Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Post-mortem forensics are going to prove nothing. How do you determine that this body was killed in the course of battle or killed as a wanton act of murder?
It was a vicious fight and there are legitimate reasons for the ferocity. I usually go to the statistics. Rarely is a 50 percent KIA recorded for a defending force. For me, the difference between a 30 percent KIA and a 50 percent KIA is evidence of some wanton killing. If one wishes to define wanton killing as a massacre, so be it. If one would rather define it as heat of battle, so be it. To me, many more were killed than necessary to gain control of the fort.
There are persuasive reasons for the overkill, but it remains that many were unnecessarily killed. A massacre? That might be an extreme description, but it works for me.
ole
The most accepted calculation is for a minimum of 226 dead on the Union side. That was for a force of 557 white and black troops on the Union side. In recent years, some efforts have been made to build that number up to about 631, and to claim the 70+ added men were all killed. You'll note that even if that were to be found true, the killed would still be below 50%.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Post-mortem forensics are going to prove nothing. How do you determine that this body was killed in the course of battle or killed as a wanton act of murder?
I would not underestimate what those forensics guys could tell us from the remains. I bet they could come up with a relatively good idea what happen at Ft. Pillow.
Do we truly want to know as a society??
Think of all the old wounds that would be reopen by exhuming the remains and learning the truth...
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
Post-mortem forensics are going to prove nothing. How do you determine that this body was killed in the course of battle or killed as a wanton act of murder?
Unless the Confederates were going to shoot their prisoners in the back of the head, I concur. Most execution of military prisoners had the prisoner facing them. Any indication of powder burn would be gone (as well as most of the clothing). If the prisoner was shot in the back, it could be legitimate as the soldier was fleeing instead of surrendering. Then again, anyone would flee rather than be executed (so finding bodies shot in the back is inconclusive). Like Ole, I'm against exhuming the deceased. Let them RIP.
You'll note that even if that were to be found true, the killed would still be below 50%.
Believe I read that the KIA among the the black troops was greater than that for the whites. Can't be positive about that, so it's just a recollection.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Believe I read that the KIA among the the black troops was greater than that for the whites. Can't be positive about that, so it's just a recollection.
ole
It was. But then you can also find USCT participants claiming that the white troops broke and ran first (or white TN cavalry claiming that the USCT did <g>). One USCT Sgt. estimated they had already taken 25-30 casualties before the Confederate assault at 4 PM, and that their casualties were heavier than the white TN cavalry at that point because the USCT were exposing themselves to fire back at the Confederate sharpshooters -- and that it was the USCT (not the TN cavalry) who were sent out in an attack at 10 AM to try to burn the barracks the Confederates were firing from.
Anyone who studies Ft. Pillow will eventually come to a conclusion that the USCT took much heavier casualties than the white TN cavalry did. The reasons for that happening are another matter.
If the USCT did fight harder or longer, or were more exposed to casualties in position, you'd expect them to take more casualties. If they were less likely to surrender -- or if their surrenders were not being honored -- you'd expect them to take more casualties. There is evidence to support all of those choices and more. In all likelihood, they all happened to some extent, and what we see in the casualty totals was the combined effect of all the reasons.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
