Atrocities or Legitimate Tactics

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by Battalion

What document? What policy of the Confederate government?

Oh come now; you know exactly what policy. The term servile insurrection comes to mind. USCT officers & men were quite aware of the situation and of Jeff Davis 12 January 63 proclomation in reply to the EP. The Genl Order #60 of the CS War Dept on 21 August 62 was also well known

[J_Man0507]

Originally Posted by Battalion

What document? What policy of the Confederate government?

Battalion,

Don't know if you have seen the Official Records of the War of Rebellion, but I am sure you know it contains all correspondece, addresses, battle reports, etc. on the war. Its online, and I'll put the link at the bottom of this. When you go there, go to Series Two, Volume Five. From there, go to page 797. It is an address from Jefferson Davis, Dec. 24, 1862. Davis says, and I quote: "That all negro slaves, captured in arms be at once delivered over to the executive authorities of the respective States to which they belong to be dealt with according to the laws of said states."
OR 2, 5:797. And the laws of the southern states were that any slave who took up arms in rebellion against their masters, were executed. Look at Nat Turner and the other slave rebellions. Most of the slaves who were directly involved.........were executed. There ya go. There's your evidence.

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/b...aphs/waro.html

[larry_cockerham]

I don't have much belief that there was very strong communication of Confederate 'policy' to the men in the field, one way or the other. What transpired at Fort Pillow was more a result of accepted military practice on both sides from the professional soldiers and from the character (better or worse) of the officers in command. I still have some faith in Forrest in that regard because of his repeated actions throughout the war.

[trice]

Originally Posted by cw1865

Why would the union commander, in his right mind, fly the black flag? Assuming its true, and honestly this one I would like you to cite, the only conceivable reason would be if the Confederates were flying it, or somehow let it be known that no quarter would be given, and the Union commander decided to fly it as a defiant gesture.

Major Bradford had been a lawyer in Dyersburg. He had no military experience, nor did his brother, Captain Bradford.

For about 2 months before Forrest attacked Ft. Pillow, the Bradfords had been basing and recruiting their force in the area. These men were "Tennessee Tories", Unionists in a strongly Confederate county, and some were considered deserters from the Confederate Army.

There was considerable animosity between the locals. Supposedly Bradford's men had been riding about the county acting outrageously, and supposedly they had been flying a "black flag" as they did so. Forrest had been receiving complaints about Bradford's men committing outrages against property and person (whatever we choose to believe outrages might mean) and petitions to come deliver them from this scourge. There were also Unionist marauders like Tom May committing acts in Western TN at the time, murders and roberies were common, and a family of six had just been killed over in Obion county by Federals. Many of the men in the fort came from Dyer County, including men in the USCT; some men in the attacking force came from Dyer County as well, and had received news of the acts against their home folk.

Major Booth was sent to take command because Major Bradford was so inexperienced. Booth was shot and killed early in the day, putting the inexperienced Bradford back in command. Bradford apparently issued whiskey to his troops during the day, and the Confederates apparently captured whiskey when they took the Union camp. Troops on both sides, keyed up by a long day of skirmishing and an anticipated assault, many with whiskey in them, stood and shouted insults and threats during the truce before the assault. Forrest's staff was afraid for his safety when he rode out to the truce party. Clearly this was not a situation where the officers would have firm control of the troops if an assault went in.

Now maybe Bradford's raw men with inexperienced officers really had been riding about with a "black flag" for the last several weeks, oppressing the locals, "foraging"/looting, and taking a bit of their own back for previous troubles. Maybe Captain Bradford really is waving a "black flag" when he is trying to rally the troops during the assault. Maybe the Bradford's really were inexperienced enough/stupid enough/afraid enough to fly a "black flag". It is also known that the dead Major Booth issued an order titled "Soldiers Never Surrender!" that morning, and that the Union garrison never did officially surrender until after the assault had swept them down onto the river bank, and that they had a plan to continue the resistance down there.

There are a fair number of claims the Union was flying an actual "black flag". There are no claims the Confederates were.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by cw1865

Why would the union commander, in his right mind, fly the black flag? Assuming its true, and honestly this one I would like you to cite, the only conceivable reason would be if the Confederates were flying it, or somehow let it be known that no quarter would be given, and the Union commander decided to fly it as a defiant gesture.

