Confederate Generals Racism and Slavery (historical, military, attack, country)
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.
Slave trading was a vile practice and being less bad at it is damning with faint praise.
Never said otherwise. It is a vile practice--by today's standards, and by any standard I personally hold. But, in that day, most people regarded the practice much like many do used-car salesman today. Such was the nature of society in that day, north or south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noetsi
In 1864 after a union black unit was overrun Forest let his unit slaughter the soldiers desperate to surrender.
You're referencing Fort Pillow. The slaughter of white Union troops there were atrocious as well. In fact, the incident was investigated twice by the Union for what we today would call war crimes; once immediately after while the war was still going on and once after by Congress. Both arrived at the conclusion that it was troops essentially run amok, and in fact, found that Forrest and his officers had tried to rein in their men as quickly as they could once they realized that what had started as a battle had degenerated into a rampage. In fact, Sherman, who didn't hesitate to kill even when not necessary and had his own problems with his men going on rampages, declined to seek retaliation, even though it had been authorized by Grant, if the facts justified it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noetsi
While there is dispute how much Forest or anyone controlled the klan - he clearly was influential in it. This is obvious in his conflict with Governor Brownlowe in TN. His subordinates gave him credit for founding it (in fact no one founded it - nor was it united).
Its hard to argue you are not influential in a movement when you claim you ordered it to disband and it did
No argument that he was influential...as he was in pretty much all aspects of government, business and society in the area. The point I was making is that his involvement in it was ambiguous and it is not accurate to state as fact that he was an actual formal leader in it or instrumental in its creation as many people do state. From the years studying him and the Civil War, I don't doubt for a minute that even if he had zero involvement, zero clue about who was in it, that if he said stop it, he was influential and respected enough in the region that it more than likely would have stopped. I think another indication of his influence is that not long after his death a newly constituted, darker, dirtier Klan emerged.
Even during WWII the military under FDR had racist policies.Looking at many empires even then were racist but not just on blacks.Many actaully continued into teh 50's with the western europe powers in their colonial rule.
FDR was nearly entirely disinterested in civil rights. The TVA was an openly racist organization in its hiring and other practices. Blacks tried repeatedly to obtain his support for various measures and nearly entirely failed. Ultimately, assuming he cared about civil rights period which I doubt, he was still not willing to lose southern democrats to help minorities.
Quote:
It is a vile practice--by today's standards, and by any standard I personally hold.
It was a vile practice then. Morality does not change with public approval. Evil is evil.
Forrest claimed in congressional testimony he caused the TN klan to disolve. So in his own words he claimed authority over it, since the only way he could have caused it to disolve was to control it.
I doubt Forrest did control the klan, because I don't believe anyone did. In trying to clear his name, he did the opposite.
Of fort Pillow:
Quote:
These statements, however, were contradicted by Union survivors, as well as the letter of a Confederate soldier who recounted a massacre. Achilles Clark, a soldier with the 20th Tennessee cavalry, wrote to his sister immediately after the battle: "The slaughter was awful. Words cannot describe the scene. The poor, deluded, negroes would run up to our men, fall upon their knees, and with uplifted hands scream for mercy but they were ordered to their feet and then shot down. I, with several others, tried to stop the butchery, and at one time had partially succeeded, but General Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs and the carnage continued. Finally our men became sick of blood and the firing ceased."[
If Forest had told his men to do anything they would have.
I agree that there were many in the Southern military critical of slavery or sympathetic with slaves. Soldiers served evil causes throughout history they disagreed with. People like Stonewall fought for their state, right or wrong.
That is sort of like saying he was nice for a concentration camp guard. Slave trading was a vile practice and being less bad at it is damning with faint praise. In 1864 after a union black unit was overrun Forest let his unit slaughter the soldiers desperate to surrender. While there is dispute how much Forest or anyone controlled the klan - he clearly was influential in it. This is obvious in his conflict with Governor Brownlowe in TN. His subordinates gave him credit for founding it (in fact no one founded it - nor was it united).
Its hard to argue you are not influential in a movement when you claim you ordered it to disband and it did
There is no direct evidence Forrest started the Klan.
Forrest was cleared of any alleged massacre at Ft. Pillow.
Union troops should have never occupied Ft. Pillow, there were no orders to station troops there during that time.
Location and outbuildings made the fort a poor choice for defense - no commander should have tried to fight out of it.
Hulburt and others had interests in the local cotton operations - a direct conflict of interest.
Forrest gave Booth/Bradford several opportunities to surrender with a plea to heed the warning.
Union Army surgeon Dr. Charles Fitch clears Forrest and the Confederates of any charges.
The USS New Era fired on troops under flag of truce when communications between Forrest and Booth/Bradford occurred.
