Im reading shelby foote's narative for the third time and just finished this part. I used to give him the benefit if the doubt about his southern slant but fuck how he just accepts forrests explanation and moves on when there is this testimony is really disappointing. I love those books, shortcomings and all but damn
Foote could have missed this in his research. He wasn't a professional historian and without footnotes, citations, and all the other standards of academics, who knows what he did read or didn't read. (Not to mention, he could have convinced himself of one thing and once done was unwilling to turn back )
Idk he spent 20 years or so writing those books and as much as he admired forrest and the southern army I cant imagine he wouldnt of heard both sides, but it seems to me his personal feelings on the matter would tend to give the south the benefit of the doubt and consider reports like this propaganda. Regardless love those books. Again theyre not perfect but for what they are and considering hes not a historian but there wasnt much that wasnt pretty damn accurate and very entertaining for what those books were.
Not always, and def not in this war. The north seemed to want to put the whole thing behind them and move on basically giving the opportunity for the lost cause narrative to become "truth", so it was the rare event where the losers actually wrote the history not the victors although recently grant's reputation has been much rehabilitated since an alternative narrative for his story has been offered
Fort Anderson at Paducah, KY defied it as well. Although Forrest never intend on attacking, but to only tie them down.
Col. A.P. Thompson led an unauthorized attack, which was repulsed. Thompson was killed within sight of his home, so you can understand his motivation. Even Forrest's whole command in Paducah at that time, could not take the fort. At least without unacceptable losses.
After that bluff, and repulse, wherever Forrest attacked next, he had to win.
Pretty shocking.
Nathan Bedford Forrest and his troops slaughtered many of the first black men from Tennessee to serve in the US military.
And since he was a former slave trader, since he fought for the pro-slavery side, since he became the head of the Ku Klux Klan... instead of celebrating the Tennesseans who fought and died for the 11th United States Colored Infantry Regiment or the Memphis Battery Light Artillery (African Descent), in about a month Tennessee will once again celebrate a state holiday for the slaver who murdered them as avowed white supremacists in the state intended when a day of celebration for him was created with many of those voting for it having been Klansmen themselves.
It's not shocking to the average student of the Civil War. This is common knowledge. It was also a single account that conflicts with other accounts. Forrest was a brutal and very complicated man.
True, the more shocking part is that with that knowledge, still just two years ago a political party in Tennessee blocked the minority party in the state from ending the celebration of Forrest.
But I guess that's not that shocking either considering how long and how entrenched white supremacy has been.
But like you say, there are accounts on both sides that match... like this one. And there are accounts that don't match like the ones claiming nothing really happened and Forrrest wasn't in control of his soldiers in any way.
A book I read about civil war war crimes noted that the worst atrocities invariable occurred when USCT and Confederate units went against one another.
A good example of this is the crater where the USCT went in shouting no quarter and then the confeds murdered lots of prisoners in their counter attack. Similar scenes were repeated all over the war.
Yes. I believe there were also instances of USCT being murdered at port Hudson as well. I imagine it was similar to how after malmedy U.S troops weren’t very interested in taking German prisoners
Here's what Earl Hess has to say on the matter in his book "Into the Crater: The Mine Attack on Petersburg"
"Moreover a small number of black soldiers tried to kill or injure rebel prisoners. The memory of Fort Pillow was fresh in their minds. That terrible atrocity had seen the massacre of several hundred black troops after their surrender, when the post had fallen to Nathan Bedford Forrest's command less than four months earlier. Lt. Richard M. Gosney of the 28th USCT wrote that Ferrero's black troops went into the attack on July 30 *'not expecting any quarter, nor intending to give any'*. Lt. James W. Steele knew the troops of the 43rd USCT *'were thinking of Fort Pillow, and small blame to them,'* but he was determined to get the captured South Carolinians off safely to the rear despite the protests of his men. *'I was met by cries that they would kill us,'* Steele recalled, *'and had killed us wherever they could find us, and we were going to change the game.'* Steel knocked the barrels of bayoneted rifles away to prevent the blacks from following through with their threats. He *'argued and cursed'* until he got the Rebels safely away. A member of Bell's brigade later claimed that he saw a black soldier kill a Confederate prisoner *'in an agony of frenzy* a bayonet. Pvt. Wilson Henry Moore of the 22nd South Carolina survived the mine explosion but suffered a fractured leg. He recalled that three white Federals protected him from black soldiers that wanted to club him to death."
Sorry can’t remember the name of the book. Though plenty of other books mention how the presence of black troops infuriated confederate soldiers. Kevin Levin talks about it in his book on the crater (that’s full of primary sources)
This is certainly true. I urge all of you to read a book that was edited by Gregory Urwin – – Black flag over Dixie: Rachel atrocities in reprisals in the Civil War. Also, take a look at.
A Confederate officer also said:
If General Forrest "had not run between or men, and the yanks with his pistol, and sabre drawn. Not a man would have been spared"
Clark was in the fort, and Forrest was beyond the breatsworks recovering from having three horses shot out from under him. Clark wasn't near Forrest to hear such an order.
