Fort Pillow

[mobile_96]

Anyone have any opinions on whether Forrests attack on Ft Pillow April 12, 1864 was:
A. A massacre
and if so:
B. Did Forrest order one, directly or indirectly.
and if not:
C. Do you think the large numbers of Union deaths, when compared to the Confederates,was due to Union actions before and at the time of the attack.
Any sources used for a decision would be of a great help to me.
Chuck in Il.

[5fish]

Anyone have any opinions on whether Forrests attack on Ft Pillow April 12, 1864 was:
A. A massacre
and if so:
B. Did Forrest order one, directly or indirectly.
and if not:
C. Do you think the large numbers of Union deaths, when compared to the Confederates,was due to Union actions before and at the time of the attack.
Any sources used for a decision would be of a great help to me.
Chuck in Il.

To question A) Yes, it was a massacre!!

To question B) Yes, Forest order it for he became the leader of the Klan after the war. For that, he loses any chance for a creditable denial of the truth. If he did order it, he did try to stop it either.

To question C) False, one two many shot in the head.


Source reading reports by navel officer who went on shore after the massacre.

[timewalker]

See the rather lengthy (and heated) discussion at:

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/civil...rt-pillow.html

[Nytram01]

Conflicting accounts of the events of Fort Pillow means that we probably dont entirely know the truth and probably never will .

There probably was a massacre but I dont think that Forrest ordered it. I think the reports of Forrest participating and encouraging in the massacre are an exageration.

Personnally I think that Forrest is somewhat unfairly villified for this one incident, as if his entire civil war career is rendered worthless for this one moment. For example, a little while ago an American politician was heavilly criticized simply for quoting Forrest while involved in a debate over Iraq and that's a bit extreme.

Fort Pillow is a black spot on Forrest's record and he is blamed for it because he was the commanding officer and as such he must take responsibility however I do not believe that he personally ordered or condoned the massacre of surrendered troops.

In all honesty I think Forrest role in the Fort Pillow massacre has been blown out of proportions. If Forrest is guilty of anything in regards to Fort Pillow he is guilty of losing control of his men

[Battalion]

Anyone have any opinions on whether Forrests attack on Ft Pillow April 12, 1864 was:
A. A massacre

No. Too many survivors for a massacre.

and if so:
B. Did Forrest order one, directly or indirectly.

N/A

and if not:
C. Do you think the large numbers of Union deaths, when compared to the Confederates,was due to Union actions before and at the time of the attack.

Several reports of Union officers indicate that the USCT were encouraged to fight to the death.

[Blockaderunner]

Yes, it was a massacre. No, I don't think NBF ordered it. But, I don't think he tried to stop it.

[richard]

There is so much information out there on this subject that it would take years to digest. In order to form an educated view of this incident, you will need to read as much as possible about it from both sides. In the new book about Forrest's Escort, there is some very good information in it. The other factor about this, is the location of the fort and what was going on in the river below. If one is serious about finding the truth they should not only read everything possible but also visit the location and see for your self just what the books are talking about.

[ole]

There is no doubt in my mind that there was a bit of excessive killing going on. But tying Forrest to it? Can't do it.

ole

[cash]

A. Yes.
B. No.
C. No.

Regards,
Cash

[larry_cockerham]

Some folks who were killed didn't follow orders nor good judgement. There's plenty in the civil war to blame Forrest for. Fort Pillow is a minor one at best. If William T. Sherman couldn't hang him with it, the evidence was and is scarce.

[cash]

Some folks who were killed didn't follow orders nor good judgement. There's plenty in the civil war to blame Forrest for. Fort Pillow is a minor one at best. If William T. Sherman couldn't hang him with it, the evidence was and is scarce.

That's a mischaracterization. How could Sherman hang him if he wasn't in custody?

He was tasked with investigating the massacre and he in turn assigned another officer to do the actual investigation.

Sherman's recommendation was to let the soldiers handle any retaliation. That doesn't let Forrest off the hook in any way.

Regards,
Cash

[matthew mckeon]

The forum that Timewalker linked discussed Fort Pillow exhaustively. There is a ton of good info there, if you are interesting in understanding what happened(as opposed to playing a game of heros and villians).

[larry_cockerham]

That's a mischaracterization. How could Sherman hang him if he wasn't in custody?

He was tasked with investigating the massacre and he in turn assigned another officer to do the actual investigation.

Sherman's recommendation was to let the soldiers handle any retaliation. That doesn't let Forrest off the hook in any way.

Regards,
Cash

Seems to me a Congressional hearing and custody were a bit similar? Forrest went on with his life, short as it was, unmolested, aside from the ravages of reconstruction and diabetes. He was on a very weak hook, if at all. A good southern jury would have given him every consideration. It never came to that, and shouldn't have.

[cash]

Seems to me a Congressional hearing and custody were a bit similar?

In what alternate reality would that be?

And the "investigation," such as it was, by one of Sherman's officers was conducted during the war while the Congressional hearing was conducted after the war. Two completely separate events. Apples and orangutans.

Forrest went on with his life, short as it was, unmolested, aside from the ravages of reconstruction and diabetes. He was on a very weak hook, if at all. A good southern jury would have given him every consideration. It never came to that, and shouldn't have.

The evidence against Forrest is contradicted by evidence in his favor, making the case unresolved, but it's hardly weak on its own. I agree he shouldn't have been tried, but Sherman has nothing to do with it.

Regards,
Cash

[larry_cockerham]

"Two completely separate events. Apples and orangutans."

Neither of which convicted nor caused Forrest any additional harm, as far as I know. Sherman had vowed to "hang" Forrest for his involvement at Ft. Pillow prior to the attempt to bring Forrest to task. Sherman backed off. His action should be an example for others.

[5fish]

FT Pillow, lets go to the one responsible for the event.

Mr. Forrest was the commander in charge of the operation that went terribly wrong.

The person ultimately responsible for his troops action is Forrest so he must be guilty of the war crimes while he was in command at Ft. Pillow.

Forrest may have escape justice but guilty he was...

[ole]

Blue: 5fish likes to stir the pot.

Back on the subject, if Shernan's "commission" couldn't find Forrest at fault, that pretty much ends it for me. Sherman had every reason to command his people to find Forrest a criminal sunavaseacook.But he didn't. That means something.

To me, it means that Sherman knew that Forrest's actions, however having been beyond his control, were well within the slide given a commander. It happens. And Sherman knew and believed that. He simply left it with the USCT. That they would exact justice and retribution.

ole

[Bobbie]

Think how the whole "Fort Pillow affair" ruined Forrest's life Firstly- his troops were particularly hated by USCT and were promised to be given no quarter. Secondly- it change Forrest's life forever, because since then he had to answer countless charges of various newspapers and "witnesses". As the New York Times noted in his obituary: " his principal occupation seems to have been to try and explain away the F.P. affair".
Many people didn't want to know the truth- they just wanted the scape-goat. And there are still such people today.

[unionblue]

Bobbie,

I am pretty much of the same view of you and ole.

The man was not found guilty and he did have to answer questions the remainder of his life. That pretty much ends it for me.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[cash]

"Two completely separate events. Apples and orangutans."

Neither of which convicted nor caused Forrest any additional harm, as far as I know. Sherman had vowed to "hang" Forrest for his involvement at Ft. Pillow prior to the attempt to bring Forrest to task. Sherman backed off. His action should be an example for others.

He decided to take military advantage by giving the troops another motivation--vengeance.

Regards,
Cash

[larry_cockerham]

Cash, my friend, if you are saying that Forrest's troops needed additional motivation, I really doubt that was the case. TN was full of Union troops shooting their guns and burning stuff. That was motivation enough. Not even Forrest would antagonize the enemy unnecessarily. The 'enemy', my ancestors among them, were enough of a problem for Forrest without adding fuel to the flames. Having studied this man for some time now, I have no reservation in concluding that his character was not of the type that would have harmed a defenseless enemy (or even guys with guns who were not trying to harm him). Forrest himself said war was about killing. He confined himself to that concept for the most part. Killing in battle or self defense, not massacre. Murder just wasn't in his character.

[cash]

Blue: 5fish likes to stir the pot.

Back on the subject, if Shernan's "commission"

Sherman had no such "commission." He assigned a single officer to investigate.

couldn't find Forrest at fault, that pretty much ends it for me. Sherman had every reason to command his people to find Forrest a criminal sunavaseacook.But he didn't. That means something.

To me, it means that Sherman knew that Forrest's actions, however having been beyond his control, were well within the slide given a commander. It happens. And Sherman knew and believed that. He simply left it with the USCT. That they would exact justice and retribution.

ole

Actually, Sherman didn't exonerate Forrest at all. The "investigation" was never finished by the military.

"Four days after the massacre, Stanton ordered Sherman to 'direct a competent officer to investigate and report minutely, and as early as possible, the facts in relation to the alleged butchery of our troops at Fort Pillow.' Sherman promptly passed the task on to Brayman, who began collecting affidavits from the patients at Mound City. But no doubt to Grant and Sherman's enormous relief, the investigation was soon turned over to the Joint Subcommittee on the Conduct of the War, whose recommendations they would not be obliged to follow.

