Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest

Expand Messages
  • Rielle
    What I really would like to know about Nathan Bedford Forest is [according to the list members and your sources] why did he act as he did at Fort Pillow? What
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 4, 2005
      What I really would like to know about Nathan Bedford Forest is [according to the list members and your sources] why did he act as he did at Fort Pillow? What do the historical sources say about it. I've read at least part of Forest' report on the affair to his superiors, but ...it seems to me that this might be another case like Andersonville, where Wirz claimed innocence, and claimed he did all he could there [which might be true] and the Committee on the Conduct of the War wouldn't listen to him at all.

      I'm genuinely interested and curious about this, what sources can you suggest?



      How body from spirit does unwind, until we are pure spirit at the end
      "Infirmity" by Theodore Roethke
      American poet, 1908-1963


      --- DPowell334@... wrote:

      From: DPowell334@...
      Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:42:22 EST
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest
      In a message dated 3/4/2005 12:31:53 PM Central Standard Time,
      tlind1@... writes:

      Anyone read this book by John Allan Wyeth?? I just picked it
      up at
      Borders...got through the foreward by Albert Castel...he
      rates the
      book pretty high but does make note that Forest is Wyeth's
      hero and
      is a little biased...Just wondering waht everyone thought of
      this..
      Kindest Regards,
      Tracey

      All of the Forrest Bios are pretty complimentary, and tend to
      focus on 1862 and 64-5. Wyeth is no exception. The critical
      last half of 1863 period, when Forrest was in charge of one of
      Bragg's two Cav Corps, is glossed over quickly, with little
      critical analysis.
      IMO, none of the Forrest Bios are really a balanced treatment.
      They all, to a greater or lesser extent, simply tell the same
      back-slapping stories about him.
      Dave Powell

      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      ADVERTISEMENT
      click here
      __________________________________________________________

      Yahoo! Groups Links
      * To visit your group on the web, go to:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

      * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.


      _____________________________________________________________
      Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
      As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/emreg

      Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
    • Tom Mix
      That is a very controversial topic but from what I know Forrest had the upper hand in the battle. He controlled the high ground looking into the fort . The
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 4, 2005
        That is a very controversial topic but from what I know Forrest had the
        upper hand in the battle. He controlled the high ground looking into the
        "fort". The fort was really some earth works created with in the
        original previously built by Confederates. The inhabitants were not just
        Black soldiers but also white Union supporters from Western Tennessee.
        The fort had an open rear inviting envelopment. Forrest was in position
        to over run the fort and did what he always did; inform the Union
        commander that if he did not surrender the inhabitants would be put to
        the sword. He meant the Union soldiers in general not just the Black
        Union soldiers. In the past that had been enough for a quick surrender
        but this time his terms were rejected. This surprised Forrest but he
        ordered the attack. It ended up being a shooting gallery. They quickly
        over ran the earth works and fired down upon the Union troops. It was
        virtually impossible to not kill their targets. The Union commander died
        early leaving the Union command structure in a mess. No one really
        assumed command. The US troops were like fish in barrel. Forrest and his
        officers rode down to the battle and ordered the firing to cease.
        Eventually the firing stopped but it was too late. A horrible and
        inaccurate legend had been born.
        Grant ordered Sherman to investigate the fight after the war. Sherman
        exonerated Forrest. The troops had simply got out of control. Confusion
        reigned until Forrest arrived personally to put a stop to it which he
        did.

        After the war Forrest worked to increase the rights of the newly freed
        slaves. He especially worked hard in the area of elections. The pre and
        post war Forrest's were two different men all together.

        We won't discuss the Klan here but suffice it to note that he resigned
        when they became a hate group. No more should be said on this forum
        regarding it per our rules which I respect and agree with.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Rielle [mailto:RielleBhaer@...]
        Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:51 PM
        To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest


        What I really would like to know about Nathan Bedford Forest is
        [according to the list members and your sources] why did he act as he
        did at Fort Pillow? What do the historical sources say about it. I've
        read at least part of Forest' report on the affair to his superiors, but
        ...it seems to me that this might be another case like Andersonville,
        where Wirz claimed innocence, and claimed he did all he could there
        [which might be true] and the Committee on the Conduct of the War
        wouldn't listen to him at all.

