Fort Pillow Attack Essays (1249 words) - Tennessee,

Fort Pillow Attack annon THE GRAND FABRICATION It is almost as difficult to find consistent information about the incident at Fort Pillow as it is to determine the moral significance of its outcome. Scholars disagree about exactly what transpired on April 12, 1864 at Fort Pillow, when General Nathan Bedford Forrest captured the fort with his 1,500 troops and claimed numerous Union lives in the process (Wyeth 250). It became an issue of propaganda for the Union, and as a result the facts were grossly distorted. After close examination it is clear that the ?Fort Pillow Massacre? (as it became known by abolitionists) was nothing of the sort. The 1,500 troops under the command of General Nathan Bedford Forrest acted as men and as soldiers in their capture of Fort Pillow. It is first necessary to understand what happened in the battle before any judgment can be made. A careful study performed by Dr. John Wyeth revealed the following information: from April 9-11, 1864, troops under the command of Ben McCulloch, Tyree Harris Bell, and Brig. General James Chalmers marched non-stop to Fort Pillow to begin their assault under the command of General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Confederate sharpshooters claimed the lives of several key Union officers during the morning assault on the fort. The losses included the commanding officer Major Loinel F. Booth, and his second in command shortly after that. These losses created a complete breakdown of order and leadership among the Union troops within the fort. (251) During the morning engagement, the gun boat the New Era was continually attempting to shell the Confederate forces from the Mississippi, but with minimal success. The Union forces fought back heartily until around one o?clock in the afternoon, when both sides slowed down. Around that time the New Era steamed out of range to cool its weapons. It had fired a total of 282 rounds, and its supplies were almost totally exhausted. During this hiatus in the firing, while Confederate troops waited for supplies that would arrive around three o?clock, Forrestwas injured when his horse fell on him after being mortaily wounded (252). When the supplies arrived, Confederate troops under a flag of truce delivered a message from Forrest that said, ?My men have received a fresh supply of ammunition, and from their present position can easily assault and capture the fort,? (253). Forrest demanded ?the unconditional surrender of the garrison,? promising ?that you shall be treated as prisoners of war? ( 253). This agreement was refused by Major William F. Bradford using the name of Major Booth, and Forrest was left with no option but to attack (Long Long 484). Without a word, Forrest rode to his post, and a bugle call began the charge. The soldiers stormed the fort under the cover of sharpshooter fire. The Union spent their rounds on the charging mass, and the second wave was to all intents and purposes a ?turkey shoot.? As hordes of soldiers came over the wall, a considerable number of Union lives were lost to point blank fire, an action that was deemed murder by the northern press. (255) However, it must not be forgotten that those Union troops who died were in the process of reloading their rifles. Even knowing that they were severely outnumbered, they had demanded the fight (Henry 255). By this point most of the Union officers in the fort had been killed, and the remaining troops fled the fort toward the river where they had provisions waiting . There was also a plan for the New Era to shell the Confederate troops in the fort with canister, but the shelling never happened(. Confederate troops were waiting at the bottom of the fort to prevent access to the supplies by the Union forces. With the Union flag still flying upon the fort and Union forces still firing on the run, Confederate troops claimed many more lives on the river bank. It was reported by Colonel FIRST NAME Barteau that they made a wild, crazy, scattering fight. They acted like a crowd of drunken men. They would at one moment yield and throw down their guns, and then would rush again to arms, seize their guns and renew the fire. If one squad was left as prisoners ... it would soon discover that they could not be trusted as having surrendered, for taking the first opportunity they would break lose again and engage in the contest. Some of our men were killed by Negroes who had once surrendered (256). With this type of activity, it is understandable how a superior force

Does the Broken Window Theory Work?

Does the Broken Window Theory Work?Many people wonder if the broken window theory works or not. This is a question that many people are asking in an attempt to determine if it is possible to use the broken window theory in order to stop someone from committing a crime.The broken window theory is a theory which has been used in criminal law for a number of years now. This theory basically says that if someone can break into another person's property then they have the right to do whatever they want to the property. Therefore, this means that if someone breaks into someone else's property then they can do whatever they want to that property without being punished by the owner.In order to understand the broken window theory, you must first understand what the phrase 'broken window' means. This phrase was coined by John Edwin Locke in 1690.The original meaning of the phrase was a common image of a window that was smashed in order to show its lack of functionality. You could argue that it was meant to show the fact that the window was broken and not working. However, since the time of Isaac Newton it has been used in many ways. In particular, this theory applies to cases where people are committing crimes against other people or property.In order to use the broken window theory, you must first be able to prove that it is impossible for the victim to regain the property or person that was stolen from them. For example, in order to use the broken window theory in order to convict someone of theft you must be able to prove that they did not return the property or person that was stolen from them. In many instances you will be able to prove this through physical evidence or witness testimony.So how do you use the broken window theory? To use the broken window theory, you must find an instance where a victim was involved in a break-in and that property or person was stolen from them. If the owner can be proven to have consented to the break-in then it is not necessary to prove that they did not consent.If you want to see an example of the broken window theory then look at the movie Catch Me If You Can. In this movie a group of individuals broke into a professor's house and stole his money and his documents. The professor was then able to get his property back when he agreed to pay a stranger to look after his home while he was on vacation.The broken window theory has been used in many instances including helping to convict thieves. In order to make sure that the theory actually works then you need to learn more about it before you choose to use it in your situation.