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

RE: [civilwarwest] That " Devil" Forest

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.