Talk:Fort Pillow

message: Your information regarding Fort Pillow is frankly, wrong!
Those men did not surrender as Forrest requested they do not once, but twice. You also tag Forrest with being the leader of the KKK. Something you so obviously leave out is the fact that the KKK then and the hateful organization it morphed into were not one in the same.
When Forrest became aware of the direction they were moving in, he resigned and ordered them disbanded. Please see "That Devil Forrest" by John Wythe for the accurate story.
As for the Fort Pillow misinformation, and I do use that word loosely, please see the link below for an objective record of what really happened.
http://www.civilwarweb.com/articles/05-99/ftpillow.htm
You owe it to the people seeking information to be accurate and impartial, hardly what I would call what you have posted now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by  205.188.116.141  (talk • contribs) 02:35, 29 April 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments

message: You might also want to consider  or pick up the book (Lies Across America. What our Historic Sites Get Wrong., New York: The New Press by James W. Loewen) from your local library, which is a great read indeed. Check out pp. 250-258 (Chapter 53.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.31.195 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 June 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Point of View... 

message: The Union soldiers fought a battle and lost.  At that point they became prisoners of war.  Then a large number of them were murdered in cold blood.  
Whether they were given the chance (once or twice) to surrender prior to the battle commencing is irrelevant.  
Whether the black soldiers were killed under Tennessee's Fugitive Slave Law does not change the fact that they were killed.
Even the pro-Forrest article http://www.civilwarweb.com/articles/05-99/ftpillow.htm quoted states he called the prisoners 'outlaws' and includes admissions that Confederate deserters in the Union ranks were murdered in cold blood.  The article then tries to claim this great commander was not aware his soldiers were slaughtering prisoners under his nose - which seems a non-sequiter (Forrest was either aware of the actions or he was not in command of his troops).
The other point of dispute raised appears to be that the KKK 'morphed' into something it wasnt when Forrest was its earliest leader.  This is again irrelevant.  The fact remains he was the early leader of an organisation called the KKK.  The Democrats may have different policies today than they did in 1828, but that doesnt mean Andrew Jackson wasn't their first leader.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylos (talk • contribs) 23:21, 31 January 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the dispute? 

message: This is a disputed incident, and should be mentioned as such in order to maintain a neutral view. This quote is from the wikipedia entry on Forrest: 
"The battle's details remain disputed and controversial to this day. What is known is that Forrest's men stormed the lightly guarded fort, inflicting heavy casualties on its defenders who quickly fell into disarray as the Union command - already short several officers - collapsed. Conflicting reports of what happened next are the source of controversy."
A good source of reference is:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/ftpillow.htm
This site has letters and reports from both sides. Naturally they contradict each other. Some of the more numerous reports by Union officers, some of whom were not present at the battle, contradict each other as well. 
This was played up by the Union high command as an atrocity, but it should be realized that it is possible that this was wartime propaganda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.175.78 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 6 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed incident 

message: I've removed the NPOV. Please reinsert it or make the article NPOV if you think I'm wrong. Rich Farmbrough 16:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV