View single post by David White
 Posted: Fri Feb 23rd, 2007 02:49 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Younglobo:

Sorry about messing your name up, I wasn't paying close enough attention.

I will disagree and say that the Confederacy is more guilty by uping the ante by saying they would execute black soldiers (some who were always freedmen and never slaves) and white officers.  It was a war crime even by 19th Century standards.  I also think the Union's "tat" answer was also wrong but only came about due to the Confederacy's "tit."  All war crimes should stand on their own merits or wrongs rather. 

There is a fine line between aggressiveness and war crimes and the line sometimes blurs but an accountable commander must keep things in check.  Forrest obviously did not do enough at Ft. Pillow.  As did other Confederate commanders who were even more guilty than Forrest at Saltville, Olustee, the Crater and other battlefields.  Forrest made a mistake  but I don't think he should have been tried as a war criminal.  I think he lost three of those 30 horses that day and had taken some bad spills so his bad day is understandable.  The foul mood of his men is also understandable but Forrest should have been in touch with that mood and supervised his men better to make sure they did not get out of control. 

 Close Window