RE: the argument below. Can we not help but wonder what is meant by "a
fair hearing for Forrest at Ft. Pillow?" Surely, to blame a "so-called"?
massacre on a major succeeding to command, however incompetent, is awfully
close to "blaming the victim." The analogy to blaming Lee for
Fredericksburg appears to be at best disingenuous. Was Forrest NOT
responsible for his men at Ft. Pillow? "More substance" perhaps is
needed, some of which might be used to disabuse popular culture addicts of
the notion that Forrest Gump is a direct descendant of Bedford Forrest as
presemted in the hit movie.
> I would appreciate more substance regarding General Nathan Bedford
>Forrest and the so-called "Fort Pillow Massacre." No credible evidence
>has surfaced showing Forrest ordering, "Put them all to the sword."
>Forrest's demand for surrender to the fort's commander stated that he
>could not "be responsible for the fate of your [Major Booth, however he
>was dead, and Major Bradford was then in charge] command.
On a trip to the Fort Pillow site with James McPherson and Shelby Foote,
both agreed that Forrest had not received fair coverage based upon the
evidence. Brian Wills' book, "A Struggle From the Start," charges, at
worst, that Forrest had lost "control" of him men as analogous to the
famous lack of control of his temper.
I do not subscribe to Wills' thesis, not can the congressional
sub-committee sent to investigate the "massacre" be relied upon for
credibility. There can be no doubt, however, to the incompetence of the
Union commander after Booth's death, the tactical advantage enjoyed by the
Confederates, and the garrison's refusal to surrender after losing the
works.
> The Confederates paid the price for a poor commander at Franklin, Grant
>bled his men at Cold Harbor, and the Fort Pillow garrison suffered the
>incompetence of Major Bradford. To blame Forrest for Fort Pillow is like
>faulting Lee at Fredericksburg.
Lou Athey
(l_athey@acad.fandm.edu)