Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: rockrr

Thank you. There is only one ‘eye witness’ to Forrest nailing Union soldiers to logs and setting them on fire, so his testimony is dubious. And an investigation by the Union army exonerated Forrest personally of any wrongdoing.

This from the referenced book: “The military investigation thus ordered was carried out by General Brayman, Union commander at Cairo, who on April twenty-eighth sent a copy direct to Secretary Stanton, as ordered, and gave another to the Congressional committee when it visited Cairo.
Sherman’s judgment of the “massacre at Fort Pillow” as expressed in his Memoirs is that:

“No doubt Forrest’s men acted like a set of barbarians, shooting down the helpless negro garrison after the fort was in their possession; but I am told that Forrest personally disclaims any active participation in the assault, and that he stopped the firing as soon as he could. I also take it for granted that Forrest did not lead the assault in person, and consequently that he was to the rear, out of sight if not of hearing at the time, and I was told by hundreds of our men, who were at various times prisoners in Forrest’s possession, that be was usually very kind to them.”

Also this from the same book: “The third main charge, that the “atrocities committed at Fort Pillow” were the result of deliberate policy, does not stand up under examination of the Union record.”

Also this from Wikipedia: “Forrest’s men insisted that the Union soldiers, although fleeing, kept their weapons and frequently turned to shoot, forcing the Confederates to keep firing in self-defense.[10] Their claim is consistent with the discovery of numerous Union rifles on the bluffs near the river.[18] The Union flag was still flying over the fort, which indicated that the force had not formally surrendered. A contemporary newspaper account from Jackson, Tennessee, states that “General Forrest begged them to surrender,” but “not the first sign of surrender was ever given.” Similar accounts were reported in both Southern and Northern newspapers at the time.[19]”


67 posted on 01/17/2016 8:35:11 PM PST by soakncider ("The two enemies of the people are criminals and government"...Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]


To: soakncider

Forrest wasn’t exonerated - the tribunal decided not to prosecute. And I don’t care if you believe the account or not - you asked for a citation and I gave you one.


69 posted on 01/17/2016 8:43:44 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: soakncider
Thank you. There is only one ‘eye witness’ to Forrest nailing Union soldiers to logs and setting them on fire, so his testimony is dubious. And an investigation by the Union army exonerated Forrest personally of any wrongdoing.

Uh no. It was your hated Sherman that conducted part of the investigation, and he came to a couple narrow conclusions that didn't exonerate him, but just made him out of the area until the rebels finally decided to pull down the US flag. They kept the US flag up so they could keep killing surrendering union soldiers. Forrest gave the green light to the atrocities by saying beforehand that he would not be responsible. His soldiers knew what that meant, it meant they could torture and kill union soldiers. I was a trick he liked to pull more than once.

This from the referenced book: “The military investigation thus ordered was carried out by General Brayman, Union commander at Cairo, who on April twenty-eighth sent a copy direct to Secretary Stanton, as ordered, and gave another to the Congressional committee when it visited Cairo. Sherman’s judgment of the “massacre at Fort Pillow” as expressed in his Memoirs is that: “No doubt Forrest’s men acted like a set of barbarians, shooting down the helpless negro garrison after the fort was in their possession; but I am told that Forrest personally disclaims any active participation in the assault, and that he stopped the firing as soon as he could. I also take it for granted that Forrest did not lead the assault in person, and consequently that he was to the rear, out of sight if not of hearing at the time, and I was told by hundreds of our men, who were at various times prisoners in Forrest’s possession, that be was usually very kind to them.” Also this from the same book: “The third main charge, that the “atrocities committed at Fort Pillow” were the result of deliberate policy, does not stand up under examination of the Union record.” Also this from Wikipedia: “Forrest’s men insisted that the Union soldiers, although fleeing, kept their weapons and frequently turned to shoot, forcing the Confederates to keep firing in self-defense.[10] Their claim is consistent with the discovery of numerous Union rifles on the bluffs near the river.[18] The Union flag was still flying over the fort, which indicated that the force had not formally surrendered. A contemporary newspaper account from Jackson, Tennessee, states that “General Forrest begged them to surrender,” but “not the first sign of surrender was ever given.” Similar accounts were reported in both Southern and Northern newspapers at the time.[19]”

Again, that doesn't explain union soldiers being nailed to logs, floors, and walls, and then having those logs and huts set on fire, not on the testimony of one, but on the testimony of several.

Forrest hated the black soldier and any white soldier who fought alongside, he said so in his letters. And he never denied the atrocities to Richmond. He said he didn't have to.

79 posted on 01/17/2016 9:09:05 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson