Hayes Lowe
Response
Wed Jul 25 09:08:18 2001


"With all due respect, I fear that your lack of military knowledge does your reputation no small harm. Even if Forrest was not aware of the massacre (which I am certainly not conceding as some witnesses placed him squarely in the thick of it), ultimately a commanding officer is responsible for the actions of his subordinates."

I have no fear for my "reputation". I have none, at least not in professional historical circles! And don't want one!

My only "fear" is that the opportunity to get to the TRUTH of any matter regarding the Civil War is passing us by with the passage of time, with history books that are plainly in error, and with the naive attitude of much of the public [and not just a few political science professors] that what ever is in print *must* be the truth.

I have read *all* the facts (and non-facts) available regarding this event...have you?

In fact, I went back and re-read the testimony of the witnesses BEFORE ever responding to your post. I draw an entirely different conclusion from you.

Just prior to posting, I also read all the existant correspondence [that I am aware of] from BOTH sides. Did you?

And again just prior to posting, I also read the modern accounts of this battle, and the commentary on the validity of the claims. Did you?

I have NO bias for or against Confederate soldiers [contrary to your implications]. My family has soldiers that fought on BOTH sides, and I am equally proud of all of them. [I spend about the same amount of time participating in Northern discussion boards, as I do Southern.] I do not diminish the service of any Union or Confederate soldier, they all did America proud in their service...well, most did, anyway. As in any war, isolated incidences of egregious wrong's were committed on BOTH sides. However, when ALL the evidence AS A WHOLE [ignoring the evidence and witnesses that have been clearly discredited, just as in a court of law] is considered, Fort Pillow DOES NOT appear to be one of those.

As Jim points out, no matter what we say here, the argument about events at Fort Pillow will still be raging long into the future. If the TRUTH were so clear cut as you present, this would not be so.

If all was known regarding history, there would be no further need of research historians or archaeologists. Anyone that wanted to know something about the past could just open a book and read what they wanted to know. Again, the whole term "revisionist history" is non-sense. It is just a term intentionally devised to protect the reputation of those that have made definitive statements regarding an incident in history, who have now been shown to be wrong. It is simply ego protection. Any historian worth his title is searching to "revise" history to the TRUTH that fits the facts. That is what historians do! Otherwise, he is just a tour-guide of the past, or a Charlatan. And, any historian not caught up in his own ego, wants his personal version of history to be corrected if it fails the test of TRUTH.