        I'm genuinely interested and curious about this, what sources can you
        suggest?



        How body from spirit does unwind, until we are pure spirit at the end
        "Infirmity" by Theodore Roethke
        American poet, 1908-1963


        --- DPowell334@... wrote:

        From: DPowell334@...
        Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:42:22 EST
        To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest
        In a message dated 3/4/2005 12:31:53 PM Central Standard Time,
        tlind1@... writes:

        Anyone read this book by John Allan Wyeth?? I just picked it
        up at
        Borders...got through the foreward by Albert Castel...he
        rates the
        book pretty high but does make note that Forest is Wyeth's
        hero and
        is a little biased...Just wondering waht everyone thought of
        this..
        Kindest Regards,
        Tracey

        All of the Forrest Bios are pretty complimentary, and tend to
        focus on 1862 and 64-5. Wyeth is no exception. The critical
        last half of 1863 period, when Forrest was in charge of one of
        Bragg's two Cav Corps, is glossed over quickly, with little
        critical analysis.
        IMO, none of the Forrest Bios are really a balanced treatment.
        They all, to a greater or lesser extent, simply tell the same
        back-slapping stories about him.
        Dave Powell

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        ADVERTISEMENT
        click here
        __________________________________________________________

        Yahoo! Groups Links
        * To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

        * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        Service.


        _____________________________________________________________
        Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
        As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at
        http://isp.netscape.com/emreg

        Netscape. Just the Net You Need.




        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Tom Mix
        Let me recommend another book. The Confederacy s Greatest General Nathan Bedford Forrest by Brian Steel Wills. Tom ... From: Rielle
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 4, 2005
          Let me recommend another book. "The Confederacy's Greatest General
          Nathan Bedford Forrest" by Brian Steel Wills.
          Tom

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Rielle [mailto:RielleBhaer@...]
          Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:51 PM
          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest


          What I really would like to know about Nathan Bedford Forest is
          [according to the list members and your sources] why did he act as he
          did at Fort Pillow? What do the historical sources say about it. I've
          read at least part of Forest' report on the affair to his superiors, but
          ...it seems to me that this might be another case like Andersonville,
          where Wirz claimed innocence, and claimed he did all he could there
          [which might be true] and the Committee on the Conduct of the War
          wouldn't listen to him at all.

          I'm genuinely interested and curious about this, what sources can you
          suggest?



          How body from spirit does unwind, until we are pure spirit at the end
          "Infirmity" by Theodore Roethke
          American poet, 1908-1963


          --- DPowell334@... wrote:

          From: DPowell334@...
          Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:42:22 EST
          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest
          In a message dated 3/4/2005 12:31:53 PM Central Standard Time,
          tlind1@... writes:

          Anyone read this book by John Allan Wyeth?? I just picked it
          up at
          Borders...got through the foreward by Albert Castel...he
          rates the
          book pretty high but does make note that Forest is Wyeth's
          hero and
          is a little biased...Just wondering waht everyone thought of
          this..
          Kindest Regards,
          Tracey

          All of the Forrest Bios are pretty complimentary, and tend to
          focus on 1862 and 64-5. Wyeth is no exception. The critical
          last half of 1863 period, when Forrest was in charge of one of
          Bragg's two Cav Corps, is glossed over quickly, with little
          critical analysis.
          IMO, none of the Forrest Bios are really a balanced treatment.
          They all, to a greater or lesser extent, simply tell the same
          back-slapping stories about him.
          Dave Powell

          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          ADVERTISEMENT
          click here
          __________________________________________________________

          Yahoo! Groups Links
          * To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

          * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          Service.


          _____________________________________________________________
          Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
          As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at
          http://isp.netscape.com/emreg

          Netscape. Just the Net You Need.




          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Ricky Washburn
          Thank you Tom, Very well stated! ... .....Eternally..... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 4, 2005
            Thank you Tom, Very well stated!