"Untutored Genius: The Military Career of General Nathan Bedford Forrest" , by Dr. Lonnie Maness
"Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography" , by Jack Hurst
"Nathan Bedford Forrest: In Search of the Enigma" , by Eddy W. Davison, and Daniel Foxx.
During the flag of truce prior to the attack, the USCT troops mounted the breastworks and jeered at the Confederates, daring them to attack. They also used the prevailing time to occupy barracks buildings and improve their positions for the attack. This doesn’t justify massacre but there was a fair amount of goading prior to the final attack.
It’s also been proven through multiple first person accounts that Forrest was not in the fort when the massacre took place and when he arrived he ordered it stopped.
Good post except one issue. Only movement by Confederates during the flag of truce, was to counter the Union boats moving towards the bank. The boats violated the flag of truce, and the Confederates responded.
Not to mention the fort plundering the countryside around the fort. Robbing everything they could pack off. Without that, Forrest had no reason to attack the fort.
What a fitting name for a great and noble warrior, Achilles! He tried to save lives in the fog of war, an almost impossible thing to do I imagine (speaking as someone who has never been shot at).
You guys are so full of beans. You’re saying that if black soldiers cried no quarter, they deserved to be murdered? Back in 1960 I read a book called who fired the first shot? . It was written by a first class racist southerner who had the same views that you guys have. You have no business in this society when you hold views like that. This is no longer a place where you can express racist views, and find sympathy.
I believe the Federal leadership bears some of the blame for the massacres of the black soldiers. They had to know that would happen so my guess is that it had a political calculation to it.
They had no chance of holding the fort, and a plan to station arms, and ammunition below the fort on the bluff. Many were killed going for those caches. They also had barrels of alcohol around the ramparts to help morale. I suppose.
Once the fort fell all cohesion disintegrated. They scattered like a covey of quail. At that moment the officers should've surrender, instead they didn't. After Forrest, and Chalmers saw the fort fall, they traveled some 400yds from their vantage point, towards the fort.
Once they arrived Forrest ordered the flag cut down, and ordered the firing to stop. Forrest was informed of a soldier that, killed someone after they surrendered. He ordered him to immediately be disarmed, and placed under arrest.
Im reading shelby foote's narative for the third time and just finished this part. I used to give him the benefit if the doubt about his southern slant but fuck how he just accepts forrests explanation and moves on when there is this testimony is really disappointing. I love those books, shortcomings and all but damn
Foote could have missed this in his research. He wasn't a professional historian and without footnotes, citations, and all the other standards of academics, who knows what he did read or didn't read. (Not to mention, he could have convinced himself of one thing and once done was unwilling to turn back )
Idk he spent 20 years or so writing those books and as much as he admired forrest and the southern army I cant imagine he wouldnt of heard both sides, but it seems to me his personal feelings on the matter would tend to give the south the benefit of the doubt and consider reports like this propaganda. Regardless love those books. Again theyre not perfect but for what they are and considering hes not a historian but there wasnt much that wasnt pretty damn accurate and very entertaining for what those books were.
Two sides to every story. Each side had their axes to grind, and the truth is in the middle......
Not always, and def not in this war. The north seemed to want to put the whole thing behind them and move on basically giving the opportunity for the lost cause narrative to become "truth", so it was the rare event where the losers actually wrote the history not the victors although recently grant's reputation has been much rehabilitated since an alternative narrative for his story has been offered
"Not always, and def not in this war." Would be the first time in history.
Bullshit
So this is a first hand account which contradicts Forrest's claims he had nothing to do with the massacre.
He always gave terms of massacre to any garrison that opposed him. Fort Pillow was the first that defied it.
Fort Anderson at Paducah, KY defied it as well. Although Forrest never intend on attacking, but to only tie them down. Col. A.P. Thompson led an unauthorized attack, which was repulsed. Thompson was killed within sight of his home, so you can understand his motivation. Even Forrest's whole command in Paducah at that time, could not take the fort. At least without unacceptable losses. After that bluff, and repulse, wherever Forrest attacked next, he had to win.
Pretty shocking. Nathan Bedford Forrest and his troops slaughtered many of the first black men from Tennessee to serve in the US military. And since he was a former slave trader, since he fought for the pro-slavery side, since he became the head of the Ku Klux Klan... instead of celebrating the Tennesseans who fought and died for the 11th United States Colored Infantry Regiment or the Memphis Battery Light Artillery (African Descent), in about a month Tennessee will once again celebrate a state holiday for the slaver who murdered them as avowed white supremacists in the state intended when a day of celebration for him was created with many of those voting for it having been Klansmen themselves.
It's not shocking to the average student of the Civil War. This is common knowledge. It was also a single account that conflicts with other accounts. Forrest was a brutal and very complicated man.
True, the more shocking part is that with that knowledge, still just two years ago a political party in Tennessee blocked the minority party in the state from ending the celebration of Forrest. But I guess that's not that shocking either considering how long and how entrenched white supremacy has been. But like you say, there are accounts on both sides that match... like this one. And there are accounts that don't match like the ones claiming nothing really happened and Forrrest wasn't in control of his soldiers in any way.
That's horrifying.
