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 ...
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.
LOL,,,Now I gotta get that box of books out of storage...;0)
HI backatcha! ;o)
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]
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.
I’ve found the price rather steep.
‘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.
‘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.
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yep.
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.
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.
‘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.
-Arlin Turner, George W. Cable's Recollections of General Forrest, The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 21, No. 2. (May, 1955), pp. 224-228.
". . . 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.
self ping
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.