How many support this?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I believe he did:

After surrounding the fort, Forrest demanded surrender from the 580 men within or, he said, "I cannot be responsible for the fate of your command."

While this demand was being negotiated under the white flag, Forrest illegally improved his position, according to later Union allegations. In any event, the Union commander refused to surrender, and soon Forrest's men were pouring over the ramparts.

"The slaughter was awful," a Confederate sergeant later wrote his family. "I with several others tried to stop the butchery and at one time partially succeeded, but Gen. Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs, and the carnage continued."

There were numerous similar accounts from Union soldiers, several of whom said they heard Confederate officers saying Forrest had ordered them to "kill the last God d**n one of them."

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2004/winter/a-different-kind-of-hero

The post that was quoted here has been removed

But let's say he didn't directly order the killings (as unlikely as that seems). He could still be held accountable for the actions of his men under well settled international law:

In responding to General Y's assertion that he did not personally participate in or order the commission of these offenses, the Court described the heart of the charge as being "an unlawful breach of duty by [General Y] as an army commander to control the operations of members of his command by 'permitting them to commit' the extensive and widespread atrocities." The Court recognized that international law, through the law of war, "presupposes that [violations of the law of war] are to be avoided through the control of the operations of war by commanders who to some extent are responsible for their subordinates." The Court believed that absent such a duty upon commanders, nothing would prevent occupying forces from committing atrocities upon the civilian population. The Court held that General Y was, by virtue of his position as commander of the Japanese forces in the Philippines, under an "affirmative duty to take such measures as were within his power and appropriate in the circumstances to protect prisoners of war and the civilian population." General Y writ was denied, and he was executed by hanging by the United States military.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/justice/world_issues_yam.html

EDIT: I had to abbreviate the Japanese general's name because of RoboMod.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

In general, I agree with Murphy's dissent (Murphy was one of the greatest SCOTUS justices IMO).

However, dissents aren't law. I think the article I cited to shows that Forrest could have been convicted and condemned for his (in)action at Fort Pillow even if one ignores the ample evidence that he ordered the massacre.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Nathan Bedford Forrest should have been hung as a war criminal for the murder of Black US soldiers at Fort Pillow after they had surrendered. Any monument to him is a disgrace,

spot on bro