Forrest made a peaceful capture of the Union Garrison at Union City weeks prior to Ft. Pillow.
Forrest is among the greatest military leaders in American history. That is undisputed.
From the Dallas Herald newspaper of July 1, 1865 reporting from the Memphis Bulletin:
Fort Pillow. -- Since the war has closed, it has transpired that there was much misrepresentation in reference to the Fort Pillow affair. It is not true that the rebels took no prisoners. On the contrary about two hundred were taken prisoner and carried South.
A Federal officer assures us that some of the negroes who surrendered at Fort Pillow explain the reason they were so badly used. They say that when the rebels got on the fortifications and demanded a surrender, in their ignorance of what to do, they gave them a volley instead of surrendering -- that this incensed the rebels, who pitched in without mercy.
Ahhh, you can start almost an entire topic on the Fort Pillow affair (I tried once, no one responded). I have read several books on the subject and have been to the remains of Fort Pillow twice. I can't disagree with what anyone wrote however even if they seem to contradict each other, the reason being is that their is still some confusion on events, tainted by the original northern investigation which falsely claimed that union troops were tied to trees and burned alive, and it is subject to interpretation.
Were many negro troops, and some white troops, excecuted in cold blood? - YES.
Where prisoners, including negro troops, taken by Forrest and relatively well treated after hostilities ceased? - YES.
Did the US government fully research the event immediately afterwards and declare it a warcrime? - YES, although it was tainted with politics and war fever.
Did Grant choose to not prosecute anyone after the war as a result of Fort Pillow (Forrest was not cleared, but simply no action was taken)? - YES, although his biography makes it clear they he thought the event at Fort Pillow was reprehensable and indeed a massacre.
Fort Pillow was a confusing event, as are all battles essentially. On the union side - the commander was killed early, troops were untrained and drinking, and provoking rebels with yells and hand gestures, they were also given mixed orders to continue the fight down the river, and the fort flag was not lowered. On the confederate side - you had the natural hatred of negro troops along with the "galvanized yankee" southern union troops. You also had some leadership issues, as Forrest did not lead the charge into the fort (some say because he knew his troops would be doing some unsavory killing and he wanted them to get it out of their system for a little bit, or it could be because his horse was shot out from under him and had a painful injury as a result of the fall), and only restraining the slaugher after a certain point in time when he chose to reenter the combat area. And you had Forrest, frankly, issue a ultimatim to the union fort that suggested there would be no quarter if the rebels had to storm the fort.
Mix that together and you get a massacre.
Edit: Also a note on the several references of Forrest being "cleared" or "guilty" in any official reckoning or suggested trial. There was none that I know about. There is only one "official" report done, during the war that I have referenced above. That is from the U.S. Committee on the Conduct of War. The aforementioned document that charged rebel troops with committing additional attrocities that they didn't in fact do (i.e. nailing negro soldiers to trees). It was a propoganda piece essentially, and accused the south of having a policy of no quarter to negro soldiers. It had no legal ramifications for confederate officers however. Otherwise, there are official military reports, etc, with various accounts and spins on the battle that may be interpreted as "clearing" Forrest, but not really. So, just to be clear, Forrest was never "cleared" of anything, and in contrast history has condemend him to carry this burden. Not to be known as one of the greatest Generals in the civil war, but to be tagged as a murderer (right or wrong).
Only wanted to add one little detail...Forrest, when possible, usually gave the Union troops he met the opportunity to surrender with the along with the warning along the lines of "If you don't, my boys are purt near crazy, I probably won't be able to control them!"...trading heavily upon and playing up his reputation among the Northern troops as "Devil Forrest".
(He also induced a Union commander to surrender one time by using the well known trick of skillfully repositioning artillery so that the commander thought he had more than he had.)
Only wanted to add one little detail...Forrest, when possible, usually gave the Union troops he met the opportunity to surrender with the along with the warning along the lines of "If you don't, my boys are purt near crazy, I probably won't be able to control them!"...trading heavily upon and playing up his reputation among the Northern troops as "Devil Forrest".
(He also induced a Union commander to surrender one time by using the well known trick of skillfully repositioning artillery so that the commander thought he had more than he had.)
Very true, he always used that threat...and it frequently worked. Forts surrendered without firing a shot, even when the union had the superior numbers.
The rules of fortress warfare made it legit to deny quarter to the garrison of works taken by storm. Granted, this rule was seldom enforced but it was understood.
As an aside regarding Forrest, his great-grandson, Brig. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest III, was killed in action on June 13, 1943, while piloting a B-17 over Germany. He remained at the controls, allowing the crew to bail out, although only one survived after landing in the cold waters of the Baltic Sea. He was awarded the DFC posthumously. Ironically, he was aboard as an observer, and was the first US general to be KIA in WWII.
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.
