Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before this gets locked....
Just to add, there were other instances of killing of black surrendered soldiers in the civil war - The Battle of the Crater and a raiding event during the approach on Vicksburg for instance (some garrison black troops were massacred).
It's never as simple as murdering men after surrender as you mention. In the heat of battle, these things happen. But officers are responsible for the discipline of their troops. The question could be, did Forrest endorse it and allow it to occurr? I would say by the evidence of history that he did, for awhile, until it was clear that the battle was over, and then he ordered a cease fire (some killings happened after that).
Absolutely, and to think that anyone condones the action is ludicrous... Wouldn't surprise me at all if Forrest turned a blind-eye to what was going on, but some are implying pure, unadulterated, mass-butchery and ignoring the fact that it isn't quite that simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Black prisoners were taken at Fort Pillow. So it wasn't as if it was an outright massacre. I gave the extenuating circumstances in a previous post. If you have dead officers, routing troops, no formal surrender, men running everywhere, some still fighting, some fleeing, some trying to swim away, and no where to retreat to except a river, you are going to have a massacre. Mix that all up with white confederate southern troops fighting black soldiers, and white southern union soldiers they view as traitors, a general that had previously declared (as a bluff as he had before in seiges) that he would give no quarter unless the fort surrendered. And you have some illegal killings.
And because you dare do so, you are a Forrest-loving revisionist...
Honestly, not to compare, but to bring some understanding; It's like the opening Omaha Beach scene in "Saving Private Ryan"..... Soldiers aren't "all there" and after going through an emotional (and one can only imagine) frightening assault, it's hard to simply turn the "kill switch" off.... Some can, some can't....
Yes, this is where leadership comes into play, and I'm sure Forrest didn't do NEAR what he could have to prevent unnecessary bloodshed... Never argued otherwise (as you know).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Black soldiers were killed at point blank range, not only in fleeing and in the confusion, but in the act of surrender after the clear cessation of hostilities, that is clear. In those cases I don't think Forrest would have allowed and there is no evidence he participated. But the act of his soldiers are his responsibility.
And I'd go so far as to even suggest that for a short time, he turned a blind eye to what he knew was occuring... However, the survival of a good number of black troops suggests that there's more to the story than simply a Forrest-led rampage to murder all black POWs (which is what one here would like to imply happened)...
Right or wrong, let's not forget also that the Confederate Government had issued a statement saying that black troops caught in Federal uniform would be executed. I wonder how much this proclamation played into what occured here? Sadly this IS an interesting topic and it would be nice to discuss it without hurling accusations of bigotry and "revisionism"... Thanks Dd...
What part of 'I don't condone' didn't you understand? I'm guessing you've never been in the military or know much about warfare. Captured guerillas are looked upon differently than regular army soldiers captured. That's a simple fact. That you don't like it displays an ignorance of warfare.
Actually your account is incorrect also. He was going to execute one captive for each that was killed in Front Royal (not actually by Custer, but Mosby didn't know this). The accounts are QUITE clear that neither Mosby NOR his men really had the stomach for it. They executed 3 or 4 in retaliation and basically decided that it was enough... You forgot to FINISH reading, but I'm proud of you for actually looking it up.
Oh, well that makes it OK then.
You need to claim that I'm "mocking the murder" of union prisoners. I've done NOTHING of the sort... I'm mocking YOU with that statement you imbecile. That's what's so pathetic. You don't even know it.
Actually you did mock it. In an earlier post you lamented in a mocking tone about 'the poor innocent negroes murdered at Fort Pillow'.
By the way, when you start using terms like 'imbecile' when referring to other posters, it's the surest indication that you're getting your ass handed to you and you know it.
If nothing else you show a VERY consistent pattern in your arguing. That pattern is that you only read the parts that line-up with what you want to say....
Yes, well that would certainly make me unique in this discussion, wouldn't it?
1) You want to say Forrest murdered blacks POWs? You read the parts that say he murdered black POWs. You gloss over or ignore the parts where white POWs were likewise killed AND gloss over accounts that it wasnt' as simple as murdering men behind the lines after total surrendur... An account of men fighting on after surrenduring and even picking their rifles back up is given, and you ignore it entirely.
So let me get this right, you're defense of Forrest is that he couldn't have been such a bad guy because he also murdered white prisoners? Got it.
2) You want to think that I'm a redneck southerner who wishes we could return blacks to the field and will 100% defend ALL things Confederate? So you read the part where I correct you that Forrest didn't found the KKK and that there are varying accounts of Fort Pillow and ignore that I mention that Forrest was NOT a good man. That his character is VERY suspect. But again, you can't build your strawman without straw, so you ignore that.
No, I know you're not a redneck southerner. Just a sympathizer. Your paragraph above is very interesting but hardly explains why, after I acknowledged Forrest's skill as a commander and then pointed out the fact that he wasn't a good man, and why, you immediately jumped to his defense. Or was it just another excuse to extoll the virtues of the South and demonize anybody who disagreed?
