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

Re: That " Devil" Forest

Expand Messages
  • James2044
    ... had the ... into the ... not just ... Tennessee. ... position ... put to ... Black ... surrender ... he ... quickly ... was ... commander died ... and his
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 5 6:38 PM
    • 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 2 of 13 , Mar 5 6:40 PM
      • 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.