1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedThis summarizes the facts well:
Despite the initial arguments of Confederates—and the continued insistence of Forrest’s apologists—proclaiming that no massacre had occurred, evidence to the contrary is simply too overwhelming. While not as overblown as the arguments put forward by Wade and Gooch, the interpretations of the vast majority of modern historians convincingly show that a massacre took place. Twice as many Union soldiers were killed during the battle than were wounded—an inverse ratio for Civil War battles. Moreover, only 20 percent of the black soldiers present were taken prisoner, while roughly 60 percent of the white troops present were captured.
http://www.britannica.com/event/Fort-Pillow-Massacre
Numerous witnesses gave depositions that attested to the fact that Forrest's men shot down surrendering black soldiers in cold blood.
A trial, of course, should have been held. Followed by Forrest's prompt hanging.
EDIT: Here's two accounts from US sailors:
http://deadconfederates.com/2012/08/02/what-they-saw-at-fort-pillow/
Originally posted by st dominics previewAn "official surrender" is not necessary. When soldiers throw down their arms, declare they surrender and beg for mercy they are not to be butchered.
Duchess ~ I think we agree on something. My understanding is that the 'Fort Pillow Massacre' is shrouded in doubt as to whether the Union forces had officially surrendered or not.
Forrest on many previous occasions had demanded surrenders and said no quarter would be given if the demands were refused. This was standard medieval practice, but a violation of the laws of war by long before 1860.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't quite follow the 'if the demands were refused' part of that post.
An "official surrender" is not necessary. When soldiers throw down their arms, declare they surrender and beg for mercy they are not to be butchered.
Forrest on many previous occasions had demanded surrenders and said no quarter would be given if the demands were refused. This was standard medieval practice, but a violation of the laws of war by long before 1860.
However..even as a CSA supporter, I will say that NBF was , at best, a heartless warrior.
If that's the best...well...his conduct may be open to debate, in my view.
'Get there first with the most'...probably good advice in any foray
Originally posted by st dominics previewSomething like this:
I don't quite follow the 'if the demands were refused' part of that post.
However..even as a CSA supporter, I will say that NBF was , at best, a heartless warrior.
If that's the best...well...his conduct may be open to debate, in my view.
'Get there first with the most'...probably good advice in any foray
Forrest: I order you to surrender. If you refuse to surrender and I have to storm your position, I will give no quarter.
Forrest was a good cavalry commander. And a vicious war criminal.
The post that was quoted here has been removedYou spent a good deal of time and space comparing two events you admit are not parallel. Still I agree that there is enough dispute and doubt about the events at Ft. Pillow to at least hesitate in the condemnation of Nathan Bedford Forest.
One thing that is undeniable is that the entire Civil War could have been avoided by one man, Abraham Lincoln.
Originally posted by no1marauderwasn't Grant known as 'Unconditional Surrender' Grant?
Something like this:
Forrest: I order you to surrender. If you refuse to surrender and I have to storm your position, I will give no quarter.
Forrest was a good cavalry commander. And a vicious war criminal.
A great cavalry commander. A vicious warrior. One neither of us would want to oppose. i think we are agreed on that?
Originally posted by normbenignPiłsudski was at fault for WWII under that "logic".
You spent a good deal of time and space comparing two events you admit are not parallel. Still I agree that there is enough dispute and doubt about the events at Ft. Pillow to at least hesitate in the condemnation of Nathan Bedford Forest.
One thing that is undeniable is that the entire Civil War could have been avoided by one man, Abraham Lincoln.