            --- Tom Mix <tmix@...> wrote:

            > That is a very controversial topic but from what I
            > know Forrest had the
            > upper hand in the battle. He controlled the high
            > ground looking into the
            > "fort". The fort was really some earth works created
            > with in the
            > original previously built by Confederates. The
            > inhabitants were not just
            > Black soldiers but also white Union supporters from
            > Western Tennessee.
            > The fort had an open rear inviting envelopment.
            > Forrest was in position
            > to over run the fort and did what he always did;
            > inform the Union
            > commander that if he did not surrender the
            > inhabitants would be put to
            > the sword. He meant the Union soldiers in general
            > not just the Black
            > Union soldiers. In the past that had been enough for
            > a quick surrender
            > but this time his terms were rejected. This
            > surprised Forrest but he
            > ordered the attack. It ended up being a shooting
            > gallery. They quickly
            > over ran the earth works and fired down upon the
            > Union troops. It was
            > virtually impossible to not kill their targets. The
            > Union commander died
            > early leaving the Union command structure in a mess.
            > No one really
            > assumed command. The US troops were like fish in
            > barrel. Forrest and his
            > officers rode down to the battle and ordered the
            > firing to cease.
            > Eventually the firing stopped but it was too late. A
            > horrible and
            > inaccurate legend had been born.
            > Grant ordered Sherman to investigate the fight after
            > the war. Sherman
            > exonerated Forrest. The troops had simply got out of
            > control. Confusion
            > reigned until Forrest arrived personally to put a
            > stop to it which he
            > did.
            >
            > After the war Forrest worked to increase the rights
            > of the newly freed
            > slaves. He especially worked hard in the area of
            > elections. The pre and
            > post war Forrest's were two different men all
            > together.
            >
            > We won't discuss the Klan here but suffice it to
            > note that he resigned
            > when they became a hate group. No more should be
            > said on this forum
            > regarding it per our rules which I respect and agree
            > with.
            >
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Rielle [mailto:RielleBhaer@...]
            > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:51 PM
            > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest
            >
            >
            > What I really would like to know about Nathan
            > Bedford Forest is
            > [according to the list members and your sources] why
            > did he act as he
            > did at Fort Pillow? What do the historical sources
            > say about it. I've
            > read at least part of Forest' report on the affair
            > to his superiors, but
            > ...it seems to me that this might be another case
            > like Andersonville,
            > where Wirz claimed innocence, and claimed he did all
            > he could there
            > [which might be true] and the Committee on the
            > Conduct of the War
            > wouldn't listen to him at all.
            >
            > I'm genuinely interested and curious about this,
            > what sources can you
            > suggest?
            >
            >
            >
            > How body from spirit does unwind, until we are pure
            > spirit at the end
            > "Infirmity" by Theodore Roethke
            > American poet, 1908-1963
            >
            >
            > --- DPowell334@... wrote:
            >
            > From: DPowell334@...
            > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:42:22 EST
            > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest
            > In a message dated 3/4/2005 12:31:53 PM Central
            > Standard Time,
            > tlind1@... writes:
            >
            > Anyone read this book by John Allan Wyeth?? I just
            > picked it
            > up at
            > Borders...got through the foreward by Albert
            > Castel...he
            > rates the
            > book pretty high but does make note that Forest
            > is Wyeth's
            > hero and
            > is a little biased...Just wondering waht everyone
            > thought of
            > this..
            > Kindest Regards,
            > Tracey
            >
            > All of the Forrest Bios are pretty complimentary,
            > and tend to
            > focus on 1862 and 64-5. Wyeth is no exception.
            > The critical
            > last half of 1863 period, when Forrest was in
            > charge of one of
            > Bragg's two Cav Corps, is glossed over quickly,
            > with little
            > critical analysis.
            > IMO, none of the Forrest Bios are really a balanced
            > treatment.
            > They all, to a greater or lesser extent, simply
            > tell the same
            > back-slapping stories about him.
            > Dave Powell
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            > ADVERTISEMENT
            > click here
            >
            >
            __________________________________________________________
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
            >
            > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
            > to:
            > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
            > Yahoo! Terms of
            > Service.
            >
            >
            >
            _____________________________________________________________
            > Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
            > As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at
            > http://isp.netscape.com/emreg
            >
            > Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >



            .....Eternally.....