When examining Civil War generals especially, we are examining their success on the battlefield and tactics from my understanding. The South had a lot of success against overwhelming odds. One HAS to respect that... There are many Union Officers whom I respect as well, but haven't seen a thread on any of them yet....
Yet you spent most of this thread justifying and explaining Forrest, and going out of your way to criticize every Union officer you could think of in order to excuse him.
Right or wrong, let's not forget also that the Confederate Government had issued a statement saying that black troops caught in Federal uniform would be executed. I wonder how much this proclamation played into what occured here? Sadly this IS an interesting topic and it would be nice to discuss it without hurling accusations of bigotry and "revisionism"... Thanks Dd...[/quote]
Right or wrong? You're having difficulty determing whether a Confederate Government order that all black troops (and their white officers) would be executed was right or wrong?
I rest my case.
And it's an 'interesting topic' only because I brought it up (only to be immediately attacked by almost every other poster). Nobody else thought it worth mentioning in their deification of Forrest.
And I'd go so far as to even suggest that for a short time, he turned a blind eye to what he knew was occuring... Thanks Dd...
I'm not going to join the argument, because frankly I can't figure out what the argument is about. Seems you both agree...
But just on your comment above above. In a previous post I indicated that Turtledove novelized the Fort Pillow battle in the Sharaa tradition, using what historical data was available and fictionaling some of the actions and words of the historical figures. His take has Forrest holding back on the final storming of the fort (this is historically correct), which was rare for Forrest because he always liked to be in the thick of the battle. Turtledove has Forrest holding back because he knew what was going to happen once his soldiers entered the fort, and he didn't want to see it or be part of it (although it could be argued also that, in the engagement, he had a horse shot out from him and had a painful injury from the fall and that was the reason for not entering the fort area immediately), but allowed it to happen in order for his troops to release that pent up hate and outrage, for awhile at least. Then he rode into the fort, after he felt it had gone on long enough, and ordered his troops and his officers to cease firing and not to kill prisoners.
I think Turtledove's account is logically accurate.
What part of 'I don't condone' didn't you understand? I'm guessing you've never been in the military or know much about warfare. Captured guerillas are looked upon differently than regular army soldiers captured. That's a simple fact. That you don't like it displays an ignorance of warfare.
Showing once again that you know nothing of the incident. It was decreed that Mosby's men would be executed if captured and there was a reason for it. I'd tell you why, but I'd like to see if you could figure it out.
Anyway, by the logic you have used in this thread and others, simply saying, "This is how guerillas are treated" constitutes excusing it. So you basically in this statement said, "I don't condone it" and then condoned it.... Again, that's some good ole ANGUS logic for ye...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
Oh, well that makes it OK then.
Nope, just once again pointing out your historical ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
Actually you did mock it. In an earlier post you lamented in a mocking tone about 'the poor innocent negroes murdered at Fort Pillow'.
I used that statement and attributed it to you saying "anything short of saying that will be seen as 'revisionist'" by you.... You really have trouble with nuance and the English language, don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
By the way, when you start using terms like 'imbecile' when referring to other posters, it's the surest indication that you're getting your ass handed to you and you know it.
Except when the term is used in reference to you. Then it's just a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
Yes, well that would certainly make me unique in this discussion, wouldn't it?
LOL!!! Yes it does indeed. The rest of us take the time to read the ENTIRE story, so yes... At least you admit it and we get a glimpse into the myopic brain that is Angus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
So let me get this right, you're defense of Forrest is that he couldn't have been such a bad guy because he also murdered white prisoners? Got it.
No, but by ignoring this fact, you make it look like an evil white overlord of a General swooped in and killed all the black people... Goes back to the last comment and you only reading the parts which are useful to your argument. Yes, Forrest was not a good man, PERIOD.
Your need to embellish is what I find annoying. I think some of his actions stand on their own to make your point without revising and editing stories only to fit into your perfect little mold of who a person is...
Example: George W. Bush's administration condoned the torture of suspects nabbed off the streets of Iraq that may or may not have been suspected terrorists. No need to say anything else. What your'e doing is like saying that, "In addition. W. went and waterboarded a few himself." It's an embellishment to further a point that needs no furthering. Forrest was not a nice human being. NUFF SAID, WE GET IT!!! Why do you feel the need to push it further with "burning black POWs alive" and such?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
No, I know you're not a redneck southerner. Just a sympathizer. Your paragraph above is very interesting but hardly explains why, after I acknowledged Forrest's skill as a commander and then pointed out the fact that he wasn't a good man, and why, you immediately jumped to his defense. Or was it just another excuse to extoll the virtues of the South and demonize anybody who disagreed?
Actually I jumped in and corrected an incorrect historical fact, but whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
Right or wrong? You're having difficulty determing whether a Confederate Government order that all black troops (and their white officers) would be executed was right or wrong?
I rest my case.
Well, you can't understand the English language, but you're good at twisting it anyway... "Right or Wrong" isn't a phrase that is asking whether it was literally right or wrong. It is saying that in this argument it is irrelevent whether it was or wasn't....
Either way, please, rest your case!!! Whatever your case is, PLEASE rest it!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
And it's an 'interesting topic' only because I brought it up (only to be immediately attacked by almost every other poster). Nobody else thought it worth mentioning in their deification of Forrest.
It's because the thread was OBVIOUSLY meant as one that was asking people to compare Forrest's skill as a general to other generals. The topic you brought up, while interesting, was and still is irrelevent to what the OP was asking.
Last edited by Rhett_Butler; 10-28-2009 at 01:54 PM..
Yet you spent most of this thread justifying and explaining Forrest, and going out of your way to criticize every Union officer you could think of in order to excuse him.
Want to address this separately.
HUH???
"criticize every Union officer"??
What the heck are you talking about?
Only brought up a few incidents under Sheridan that were less than gentlemanly as well...
Showing once again that you know nothing of the incident. It was decreed that Mosby's men would be executed if captured and there was a reason for it. I'd tell you why, but I'd like to see if you could figure it out.
They were guerillas. One step above Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson. Regular army troops don't like guerillas. Just ask one.
Anyway, by the logic you have used in this thread and others, simply saying, "This is how guerillas are treated" constitutes excusing it. So you basically in this statement said, "I don't condone it" and then condoned it.... Again, that's some good ole ANGUS logic for ye...
Actually, no. That's your interpretation of what I said. You're really good at that. You sound to me like one of those guys who has read a few books but really has no concept of how the real world works.
I used that statement and attributed it to you saying "anything short of saying that will be seen as 'revisionist'" by you.... You really have trouble with nuance and the English language, don't you?
You said what you said and now you're trying to find some way out of it. Just be a man and admit you were mocking the murder of black prisoners.
Except when the term is used in reference to you. Then it's just a fact.
So in your world, calling somebody with whom you disagree and who's beating the crap out of you in an argument an 'imbecile' is perfectly OK. Why doesn't this surprise me?
No, but by ignoring this fact, you make it look like an evil white overlord of a General swooped in and killed all the black people... Goes back to the last comment and you only reading the parts which are useful to your argument. Yes, Forrest was not a good man, PERIOD.
It's interesting how your tone has changed as people have pointed out what a scumbag this guy was. Not just me, of course, because as a 'Yankee' you wouldn't have believed a word I said. You've slowly evolved away from your stupid Sheridan comparison, which was only demonstrating your ignorance, and now have taken the tack that you understood all along what a piece of dirt this guy was. Well, I guess that's progress of a sort.
Your need to embellish is what I find annoying. I think some of his actions stand on their own to make your point without revising and editing stories only to fit into your perfect little mold of who a person is...
Would those be the actions that you were defending earlier in this thread, using the popular 'yeah, but look what Sheridan did to the Indians' defense? You seem to think there's some great distinction between founding the KKK and being the first Grand Wizard, and that the first is a terrible insult but the second is OK. That's called nit-picking.
Example: George W. Bush's administration condoned the torture of suspects nabbed off the streets of Iraq that may or may not have been suspected terrorists. No need to say anything else. What your'e doing is like saying that, "In addition. W. went and waterboarded a few himself." It's an embellishment to further a point that needs no furthering. Forrest was not a nice human being. NUFF SAID, WE GET IT!!! Why do you feel the need to push it further with "burning black POWs alive" and such?
Because those were allegations made at the time. Some believe them to be true, some don't.
Oh yeah, who was it that brought up the war crimes of Forrest in the first place? You act like you had already acknowledged all of this and I merely piled on. In fact, it's only because of me that this is being discussed at all.
Well, you can't understand the English language, but you're good at twisting it anyway... "Right or Wrong" isn't a phrase that is asking whether it was literally right or wrong. It is saying that in this argument it is irrelevent whether it was or wasn't....
Sure.
Either way, please, rest your case!!! Whatever your case is, PLEASE rest it!!!
I rested my case a long time ago. It's you that wants to continue to argue about it.
It's because the thread was OBVIOUSLY meant as one that was asking people to compare Forrest's skill as a general to other generals. The topic you brought up, while interesting, was and still is irrelevent to what the OP was asking.
And had you not chosen to pick a fight over my accurate attack on Forrest's character, that's exactly where it would have remained.
But please, throw out some more personal insults like 'imbecile'. You have no idea how much stuff like that makes my day.
Only brought up a few incidents under Sheridan that were less than gentlemanly as well...
Gee, wasn't there a shot at Sherman in there somewhere? And of course, the Mosby guerilla incident. Oh, and Lincoln for goading the South in to the war in the first place. I'm sure you can think of some more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
