This concerning the Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest.. Hands down the most interesting character in the civil war..
He was a self made slave trader who was the only Confederate soldier to go from private to general during the course of the war..
He is a Calvary commander who skill wise was unmatched on either side. He had a list of just crazy military victories as long as your arm...
However his most controversial act was when he commanded a raid on fort pillow. His men surrounded and besieged a fort that both sides had taken ,
lost then taken again. So obviously it was a contentious spot.
Here is a write up on the "Fort pillow massacre".
en.m.wikipedia.org...
"The Battle of Fort Pillow, also known as the Fort Pillow massacre, was fought on April 12, 1864, at Fort Pillow on the Mississippi River in Henning,
Tennessee, during the American Civil War. The battle ended with a massacre of Union troops (most of them African American soldiers) attempting to
surrender, by soldiers under the command of Confederate Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Military historian David J. Eicher concluded, "Fort
Pillow marked one of the bleakest, saddest events of American military history."[2]"
There are many conflicting stories about the battle and lead up to the storming of the fort..
Both sides agree Forrest offered a surrender, even agreeing to treat the black soldiers as prisoners of war against the advise of his
subordinates..with the alternative being no quarter given.
(The union soldiers didn't trust they were gonna actually do that. My guess is they were afraid Forrest might be over ruled as not to set the legal
precedent that blacks "could" be" POWs.)
The normal mindset was that black soldiers fighting for the US would be treated as run away slaves and sumerily hung.
From there stories diverge..
Some say Forrest specifically ordered the soldiers to kill every black soldier and any white that didn't instantly surrender..
Some said Forrest stood between his men and the last few survivors saber and pistol drawn to stop the massacre.
No one really disagrees a massacre to place.. the question is was it by the order of Forrest, or just bloodlust of the soldiers??
(My theory..)
I think all of it happened.. and I think it all makes sense from his POV.
Against the advise of his contemporaries Forrest offered a full surrender to the fort.. and the US troops were screwed.. Forrest had them completely
surrounded and out gunned.. the fight was over..
When the US troops rejected the offer Forrest got mad..
He had gone out on a limb offering POW status to the black soldiers and was still turned down..and that had to burn.
An old little remebered by modern people rule of warfare concerning seiges was that you had until the seige equipment or soldiers touched your walls
to surrender or your city would be sacked.. and for those who don't know sacked means raping and murdering all your population..
Basically saying if you make us lose the men required to take your city, the leadership will let the soldiers bloodlust go wild.
So back to the theory..
So Forrest is already pissed off they turned down his offer of surrender when he ordered the charge. Then he loses about a dozen men taking the
fort... a fort he would have thought should have surrendered because they had no chance of winning or being reinforced.
At that point, just like Alexander or hannible would have done he orders no quarter given.
His men charged the fort and start slaughtering EVERYONE, but especially the black soldiers..
This goes on for awhile and in the process Forrest sees and probably participates in the slaughter of dozens of surrendering and defenseless soldiers.
After a few dozen it gets gratuitous..
Forrests adrinaline and anger subside and he realizes it has gone too far.. but his men are in full blown bloodlust mode.
He yells for the slaughter to stop, but his commands fall on deaf ears. He is grabbing them by the back of the kneck and pushing through his lines but
no one is listening.
Finally and with the full realization that he is the commanding officer here and thus all of this his responsibility setting in. He pulls his weapons
on his own men and puts his body between himself and the survivors and screams,
"the next man that executes a prisoner I will execute myself!!"
He regains command but it still takes time for word to spread to those who were being chased onto the camps outskirts.
Now I'm now saying he was like "dear Jesus what have I done!!"
He had offered surrender and lost men in taking the walls.. but at a certain point it got gratuitous and all accountability was lay at his feet, as
commanding officer.
Thoughts???
edit on 20-8-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-8-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason
given)
edit on 20-8-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)