            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com
          • Tom Mix
            Ricky, For a long time I despised Forrest but that was due to my ignorance. Since then he has become a favorite of mine. A man who took control of his life and
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 4, 2005
              Ricky,
              For a long time I despised Forrest but that was due to my ignorance.
              Since then he has become a favorite of mine. A man who took control of
              his life and changed himself for the better. After the war he also
              became a devout Christian.
              tom

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Ricky Washburn [mailto:rwwiv@...]
              Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 7:19 PM
              To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest



              Thank you Tom, Very well stated!

              --- Tom Mix <tmix@...> wrote:

              > That is a very controversial topic but from what I
              > know Forrest had the
              > upper hand in the battle. He controlled the high
              > ground looking into the
              > "fort". The fort was really some earth works created
              > with in the
              > original previously built by Confederates. The
              > inhabitants were not just
              > Black soldiers but also white Union supporters from
              > Western Tennessee.
              > The fort had an open rear inviting envelopment.
              > Forrest was in position
              > to over run the fort and did what he always did;
              > inform the Union
              > commander that if he did not surrender the
              > inhabitants would be put to
              > the sword. He meant the Union soldiers in general
              > not just the Black
              > Union soldiers. In the past that had been enough for
              > a quick surrender
              > but this time his terms were rejected. This
              > surprised Forrest but he
              > ordered the attack. It ended up being a shooting
              > gallery. They quickly
              > over ran the earth works and fired down upon the
              > Union troops. It was
              > virtually impossible to not kill their targets. The
              > Union commander died
              > early leaving the Union command structure in a mess.
              > No one really
              > assumed command. The US troops were like fish in
              > barrel. Forrest and his
              > officers rode down to the battle and ordered the
              > firing to cease.
              > Eventually the firing stopped but it was too late. A
              > horrible and
              > inaccurate legend had been born.
              > Grant ordered Sherman to investigate the fight after
              > the war. Sherman
              > exonerated Forrest. The troops had simply got out of
              > control. Confusion
              > reigned until Forrest arrived personally to put a
              > stop to it which he
              > did.
              >
              > After the war Forrest worked to increase the rights
              > of the newly freed
              > slaves. He especially worked hard in the area of
              > elections. The pre and
              > post war Forrest's were two different men all
              > together.
              >
              > We won't discuss the Klan here but suffice it to
              > note that he resigned
              > when they became a hate group. No more should be
              > said on this forum
              > regarding it per our rules which I respect and agree
              > with.
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Rielle [mailto:RielleBhaer@...]
              > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:51 PM
              > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest
              >
              >
              > What I really would like to know about Nathan
              > Bedford Forest is
              > [according to the list members and your sources] why
              > did he act as he
              > did at Fort Pillow? What do the historical sources
              > say about it. I've
              > read at least part of Forest' report on the affair
              > to his superiors, but
              > ...it seems to me that this might be another case
              > like Andersonville,
              > where Wirz claimed innocence, and claimed he did all
              > he could there
              > [which might be true] and the Committee on the
              > Conduct of the War
              > wouldn't listen to him at all.
              >
              > I'm genuinely interested and curious about this,
              > what sources can you
              > suggest?
              >
              >
              >
              > How body from spirit does unwind, until we are pure
              > spirit at the end
              > "Infirmity" by Theodore Roethke
              > American poet, 1908-1963
              >
              >
              > --- DPowell334@... wrote:
              >
              > From: DPowell334@...
              > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:42:22 EST
              > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest
              > In a message dated 3/4/2005 12:31:53 PM Central
              > Standard Time,
              > tlind1@... writes:
              >
              > Anyone read this book by John Allan Wyeth?? I just
              > picked it
              > up at
              > Borders...got through the foreward by Albert
              > Castel...he
              > rates the
              > book pretty high but does make note that Forest
              > is Wyeth's
              > hero and
              > is a little biased...Just wondering waht everyone
              > thought of
              > this..
              > Kindest Regards,
              > Tracey
              >
              > All of the Forrest Bios are pretty complimentary,
              > and tend to
              > focus on 1862 and 64-5. Wyeth is no exception.
              > The critical
              > last half of 1863 period, when Forrest was in
              > charge of one of
              > Bragg's two Cav Corps, is glossed over quickly,
              > with little
              > critical analysis.
              > IMO, none of the Forrest Bios are really a balanced
              > treatment.
              > They all, to a greater or lesser extent, simply
              > tell the same
              > back-slapping stories about him.
              > Dave Powell
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > ADVERTISEMENT
              > click here
              >
              >
              __________________________________________________________
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
              >
              > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
              > to:
              > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
              > Yahoo! Terms of
              > Service.
              >
              >
              >
              _____________________________________________________________
              > Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
              > As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at
              > http://isp.netscape.com/emreg
              >
              > Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >



