With all due respect to the last few contributors to this thread, I would like to make replies to various items that have arisen.

To Colour Bearer: "I too think that 15 dead "shot at close range" (really with the weapons and tactics of the day I think a very large number of soldiers were shot at close range) does not constitute a "massacre.""

According to various sources, including Forrest himself, the casualties (of the battle and incident afterwards) total upward of 500. Forrest at one point notes that the number will never be known. (By the way Forrest's loss was 20 killed!) Those 15 bodies seen by Woodruff later was only the tip of the iceberg. Many bodies had already been buried, tossed in the water, burned, etc. (See testimony of the survivors.) My only reason for posting that particular OR record was to show to those that insist the atrocity never occurred that even General Chalmers of the CSA admitted the validity of the massacre charge. I encourage you to research and read more on the incident. It is the only way to arrive at the truth. I believe, based on your other postings, that you are not one of those who refuse to believe anything less than godlike qualities of everything pertaining to the Confederacy. I say let history prevail, not revisionist bull of partisans on either side. Thanks for responding to this thread, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future via this board.

To Mr. Pitt: While I must admit that I haven't spent the time researching on the Fort Gregg incident as I have on the Fort Pillow affair, I have no reason to doubt it. I have consistently noted that there were multiple atrocities on both sides. The largest and best documented of them all, however, remains the Fort Pillow incident. I have long held great respect for you personally, as I have previously noted. At least you are honest enough to admit to your bias, while some others on this board that think themselves to be unbiased Civil War experts are in reality full of (blind?) Southern prejudice. Thanks for posting the Fort Gregg story.

To Mr. Lowe: "In my opinion, what makes Fort Pillow different (returning to my original statement on the matter that so grates on Hoyt's nerves) is that if it occurred to any extent at all it was twisted by the "Yankee propaganda" machine into being a unique event with some special meaning...and then further exaggerated completely out of proportion [thus my original reference to a "kernel of truth"]."

I submit that the Fort Pillow affair was, indeed unique. There was, among all the many other known atrocities, nothing to equal this in degree or numbers. That is the real reason that it received the attention that it did. Forrest quite possibly was attempting his own propaganda coup that backfired. From the OR (Series 1, Vol 32, Part 1 Page 610)- Forrest's report:
"Arrived there on the morning of the 12th and attacked the place with a portion of McCulloch's and Bell's brigades numbering about 1,500 men, and after a sharp contest captured the garrison and all of its stores. A demand was made for the surrender, which was refused. The victory was complete, and **the loss of the enemy will never be known** from the fact that large numbers ran into the river and were **shot** and drowned. The force was composed of about 500 negroes and 200 white soldiers (Tennessee Tories). **The river was dyed with the blood of the slaughtered for 200 yards.** There was in the fort a large number of citizens who had fled there to escape the conscript law. Most of these ran into the river and were drowned.
The approximate loss was upward of 500 killed, but few of the officers escaping.
**It is hoped that these facts will demonstrate to the Northern people that negro soldiers cannot cope with Southerners.**

Please note the last sentence. It at least brings up the possibility that Forrest was attempting his own little propaganda ploy. (I'm not saying that he did, only musing on the possibility.) Of course, he would have soon realized that it was a huge error when there was talk of retaliation and he realized that the war quite possibly was about to enter a new and more horrible phase.

To Mr. Purvis: Hey George. "The messages condemning the men (North or South), I find most disgusting...After all, as Hoyt says he desires to tell the truth or facts, but he nor any one of us has EARNED the right to judge these heroes."

Please forgive me if I am misreading this, but I think you are somehow saying that I am judging this conduct. I attach no value judgment to these posts, only seeking acknowledgement of past events. However, I will note that, according to the testimony of the survivors, the slaughter was stopped that night, only to be resumed the next morning. That would tend to throw out the window the idea of passion and heat of the moment conduct. Again, I attach no judgment call to the conduct of the participants, only noting same.

Mr. Jones: "Bottom line, please let the so called atrocities rest and lets get on with the business at hand."

I don't understand why, sir. These are certainly a legitimate part of the convoluted story of the American Civil War. Admittedly, not the most pleasant aspect, but still quite valid.
----------------------------
Of course, I am fully aware of the reason that the Southern revisionists are so adamant that this incident never occurred. It has to do with the number one priority on the revisionist all time hit parade. Let's save that one for a future thread.

Regards to all who contributed and I trust that we have generated a little light along with the tremendous amounts of heat.

Hoyt Cagle