Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee
It depends. In an organized surrender, yes. If half the unit is fighting and the other half is surrendering, the opposing force is under no obligation to honor the surrender. Soldiers aren't required to risk their own lives to take prisoners. The scenario I just described is considered perfidy. Perfidy is an actual war crime.
At Fort Pillow, some of the Federals were surrendering and some were fighting. Even during that period, soldiers were under no obligation to honor a surrender under those circumstances.
Forrest detractors often bring up Fort Pillow:
A Yankee Congressional investigation found that the black soldiers trying to flee to the Union gunboats under the bluff
blundered into the two Southern companies sent to prevent a Northern landing--failing to surrender;
they made the fatal error of firing on troops protected by ravines on both sides of them. Of course they were cut to shreds...
Furthermore, There were about 8 black men in his elite vanguard which was about 50 -80 of the best troopers at
any given time of the confederacy. 2 black men road with him the entire war, Napoleon Nelson and Nim Wilkes.
So it seems to me Forrest surely had better relationships with blacks he counteracted with than many of the union
generals who participated in the war at the head of black soldiers.
During the war of northern aggression General Forrest was the law in the lawless Upper Mississippi valley (UMV).
With so many rouges, deserters, opportunists and criminals (in and out of uniform) wandering the wasteland of the
UMV, knowledge that General Forrest would get revenge upon any dastardly act was enough to prevent many evil acts.
The Institute for Military Studies concluded that the Battle of Brice's Crossroads (won by Forrest),
was perhaps the most spectacular display of tactical genius during wartimes.'
