Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Wizard of the Saddle
NRO ^ | July 20, 2007 | W. Thomas Smith Jr.

Posted on 07/20/2007 6:24:09 PM PDT by SuzyQ2

Forrest's soldiers loved him. His fellow generals admired him. His enemies were terrified at the mere mention of his name. Gen. Robert E. Lee said of his finest subordinate commanders, the most remarkable was one he "had never met" — Forrest. And U.S. and foreign military officers alike have studied Forrest’s campaigns over the decades since the end of the war. It has even been speculated that some aspects of the German Blitzkrieg were patterned after some of Forrest's operations.

(Excerpt) Read more at tank.nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Germany; US: New York
KEYWORDS: army; bedfordforrest; bigot; dixie; forrest; fortpillowmassacre; kkk; military; militaryhistory; nathanbedfordforrest; nathanforrest; nbforrest; redneck; slaver; soldier; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 321-333 next last
To: 1COUNTER-MORTER-68
I think this was the “Spanked On The Rump” with the flat-side of his saber story I read of

You might be thinking of the famous raid at the Fairfax Courthouse where John Singleton Mosby of the 43rd Battalion roused Brigadier General Edwin Stoughton from his slumbers with a swift swat.

161 posted on 07/23/2007 8:26:45 PM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: snowsislander

LOL,,,Now I gotta get that box of books out of storage...;0)


162 posted on 07/23/2007 8:36:21 PM PDT by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

HI backatcha! ;o)


163 posted on 07/23/2007 9:33:21 PM PDT by dixiechick2000 (There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators. ~~ Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
The Union officers put the black troops on the wall, and the white troops in bombproofs. If that's true, the Union officers were the ones responsible for the "massacre".

I hadn't heard that either. That kind of positioning of black troops was somewhat similar to that employed by the Union army at Olustee, Florida, in February 1864. Olustee was another battle at which large numbers of black soldiers were killed and massacre was claimed.

Here is a report from the March 11, 1864, New Orleans Daily Picayune newspaper quoting the March 2, 1864 Mobile Register about the Olustee battle:

We learn from a dispatch to the Savannah Republican that the Federals have abandoned their position on the St. Mary's River and taken to the protection of their fleet. Our loss in the late battle was thirty-five killed and from 700 to 800 wounded. The enemy's loss was between 2500 and 3000.

The enemy's force is reported to have been 10,000 men of all arms. Our force was about 3500 to 4000. The enemy placed two of their negro regiments in the front and urged them on at the point of the bayonet. They withstood our fire at a distance, but as our troops advanced they retreated. More than one half of the two negro regiments are said to have been left on the field of battle.

Part of the Union problem at Olustee was that the black troops had not been battle before and apparently were not well trained for battle. A Union officer, Captain Langdon, reported seeing black troops huddling together on the Olustee battlefield being shot at. They did not know what to do.

I saw many wounded colored soldiers appearing suddenly in front and on my left, without muskets, and it appeared as if they had been lying down and taken the first opportunity to get to the rear. Some of the infantry, while facing the enemy and firing wildly, did not show fear, nor did I see any of them absolutely run off, but groups of them huddled together and did nothing, and many were in this position shot, while they seemed unconscious that they were hit. [Source]

From US Captain Hamilton's report:

As soon as I saw this position I felt that all hopes of withdrawing my guns to a more favorable position were gone, for the reason that the Eighth U.S. Colored were green troops, and should I have limbered to the rear I was sure they would run before the second line could come up to our support. ... My whole attention was involved in holding the Eighth on their ground. My heart bled for them; they fell as ten pins in a bowling alley; but everything depended on their sacrifice and that of my battery until we could be relieved or the new line formed.

... The left wing of the U.S. Colored Infantry could have done little injury to the enemy; they fired very wildly and without purpose. It was not from cowardice as much as ignorance. Their officers appeared to do their duty as brave men, but without self-reliance, and I did not see any of the regiment run, yet they only served the purpose of keeping the enemy in check from charging. They should not be condemned, for I saw nothing wrong that could not be accounted for by want of experience and ignorance of object, apparently. [Source]

164 posted on 07/23/2007 10:02:24 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
I can only speculate:

They may have volunteered, many were very eager to show they could fight, and wanted to fight the Rebs they hated.

Their command may have been larger, since there were no mixed units, one or the other commands had to man the wall.

The white troops may not have been combat ready for some reason and were held in reserve.

Black troops were very aware of their no-quarter status and wanted to fight first to determine their own fates rather than rely on white troops that might surrender them.

In fact, the reason both offers of surrender were refused is that the blacks knew what their fate would be and strongly objected to being taken prisoner, they were right.

165 posted on 07/23/2007 10:46:49 PM PDT by gandalftb (Blessed be the Lord that teaches my hands for the war, and my fingers to fight. (Sniper Jackson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator

I’ve found the price rather steep.


166 posted on 07/24/2007 5:58:33 AM PDT by Badeye (You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator

‘What was it that made everyone so killing mad?’

Seeing your friends, family, neighbors decapitated by a cannon round will do that from what I’m told.


167 posted on 07/24/2007 5:59:33 AM PDT by Badeye (You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

‘Pickett’s charge nearly prevailed, had Stuart shown up on the right flank with 2,000 cavalry the Union position would have buckled, they nearly did so anyway but were saved by artillery. The same artillery that Stuart would have routed.’

That makes the assumption the Sixth Corps would just stand by ‘idle’.

Not bloody likely under any circumstances. The ANV’s cavalry wouldn’t have made any difference, except to add to the total losses realized.


168 posted on 07/24/2007 6:01:01 AM PDT by Badeye (You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator

‘Actually, they would have been driving the remnants of a routed Union cavalry force into those positions from the east and behind. Of course it would have taken them probably 20 minutes longer than was needed, or never minutes, if their horses were blown.’

Really? And where, pray tell, was this invisible Union Cavalry in front of the Union line that afternoon?

Sorry, that makes no sense at all. You honestly think Meade would have moved his cavalry ‘front and center’ in the middle of the barrage?

Come on, thats ridiculous on multiple levels.


169 posted on 07/24/2007 6:02:48 AM PDT by Badeye (You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

Fact: Forrest was in command at Ft. Pillow, period, 100% his responsibility.

Fact: The attacking Confederates suffered 14 killed and 86 wounded.

Fact: The defending, fortified, Union force lost 231 killed and 100 wounded.

14 attackers killed, 231 defenders killed yet the number of wounded is nearly the same on both sides.

FACT: Forrest tried to stop it.

Read Shelby Foote’s account of this battle.


170 posted on 07/24/2007 6:03:35 AM PDT by Badeye (You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Badeye; an amused spectator; fso301; Mr. Lucky; Non-Sequitur; stand watie
Forrest was no fool, he knew that killing prisoners is a stupid move. The word always gets out and in future battles his enemy would fight to the death, making future victories much more costly.

Bottom line, if his officers or enlisted were out of control to the degree that the kill ratio was 14:231, he had to be aware of the continued firing after the battle was over.

Foote is a great story-teller but not noted as a forensic historian. Check out: Albert Castel, The Fort Pillow Massacre: A Fresh Examination of the Evidence, Civil War History, 1958. Castel is a retired professor of History at Western Michigan University.

But let's go ahead and see what Foote has to say: Shelby Foote, The Civil War, a Narrative: Red River to Appomattox (New York: Vintage, 1986), 110

"Some kept going, right into the river, where a number drowned and the swimmers became targets for marksmen on the bluff. Others, dropping their guns in terror, ran back toward the Confederates with their hands up, and of these some were spared as prisoners, while others were shot down in the act of surrender."

How about Confederate soldier Achilles Clark, who wrote to his wife that “I with several others tried to stop the butchery. . . , but Gen. Forrest ordered them [Negro and white Union troops] shot down like dogs, and the carnage continued.”

Union surgeon Dr. Charles Fitch, who was taken prisoner by General Forrest, testified that he saw Confederate soldiers “kill every Negro who made his appearance in Federal uniform.” There is no question that Forrest demanded surrender twice threatening no quarter. When that was refused, Forrest's men carried out the No Quarter orders, Forrest probably saw the carnage and tried to stop it, too late for 231 black prisoners.

Forrest was responsible.

171 posted on 07/24/2007 8:13:03 AM PDT by gandalftb (Blessed be the Lord that teaches my hands for the war, and my fingers to fight. (Sniper Jackson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

But let’s go ahead and see what Foote has to say: Shelby Foote, The Civil War, a Narrative: Red River to Appomattox (New York: Vintage, 1986), 110

“Some kept going, right into the river, where a number drowned and the swimmers became targets for marksmen on the bluff. Others, dropping their guns in terror, ran back toward the Confederates with their hands up, and of these some were spared as prisoners, while others were shot down in the act of surrender.”

Its telling what you didn’t ‘copy’ from the same page.

Many of us actually own the three volume ‘narrative’. You can pull that with others, but not with me.


172 posted on 07/24/2007 8:15:30 AM PDT by Badeye (You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb; Badeye; LS; Texas Mulerider
Shelby Foote states that Forrest was trying to pull back his troopers once they got inside the fort and despite the Union flag was still flying.

The Union wanted a fight and expected the gunboat to cover their retreat should one occur. Forrest was known for treating prisoners fairly

As for the report, "Southerners might argue the document [Commission Report] tissue of lies from end to end, which it was." - Shelby Foote

Gandalftb, you and LS should swap stories about how inaccurate Shelby Foote is since he's Southern.

173 posted on 07/24/2007 9:10:14 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Yep.


174 posted on 07/24/2007 9:15:51 AM PDT by Badeye (You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

So which of those dates are you arguing? That the first Pilgrim Thanksgiving was in 1621? That Cortez landed in Mexico in 1519? You can’t just keep asserting that there’s something wrong with those dates and not say what it is.


175 posted on 07/24/2007 9:19:04 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
The citation is accurate.

Try pulling this like I did: http://dabcc.nmsu.edu/info/labs/lab85/chicagop.pdf

It is a white paper written by Ned Bishop citing eight sources that include Foote and Forrest himself.

Forrest was a crude tyrant, a hot head, a Black (other than slave) hater, who was never accepted by other Confederate gentlemen officers. He led by his command presence and force of personality. He was uneducated in military tactics, administrative leadership skills.

Bloodthirstiness was his only qualification. He was a man for his times.

Then there was the battle at Brice's Cross Roads. Another day.

176 posted on 07/24/2007 9:28:31 AM PDT by gandalftb (Blessed be the Lord that teaches my hands for the war, and my fingers to fight. (Sniper Jackson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

‘The citation is accurate.’

Don’t dispute that statement. As I noted - and you didn’t respond to - you selectively quoted. You omit the exoneration completely.

Like I said, you can’t get away with that with those of us that own the ‘narrative’ trilogy.


177 posted on 07/24/2007 9:30:55 AM PDT by Badeye (You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb
An interview of August 28, 1868, for the Memphis Commercial, inserted in the record, quotes him as saying that he took forty-seven slaves into the army and that forty-five of them were surrendered with him in 1865. In direct testimony he said there were forty-five of the teamsters and he gave free papers to forty-four of them in 1863, eighteen months before the war ended.

-Arlin Turner, George W. Cable's Recollections of General Forrest, The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 21, No. 2. (May, 1955), pp. 224-228.

178 posted on 07/24/2007 9:45:30 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb
Nathan Bedford Forrest, apparently, became quite upset about the tarnishing of his image and replied to General C.C. Washburn, the Union Commander at Memphis, concerning the charges in a letter dated June 23, 1864

". . . I regard captured negroes [sic]-as I do captured property and not as captured soldiers . . . . It is not the policy nor the interest in the South to destroy the negro [sic]-on the contrary, to preserve and protect him."

Forrest goes on to state:

". . . Since the war began I have captured many thousands of federal prisoners, and they, including the survivors of. . .Fort Pillow. . . (black and white), are living witnesses to the fact that we do not mistreat prisoners of war."

- The Negro's Civil War in Tennessee, 1861-1865, Bobby L. Lovett, The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 61, No. 1. (Jan., 1976), pp. 36-50.

179 posted on 07/24/2007 10:20:53 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQ2

self ping


180 posted on 07/24/2007 10:23:18 AM PDT by advertising guy (If computer skills named us, I'd be back-space delete.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 321-333 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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