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

RE: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Mar 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 13 , Mar 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 13 , Mar 5, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 13 , Mar 5, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 13 , Mar 5, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 13 , Mar 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- 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 7 of 13 , Mar 5, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- 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.