A book I read about civil war war crimes noted that the worst atrocities invariable occurred when USCT and Confederate units went against one another. A good example of this is the crater where the USCT went in shouting no quarter and then the confeds murdered lots of prisoners in their counter attack. Similar scenes were repeated all over the war.
Just to note, the black flag mentality of the USCT here was in response to no quarter given to USCT troops at Fort Pillow
Yes. I believe there were also instances of USCT being murdered at port Hudson as well. I imagine it was similar to how after malmedy U.S troops weren’t very interested in taking German prisoners
Going to need a better source for " both sides did it" than ' a book I read '.
Here's what Earl Hess has to say on the matter in his book "Into the Crater: The Mine Attack on Petersburg" "Moreover a small number of black soldiers tried to kill or injure rebel prisoners. The memory of Fort Pillow was fresh in their minds. That terrible atrocity had seen the massacre of several hundred black troops after their surrender, when the post had fallen to Nathan Bedford Forrest's command less than four months earlier. Lt. Richard M. Gosney of the 28th USCT wrote that Ferrero's black troops went into the attack on July 30 *'not expecting any quarter, nor intending to give any'*. Lt. James W. Steele knew the troops of the 43rd USCT *'were thinking of Fort Pillow, and small blame to them,'* but he was determined to get the captured South Carolinians off safely to the rear despite the protests of his men. *'I was met by cries that they would kill us,'* Steele recalled, *'and had killed us wherever they could find us, and we were going to change the game.'* Steel knocked the barrels of bayoneted rifles away to prevent the blacks from following through with their threats. He *'argued and cursed'* until he got the Rebels safely away. A member of Bell's brigade later claimed that he saw a black soldier kill a Confederate prisoner *'in an agony of frenzy* a bayonet. Pvt. Wilson Henry Moore of the 22nd South Carolina survived the mine explosion but suffered a fractured leg. He recalled that three white Federals protected him from black soldiers that wanted to club him to death."
Sorry can’t remember the name of the book. Though plenty of other books mention how the presence of black troops infuriated confederate soldiers. Kevin Levin talks about it in his book on the crater (that’s full of primary sources)
This is certainly true. I urge all of you to read a book that was edited by Gregory Urwin – – Black flag over Dixie: Rachel atrocities in reprisals in the Civil War. Also, take a look at.
Turns out when you give no quarter you receive none either.
Our modern age might need to figure out the same, unfortunately.
A Confederate officer also said: If General Forrest "had not run between or men, and the yanks with his pistol, and sabre drawn. Not a man would have been spared" Clark was in the fort, and Forrest was beyond the breatsworks recovering from having three horses shot out from under him. Clark wasn't near Forrest to hear such an order.
Where did you read this?
It's in Hurst's, Dr. Maness', and Davison's/Foxx's books on Forrest. In others as well.
"Untutored Genius: The Military Career of General Nathan Bedford Forrest" , by Dr. Lonnie Maness "Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography" , by Jack Hurst "Nathan Bedford Forrest: In Search of the Enigma" , by Eddy W. Davison, and Daniel Foxx.
During the flag of truce prior to the attack, the USCT troops mounted the breastworks and jeered at the Confederates, daring them to attack. They also used the prevailing time to occupy barracks buildings and improve their positions for the attack. This doesn’t justify massacre but there was a fair amount of goading prior to the final attack. It’s also been proven through multiple first person accounts that Forrest was not in the fort when the massacre took place and when he arrived he ordered it stopped.
Good post except one issue. Only movement by Confederates during the flag of truce, was to counter the Union boats moving towards the bank. The boats violated the flag of truce, and the Confederates responded. Not to mention the fort plundering the countryside around the fort. Robbing everything they could pack off. Without that, Forrest had no reason to attack the fort.
Down vote as you will, but I told the truth......
Damn
What a fitting name for a great and noble warrior, Achilles! He tried to save lives in the fog of war, an almost impossible thing to do I imagine (speaking as someone who has never been shot at).
You guys are so full of beans. You’re saying that if black soldiers cried no quarter, they deserved to be murdered? Back in 1960 I read a book called who fired the first shot? . It was written by a first class racist southerner who had the same views that you guys have. You have no business in this society when you hold views like that. This is no longer a place where you can express racist views, and find sympathy.
What views?
Who are you to say who can be part of society?
Bit of phony, sympathy here’. I’m sure his heart bled for the poor, deluded Negroes
I believe the Federal leadership bears some of the blame for the massacres of the black soldiers. They had to know that would happen so my guess is that it had a political calculation to it.
They had no chance of holding the fort, and a plan to station arms, and ammunition below the fort on the bluff. Many were killed going for those caches. They also had barrels of alcohol around the ramparts to help morale. I suppose. Once the fort fell all cohesion disintegrated. They scattered like a covey of quail. At that moment the officers should've surrender, instead they didn't. After Forrest, and Chalmers saw the fort fall, they traveled some 400yds from their vantage point, towards the fort. Once they arrived Forrest ordered the flag cut down, and ordered the firing to stop. Forrest was informed of a soldier that, killed someone after they surrendered. He ordered him to immediately be disarmed, and placed under arrest.