              .....Eternally.....



              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com




              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • brainbent
              Very well said. Troops many times got out of hand in the heat of battle and this was just another case of the same. Almost every battle account has troops of
              Message 6 of 13 , Mar 5, 2005
                Very well said.

                Troops many times got out of hand in the heat of battle and this was
                just another case of the same.

                Almost every battle account has troops of either side firing into the
                back of those retreating, whether orderly or fleeing in panic.


                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                > That is a very controversial topic but from what I know Forrest had
                the
                > upper hand in the battle. He controlled the high ground looking
                into the
                > "fort". The fort was really some earth works created with in the
                > original previously built by Confederates. The inhabitants were not
                just
                > Black soldiers but also white Union supporters from Western
                Tennessee.
                > The fort had an open rear inviting envelopment. Forrest was in
                position
                > to over run the fort and did what he always did; inform the Union
                > commander that if he did not surrender the inhabitants would be put
                to
                > the sword. He meant the Union soldiers in general not just the Black
                > Union soldiers. In the past that had been enough for a quick
                surrender
                > but this time his terms were rejected. This surprised Forrest but he
                > ordered the attack. It ended up being a shooting gallery. They
                quickly
                > over ran the earth works and fired down upon the Union troops. It
                was
                > virtually impossible to not kill their targets. The Union commander
                died
                > early leaving the Union command structure in a mess. No one really
                > assumed command. The US troops were like fish in barrel. Forrest
                and his
                > officers rode down to the battle and ordered the firing to cease.
                > Eventually the firing stopped but it was too late. A horrible and
                > inaccurate legend had been born.
                > Grant ordered Sherman to investigate the fight after the war.
                Sherman
                > exonerated Forrest. The troops had simply got out of control.
                Confusion
                > reigned until Forrest arrived personally to put a stop to it which
                he
                > did.
                >
                > After the war Forrest worked to increase the rights of the newly
                freed
                > slaves. He especially worked hard in the area of elections. The pre
                and
                > post war Forrest's were two different men all together.
                >
                > We won't discuss the Klan here but suffice it to note that he
                resigned
                > when they became a hate group. No more should be said on this forum
                > regarding it per our rules which I respect and agree with.
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Rielle [mailto:RielleBhaer@n...]
                > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:51 PM
                > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest
                >
                >
                > What I really would like to know about Nathan Bedford Forest is
                > [according to the list members and your sources] why did he act as
                he
                > did at Fort Pillow? What do the historical sources say about it.
                I've
                > read at least part of Forest' report on the affair to his
                superiors, but
                > ...it seems to me that this might be another case like
                Andersonville,
                > where Wirz claimed innocence, and claimed he did all he could there
                > [which might be true] and the Committee on the Conduct of the War
                > wouldn't listen to him at all.
                >
                > I'm genuinely interested and curious about this, what sources can
                you
                > suggest?
                >
                >
                >
                > How body from spirit does unwind, until we are pure spirit at the
                end
                > "Infirmity" by Theodore Roethke
                > American poet, 1908-1963
                >
                >
                > --- DPowell334@A... wrote:
                >
                > From: DPowell334@A...
                > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:42:22 EST
                > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest
                > In a message dated 3/4/2005 12:31:53 PM Central Standard Time,
                > tlind1@y... writes:
                >
                > Anyone read this book by John Allan Wyeth?? I just picked it
                > up at
                > Borders...got through the foreward by Albert Castel...he
                > rates the
                > book pretty high but does make note that Forest is Wyeth's
                > hero and
                > is a little biased...Just wondering waht everyone thought of
                > this..
                > Kindest Regards,
                > Tracey
                >
                > All of the Forrest Bios are pretty complimentary, and tend to
                > focus on 1862 and 64-5. Wyeth is no exception. The critical
                > last half of 1863 period, when Forrest was in charge of one of
                > Bragg's two Cav Corps, is glossed over quickly, with little
                > critical analysis.
                > IMO, none of the Forrest Bios are really a balanced treatment.
                > They all, to a greater or lesser extent, simply tell the same
                > back-slapping stories about him.
                > Dave Powell
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                > ADVERTISEMENT
                > click here
                > __________________________________________________________
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
                >
                > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                > Service.
                >
                >
                > _____________________________________________________________
                > Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
                > As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at
                > http://isp.netscape.com/emreg
                >
                > Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
              • huddleston.r@comcast.net
                No, Tom, it is not well stated: you make unsupported statements about NBF s postwar career, and then blandly comment that the topic is off limits. A good way
                Message 7 of 13 , Mar 5, 2005
                  No, Tom, it is not "well stated: you make unsupported statements about NBF's postwar career, and then blandly comment that the topic is off limits. A good way to start an argument, while waiting for the moderators to step in.