"One of the arguments Forrest's defenders would make to prove that even the Union command did not believe the reports of a massacre at Fort Pillow was the fact that even such harsh and remorseless generals as Grant and Sherman never ordered reprisals. But by April 23, Sherman had concluded that Northern threats and condemnations would prove entirely useless and so proposed that the question of reprisals be quietly left up to 'the negroes themselves.' The Confederate army 'cares no more for our clamor than the idle wind,' he wrote Stanton, 'but they will heed the slaughter that will follow as the natural consequence of their own inhuman acts.' The truth, he said, was that the rebels' savage hatred of black troops 'cannot be restrained.' Thus far black troops had been 'comparatively well behaved, and have not committeed the horrid excesses and barbarities which the Southern papers so much dreaded.' But eventually 'the effect will be of course to make the negroes desperate, and when in turn they commit horrid acts of retaliation,' he wrote with characteristically brutal pragmatism, 'we will be relieved of the responsibility.' He doubted the wisdom 'of any fixed rule by our Government, but let soldiers affected make their rules as we progress. We will use their own logic against them, as we have from the beginning of the war.'" [Andrew Ward, _River Run Red: The Fort Pillow Massacre in the American Civil War,_ pp. 311-312]

"On May 3 Lincoln informed his cabinet that the fact of a massacre 'is now quite certain' and asked for their recommendations as to an appropriate response; the one ultimately adopted recommended that no 'extreme' action be taken until the result of Grant's Wilderness offensive in Virginia became evident. Some observers have assumed that the fact that no Union reprisal was ever ordered by Lincoln or taken by Sherman is proof that neither was convinced a massacre really had taken place; the reality, however, probably was that Sherman was one of the least sensitive toward blacks of all the supreme Federal commanders, and Lincoln was facing a tough November election in which many voters seemed to feel as much as Sherman did." [Jack Hurst, _Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography,_ p. 180]

This was all pointed out in the other Fort Pillow thread, but the misconceptions remain. Sherman formed no commission. He didn't conduct the investigation, he assigned a single officer to the task. The investigation was never completed by the military, it was taken over by the Congress. They found Forrest to be culpable. Sherman never proposed not punishing Forrest. He proposed letting black troops take vengeance on rebels for it. Sherman never showed any vindictiveness toward anyone after the war. He said several times during the war that once the war was over he'd extend his hand toward every southerner in friendship. Sherman's role in the affair has been mischaracterized time after time by the SCV types and people have been swallowing that line without actually bothering to look into it to see that it's nothing but a pack of lies.

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Cash, my friend, if you are saying that Forrest's troops needed additional motivation

Think a minute, Larry. Why would Sherman want to give Forrest's troops additional motivation? Obviously you have misread my post.

Sherman believed black troops needed additional motivation.

Regards,
Cash

[larry_cockerham]

Yes, Cash, I was having comprehension problems with your post, hence my question. Comprehension is still sometimes a challenge for me.

Somewhere I got the notion that these black soldiers at Ft. Pillow either didn't hear or perhaps ignored the 'order' to surrender. That could be comprehended one of two ways. They made a horrible mistake either way. Was it massacre on the part of the soldiers on the attack? You'd have to ask them. Forrest said no.

Cash, you wrote: "Sherman never proposed not punishing Forrest. He proposed letting black troops take vengeance on rebels for it. Sherman never showed any vindictiveness toward anyone after the war. He said several times during the war that once the war was over he'd extend his hand toward every southerner in friendship."

Did the black troops 'take vengeance'? I don't recall many instances where black troops were the primary force in a battle. I know the Confederates weren't wandering looking for black troops or Germans to engage. They were focused more on the blue uniforms and the sound of those Sharps repeaters.

W.T. Sherman was a professional soldier. Few could effectively argue that point. Forrest was a novice soldier, though a well conditioned one. Few could effectively argue that point.

As usual, thanks for your explanation of the details under which Sherman was acting.

[cash]

Somewhere I got the notion that these black soldiers at Ft. Pillow either didn't hear or perhaps ignored the 'order' to surrender. That could be comprehended one of two ways. They made a horrible mistake either way.

As the testimony we have shows conclusively, blacks, and some white soldiers, were murdered after they had surrendered.

Was it massacre on the part of the soldiers on the attack? You'd have to ask them. Forrest said no.

It was a massacre. The evidence doesn't prove Forrest's culpability, in my opinion. We have some testimony that he ordered it, some testimony that he tried to stop it. Unless we find some long-lost letter from Forrest saying words to the effect of, "Oh, yeah, I ordered it all right" or unless we find some corroborating eyewitness accounts that show he ordered it, we'll never know for sure.

Cash, you wrote: "Sherman never proposed not punishing Forrest. He proposed letting black troops take vengeance on rebels for it. Sherman never showed any vindictiveness toward anyone after the war. He said several times during the war that once the war was over he'd extend his hand toward every southerner in friendship."

Did the black troops 'take vengeance'? I don't recall many instances where black troops were the primary force in a battle. I know the Confederates weren't wandering looking for black troops or Germans to engage. They were focused more on the blue uniforms and the sound of those Sharps repeaters.

"Remember Fort Pillow"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lincoln...regiments.html

http://www.pamplinpark.org/press_rel...FortPillow.pdf

http://www.tnstate.edu/library/digital/BlacKs.htm

Regards,
Cash