow was a good example. OK, he captured a US post that was promoting the buying and selling of cotton. As soon as the US freed up some gunboats and a brigade of infantry, they were going to retake it. And Forrest never tried to hold Fort Pillow is my recollection.

His non-understanding of operations and campaigns and fighting battles that didn't matter can explain why he never even put a dent in the Union's strategy to cut off the Mississippi. I appreciate the insight.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
General Forrest was a tactical genius. But he did not understand operations and campaigns. So he was often fighting a fight that did not matter in a place that was unimportant. And Fort Pillow was a good example.
It was a raid...netting six pieces of artillery, 300 prisoners, 600 muskets and whatever supplies were at the place.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
That’s not enough. He needed to capture entire divisions at a time in order to be a brilliant commander. Everything else is lost cause propaganda 🥱

No, he needed to bog down and emasculate the Union' strategy to at least a degree to be considered a good commander. All his so-called tactical genius and never remotely stopped the Union army from cutting off the Mississippi. I know the Union had more men and resources, and that's why he accomplished nothing. That's a bore also. Give us your metric to why you think NBF was such a great commander. You seem to embrace that Lost cause version but never explain why you do. What did he do to be considered a great commander? Do a compare and contrast to other great generals in history in losing effort. You will come to the shocking conclusion they had strongholds and held up the opposing army for considerable time. NBF did not remotely bog down the Union Army. Eric Wittenberg authors history books and he said NBF was not even a real cavalryman in any possible sense of the word. Just sayin'
 
Top