                  Take care,

                  Bob

                  Judy and Bob Huddleston
                  10643 Sperry Street
                  Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
                  303.451.6376 Huddleston.r@...

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Ricky Washburn [mailto:rwwiv@...]
                  Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 6:19 PM
                  To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest
                  Thank you Tom, Very well stated!

                  --- Tom Mix <tmix@...> wrote:

                  > That is a very controversial topic but from what I know Forrest had
                  > the upper hand in the battle. He controlled the high ground looking
                  > into the "fort". The fort was really some earth works created with in
                  > the original previously built by Confederates. The inhabitants were
                  > not just Black soldiers but also white Union supporters from Western
                  > Tennessee.
                  > The fort had an open rear inviting envelopment.
                  > Forrest was in position
                  > to over run the fort and did what he always did; inform the Union
                  > commander that if he did not surrender the inhabitants would be put to
                  > the sword. He meant the Union soldiers in general not just the Black
                  > Union soldiers. In the past that had been enough for a quick surrender
                  > but this time his terms were rejected. This surprised Forrest but he
                  > ordered the attack. It ended up being a shooting gallery. They quickly
                  > over ran the earth works and fired down upon the Union troops. It was
                  > virtually impossible to not kill their targets. The Union commander
                  > died early leaving the Union command structure in a mess.
                  > No one really
                  > assumed command. The US troops were like fish in barrel. Forrest and
                  > his officers rode down to the battle and ordered the firing to cease.
                  > Eventually the firing stopped but it was too late. A horrible and
                  > inaccurate legend had been born.
                  > Grant ordered Sherman to investigate the fight after the war. Sherman
                  > exonerated Forrest. The troops had simply got out of control.
                  > Confusion reigned until Forrest arrived personally to put a stop to it
                  > which he did.
                  >
                  > After the war Forrest worked to increase the rights of the newly freed
                  > slaves. He especially worked hard in the area of elections. The pre
                  > and post war Forrest's were two different men all together.
                  >
                  > We won't discuss the Klan here but suffice it to note that he resigned
                  > when they became a hate group. No more should be said on this forum
                  > regarding it per our rules which I respect and agree with.
                • Tom Mix
                  Bob, I know the rules of how this moderated and plan to follow them. How you view them is up to you. I m not about to begin foot noting my comments, so deal
                  Message 8 of 13 , Mar 5, 2005
                    Bob,
                    I know the rules of how this moderated and plan to follow them. How you
                    view them is up to you.
                    I'm not about to begin foot noting my comments, so deal with it.
                    tom

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: huddleston.r@... [mailto:huddleston.r@...]
                    Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 3:07 PM
                    To: Civil War West
                    Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest


                    No, Tom, it is not "well stated: you make unsupported statements about
                    NBF's postwar career, and then blandly comment that the topic is off
                    limits. A good way to start an argument, while waiting for the
                    moderators to step in.

