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.
Looks as if whoever quoted Sgt. Achilles is in disagreement with several other folks. If we knew for sure which to believe, we wouldn't have this discussion. None of that seems at all in character with what is generally known about Nathan Forrest. Beyond that, I can't say.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
The evidence shows that statement to be inaccurate, Larry.
Regards,
Cash
Depends on who you believe.
There were plenty of reasons for the North to exploit the incident for propaganda purposes.
~
"There never was a surrender of the fort, both officers and men declaring they never would surrender or ask for quarter."
-Federal Officer Lt. Daniel Van Horn
This report was excluded from the final Congressional Report. In fact there were a total of three reports telling of "no surrender"...all three were excluded.
~
This newspaper article echoes (confirms) the statement of Van Horn-
Jackson, Tenn., April 18, 1861 … The enemy announced their determination not to surrender, and were accordingly defiant and insolent in their demeanor. They ridiculed the idea of taking the fort, and intimated that the last man would die before surrendering. Gen. Forrest told them that in order to prevent the effusion of blood he had demanded the surrender, but now the consequences were upon their own heads. Then the work of slaughter and death commenced. The sight of negro soldiers stirred the bosoms of our soldiers with courageous madness. The moment our men were seen upon the wall, the foe, which a few minutes ago was so defiant and insolent, turned to cowards. Still they would not surrender. Those that were hid or protected still kept firing upon and killing our brave boys; but our troops still rushed upon them, all the time fighting and killing. The sight was terrific—the slaughter sickening. Wearied with the slow process of shooting with guns, our troops commenced with their repeaters, and every fire brought down a foe, and so close was the fight, that the dead would frequently fall upon the soldier that killed. Still the enemy would not or knew not how to surrender. The Federal flag, that hated emblem of tyranny was still proudly waving over the scene. Seeing that nothing could be gained by further fight the enemy rushed to the Coldwater for the purpose of swimming across; but the troops stationed here by Gen. Forrest opened upon them, and hundreds were killed in the water endeavoring to escape. Others rushed to the passage between the fort and the river for the purpose of passing down the river towards Memphis. But the troops stationed here by Gen. Forrest to guard this very contingency, opened fire upon them, and the enemy rushed upon a coal barge and endeavored to push it off; but a concentrated fire from our whole column, soon put an end to this experiment. Several hundred were shot in this boat and in Coldwater, while endeavoring to escape. The number in the water was so great, that they resembled a drove of hogs swimming across the stream. But not a man escaped in this way. The head above the water was a beautiful mark for the trusty rifle of our unerring marksmen. The Mississippi River was crimsoned with the red blood of the flying foe. Our soldiers grew sick and weary in the work of slaughter, and were glad when the work was done. General Forrest begged them to surrender, but he was told with an air of insulting defiance that he could not take the place, and that they asked for no quarter. Not the first sign of surrender was ever given. Gen. Forrest expected a surrender after entering the fort, and anxiously looked for it, as he witnessed the carnage; but no token was given.
Atlanta Memphis Appeal, 2 May 1864
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Looks as if whoever quoted Sgt. Achilles is in disagreement with several other folks. If we knew for sure which to believe, we wouldn't have this discussion. None of that seems at all in character with what is generally known about Nathan Forrest. Beyond that, I can't say.
Thought it was generally agreed that Forrest wasn't present until most of the fighting was over. And that he stopped, or tried to stop, the killing when he did get there.
Achilles is generally discredited. His statement has a certain value in that some of it has been corroborated by others, but saying Forrest was present and ordered the killing is quite suspect.
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
Thought it was generally agreed that Forrest wasn't present until most of the fighting was over. And that he stopped, or tried to stop, the killing when he did get there.
Achilles is generally discredited. His statement has a certain value in that some of it has been corroborated by others, but saying Forrest was present and ordered the killing is quite suspect.
There are lots of tales coming out of Ft. Pillow. Several say they heard someone say "Forrest says kill them all!" or something like that. None say they were actually there when Forrest said it. It would not be surprising if this was both true and untrue: that Forrest never did say it and that one or more persons out in the smoke and the killing yelled out that he did.
Regards,
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.
Looks as if whoever quoted Sgt. Achilles is in disagreement with several other folks.
Sgt Achilles Clark. It was his own words from a letter he wrote to his sisters just after the massacre. He was one of Forrest's men. He had no axe to grind. He wasn't trying to justify one side or the other. He wasn't trying to make political points. He was just telling his family what he had been through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by larry_cockerham
If we knew for sure which to believe, we wouldn't have this discussion. None of that seems at all in character with what is generally known about Nathan Forrest. Beyond that, I can't say.
I suggest you have a view of Forrest that is more idealized than factual.
Thought it was generally agreed that Forrest wasn't present until most of the fighting was over. And that he stopped, or tried to stop, the killing when he did get there.
Achilles is generally discredited. His statement has a certain value in that some of it has been corroborated by others, but saying Forrest was present and ordered the killing is quite suspect.
Ole
Achilles Clark is not discredited at all. He never claimed Forrest was there. He just said Forrest ordered them all killed. That could be something he was told by another soldier.
He just said Forrest ordered them all killed. That could be something he was told by another soldier.
Good points. Should've sorted out that detail myself. Thanks for the correction.
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
Maybe some of this should be on the Ft. Pillow thread. Or not, I don't care.
Killing prisoners or soldiers seeking to surrender often involves several factors. If the victims are a different racial group, surrendering becomes problematic. The Japanese in WWII were notoriously reluctant to surrender, but the Americans were also reluctant to take prisoners, as compared to when fighitng the Germans.
Often military "social class" can play a role. According to John Keegan, infantry were quicker to fire on cavalry or tankers seeking to surrender then other infantry.
Sometimes a rough code of enough as opposed to too much resistance plays an influence. In WWI, Irish Guardsmen killed Germans trying to surrender with what is described as the "traditional comment, 'too late, chum.'"
In many of these incidents, the attitude of command is important. If the sense is that the rules are relaxed, or abuse or killing is perceived as tolerated, then the fuse is lit.
In the infamous My Lai Massacre, most of this comes into play: the victims were a different racial group, who wouldn't "fight fair," and an officer who led and encouraged the killing. The violence soon spiraled out of control, children was shot, women gang raped then killed, looting. While the incident at Ft. Pillow, although brutal, was much less severe, I question the idea of "legitimate tactic." On the contrary, it hardens the resistance of the enemy, wrecks the reputation of the army, and is generally counterproductive.
It is interesting to note that Lincoln stepped back from reprisal killings as a policy when faced with Mosby's partisan rangers. He correctly realized that reprisals would have led to a downward spiral of further reprisals.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
