Re: That " Devil" Forest
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Tom Mix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
> That is a very controversial topic but from what I know Forresthad the
> upper hand in the battle. He controlled the high ground lookinginto the
> "fort". The fort was really some earth works created with in thenot just
> original previously built by Confederates. The inhabitants were
> Black soldiers but also white Union supporters from WesternTennessee.
> The fort had an open rear inviting envelopment. Forrest was inposition
> to over run the fort and did what he always did; inform the Unionput to
> commander that if he did not surrender the inhabitants would be
> the sword. He meant the Union soldiers in general not just theBlack
> Union soldiers. In the past that had been enough for a quicksurrender
> but this time his terms were rejected. This surprised Forrest buthe
> ordered the attack. It ended up being a shooting gallery. Theyquickly
> over ran the earth works and fired down upon the Union troops. Itwas
> virtually impossible to not kill their targets. The Unioncommander died
> early leaving the Union command structure in a mess. No one reallyand his
> assumed command. The US troops were like fish in barrel. Forrest
> officers rode down to the battle and ordered the firing to cease.Sherman
> 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.
> exonerated Forrest. The troops had simply got out of control.Confusion
> reigned until Forrest arrived personally to put a stop to it whichhe
> After the war Forrest worked to increase the rights of the newly
> slaves. He especially worked hard in the area of elections. Thepre and
> post war Forrest's were two different men all together.resigned
> We won't discuss the Klan here but suffice it to note that he
> 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".
- --- In email@example.com, "brainbent" <brainbent@y...>
> Almost every battle account has troops of either side firing into
> back of those retreating, whether orderly or fleeing in panic.That is a legal action in either case. They should be considered a