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

RE: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest

Expand Messages
  • Tom Mix
    Let me recommend another book. The Confederacy s Greatest General Nathan Bedford Forrest by Brian Steel Wills. Tom ... From: Rielle
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.