                    Take care,

                    Bob

                    Judy and Bob Huddleston
                    10643 Sperry Street
                    Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
                    303.451.6376 Huddleston.r@...

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Ricky Washburn [mailto:rwwiv@...]
                    Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 6:19 PM
                    To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest
                    Thank you Tom, Very well stated!

                    --- Tom Mix <tmix@...> wrote:

                    > That is a very controversial topic but from what I know Forrest had
                    > the upper hand in the battle. He controlled the high ground looking
                    > into the "fort". The fort was really some earth works created with in
                    > the original previously built by Confederates. The inhabitants were
                    > not just Black soldiers but also white Union supporters from Western
                    > Tennessee.
                    > The fort had an open rear inviting envelopment.
                    > Forrest was in position
                    > to over run the fort and did what he always did; inform the Union
                    > commander that if he did not surrender the inhabitants would be put to

                    > the sword. He meant the Union soldiers in general not just the Black
                    > Union soldiers. In the past that had been enough for a quick surrender

                    > but this time his terms were rejected. This surprised Forrest but he
                    > ordered the attack. It ended up being a shooting gallery. They quickly

                    > over ran the earth works and fired down upon the Union troops. It was
                    > virtually impossible to not kill their targets. The Union commander
                    > died early leaving the Union command structure in a mess.
                    > No one really
                    > assumed command. The US troops were like fish in barrel. Forrest and
                    > his officers rode down to the battle and ordered the firing to cease.
                    > Eventually the firing stopped but it was too late. A horrible and
                    > inaccurate legend had been born.
                    > Grant ordered Sherman to investigate the fight after the war. Sherman
                    > exonerated Forrest. The troops had simply got out of control.
                    > Confusion reigned until Forrest arrived personally to put a stop to it

                    > which he did.
                    >
                    > After the war Forrest worked to increase the rights of the newly freed

                    > slaves. He especially worked hard in the area of elections. The pre
                    > and post war Forrest's were two different men all together.
                    >
                    > We won't discuss the Klan here but suffice it to note that he resigned

                    > when they became a hate group. No more should be said on this forum
                    > regarding it per our rules which I respect and agree with.




                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                  • Dick Weeks
                    Well, the moderator just stepped in. Take this beauty to private email. Now. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
                    Message 9 of 13 , Mar 5, 2005
                      Well, the moderator just stepped in. Take this beauty to private email.
                      Now.

                      I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
                      Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
                      http://www.civilwarhome.com

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: <huddleston.r@...>
                      To: "Civil War West" <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 1:06 PM
                      Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest


                      > No, Tom, it is not "well stated: you make unsupported statements about
                      NBF's postwar career, and then blandly comment that the topic is off limits.
                      A good way to start an argument, while waiting for the moderators to step
                      in.
                      >
                      > Take care,
                      >
                      > Bob
                      >
                      > Judy and Bob Huddleston
                      > 10643 Sperry Street
                      > Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
                      > 303.451.6376 Huddleston.r@...
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Ricky Washburn [mailto:rwwiv@...]
                      > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 6:19 PM
                      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest
                      > Thank you Tom, Very well stated!
                      >
                      > --- Tom Mix <tmix@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > That is a very controversial topic but from what I know Forrest had
                      > > the upper hand in the battle. He controlled the high ground looking
                      > > into the "fort". The fort was really some earth works created with in
                      > > the original previously built by Confederates. The inhabitants were
                      > > not just Black soldiers but also white Union supporters from Western
                      > > Tennessee.
                      > > The fort had an open rear inviting envelopment.
                      > > Forrest was in position
                      > > to over run the fort and did what he always did; inform the Union
                      > > commander that if he did not surrender the inhabitants would be put to
                      > > the sword. He meant the Union soldiers in general not just the Black
                      > > Union soldiers. In the past that had been enough for a quick surrender
                      > > but this time his terms were rejected. This surprised Forrest but he
                      > > ordered the attack. It ended up being a shooting gallery. They quickly
                      > > over ran the earth works and fired down upon the Union troops. It was
                      > > virtually impossible to not kill their targets. The Union commander
                      > > died early leaving the Union command structure in a mess.
                      > > No one really
                      > > assumed command. The US troops were like fish in barrel. Forrest and
                      > > his officers rode down to the battle and ordered the firing to cease.
                      > > Eventually the firing stopped but it was too late. A horrible and
                      > > inaccurate legend had been born.
                      > > Grant ordered Sherman to investigate the fight after the war. Sherman
                      > > exonerated Forrest. The troops had simply got out of control.
                      > > Confusion reigned until Forrest arrived personally to put a stop to it
                      > > which he did.
                      > >
                      > > After the war Forrest worked to increase the rights of the newly freed
                      > > slaves. He especially worked hard in the area of elections. The pre
                      > > and post war Forrest's were two different men all together.
                      > >
                      > > We won't discuss the Klan here but suffice it to note that he resigned
                      > > when they became a hate group. No more should be said on this forum
                      > > regarding it per our rules which I respect and agree with.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • James2044
                      ... had the ... into the ... not just ... Tennessee. ... position ... put to ... Black ... surrender ... he ... quickly ... was ... commander died ... and his
                      Message 10 of 13 , Mar 5, 2005
                        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                        > That is a very controversial topic but from what I know Forrest
                        had the
                        > upper hand in the battle. He controlled the high ground looking
                        into the
                        > "fort". The fort was really some earth works created with in the
                        > original previously built by Confederates. The inhabitants were
                        not just
                        > Black soldiers but also white Union supporters from Western
                        Tennessee.
                        > The fort had an open rear inviting envelopment. Forrest was in
                        position
                        > to over run the fort and did what he always did; inform the Union
                        > commander that if he did not surrender the inhabitants would be
                        put to
                        > the sword. He meant the Union soldiers in general not just the
                        Black
                        > Union soldiers. In the past that had been enough for a quick
                        surrender
                        > but this time his terms were rejected. This surprised Forrest but
                        he
                        > ordered the attack. It ended up being a shooting gallery. They
                        quickly
                        > over ran the earth works and fired down upon the Union troops. It
                        was
                        > virtually impossible to not kill their targets. The Union
                        commander died
                        > early leaving the Union command structure in a mess. No one really
                        > assumed command. The US troops were like fish in barrel. Forrest
                        and his
                        > officers rode down to the battle and ordered the firing to cease.
                        > Eventually the firing stopped but it was too late. A horrible and
                        > inaccurate legend had been born.
                        > Grant ordered Sherman to investigate the fight after the war.
                        Sherman
                        > exonerated Forrest. The troops had simply got out of control.
                        Confusion
                        > reigned until Forrest arrived personally to put a stop to it which
                        he
                        > did.
                        >
                        > After the war Forrest worked to increase the rights of the newly
                        freed
                        > slaves. He especially worked hard in the area of elections. The
                        pre and
                        > post war Forrest's were two different men all together.
                        >
                        > We won't discuss the Klan here but suffice it to note that he
                        resigned
                        > when they became a hate group. No more should be said on this forum
                        > regarding it per our rules which I respect and agree with.
                        >
                        *******************************************************************

                        Tom has presented a very good overall description of the "battle".
                        I would like to add that the loss of command & control on the Union
                        side made a general surrender impossible. More than once, Union
                        troops fired on men accepting a surrender of other Union troops.
                        Regional & racial hate did play into the problems but the loss of
                        C&C was the major reason.

                        For an excellent discussion of the surrender process during battle,
                        see John Keegan's "The Face of Battle".

                        James2044
                      • James2044
                        ... the ... That is a legal action in either case. They should be considered a target. James2044
                        Message 11 of 13 , Mar 5, 2005
                          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "brainbent" <brainbent@y...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > Almost every battle account has troops of either side firing into
                          the
                          > back of those retreating, whether orderly or fleeing in panic.
                          >

                          That is a legal action in either case. They should be considered a
                          target.

                          James2044
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.