The actions of men in the middle of a savage war are often not in accord with our thoughts on the matter. Here, for example, is the report of Unionist Lieut. Col. James P. Brownlow, son of "Parson" Brownlow, on a skirmish in November 1863 (more than 4 months before Ft. Pillow). I added emphasis in blue italics:

O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXXI/1 [S# 54]
NOVEMBER 30, 1863.--Skirmish at Yankeetown, Tenn.
Report of Lieut. Col. James P. Brownlow, First Tennessee Cavalry.(*)

HEADQUARTERS FIRST TENNESSEE CAVALRY,
Sparta, Tenn., December 1, 1863.

COLONEL: Colonel Hughs' command, consisting of Murray's, Hampton's {Hamilton's 71 Bledsoe's, Ferguson's, Daugherty's, and other band's, attacked Lieutenant Bowman while scouting, on yesterday, and after skirmishing for some time, drove him across the river within 2 miles of this place, killing 4, wounding l, and capturing 5. I went immediately to his assistance, and drove the enemy (Numbering 500) 8 miles, killing 9. and wounding between 15 and 20.

I would take no prisoner. One of the Ninth Pennsylvania was mortally wounded (died this morning), and Captain McCahan wounded in the ankle.

Eighteen scouts, of the Second Michigan, got leave last evening. Send Doctor Green to this place. On account of the heavy picket duty, I would like to have one more company, unless the brigade is coming soon.

Very respectfully,
JAS. P. BROWNLOW,
Lieutenant-Colonel, Commanding.
Col. A. P. CAMPBELL,
Commanding First Brigade.

Commanders did things for reasons that made sense to them. In a bitter fight like the one between Unionist and Confederate Tennesseans, their logic might not make any sense at all to us.

Regards,
Tim

[J_Man0507]

I don't think that any of us on here doubt that the killing of unarmed prisoners occured, or that men were killed in cold blood. I don't think any of us think that one side was perfectly blameless and the other spotless. There were men on both sides, Union and Confederate, who did some pretty horrid things, especially in Tennessee, which was a bitterly divided state. What it comes back to is, was it accepted practice, and is it even acceptable. It isn't acceptable, and I don't think that it was accepted practice. However, I think because of the bitterness between the two sides, people began to look the other way and ignore it. And men would retaliate for some injustice that they saw. For example, Mosby retaliates against Custer by hanging some Union cavalrymen after Custer hung some of his men. It wasn't acceptable, but some commanders began to look the other way, making it seem as if it were.

[ole]

Put an animal in a desperate situation and there's no telling what it will do -- acceptable or not. Did I mention that man is an animal?

Ole

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by J_Man0507

Battalion,

Don't know if you have seen the Official Records of the War of Rebellion, but I am sure you know it contains all correspondece, addresses, battle reports, etc. on the war. Its online, and I'll put the link at the bottom of this. When you go there, go to Series Two, Volume Five. From there, go to page 797. It is an address from Jefferson Davis, Dec. 24, 1862. Davis says, and I quote: "That all negro slaves, captured in arms be at once delivered over to the executive authorities of the respective States to which they belong to be dealt with according to the laws of said states."
OR 2, 5:797. And the laws of the southern states were that any slave who took up arms in rebellion against their masters, were executed. Look at Nat Turner and the other slave rebellions. Most of the slaves who were directly involved.........were executed. There ya go. There's your evidence.

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/b...aphs/waro.html

I only (vaguely) recall of one incident where former slaves (serving in the Federal army and captured by Confederates) were executed by a state. That being in South Carolina (if that is indeed what eventually happened).

All other references I've found show them being sent to labor camps or returned to their owners.

As to the comparison to Nat Turner. That insurrection involved the killing of scores of civilians (including women and children). If any group of soldiers (whether black or white) were involved in such acts their execution would be justified.

[trice]

Originally Posted by Battalion

I only (vaguely) recall of one incident where former slaves (serving in the Federal army and captured by Confederates) were executed by a state. That being in South Carolina (if that is indeed what eventually happened).

All other references I've found show them being sent to labor camps or returned to their owners.

I'm not sure about the execution of blacks captured by the Confederates. Many seem to have been killed on the field while attempting to surrender at places like Ft. Pillow, the Crater, Olustee, Poison Springs, etc. Most I recall as surviving to actually be accounted as surrendered seem to have been sent back into slavery. Hood's men did kill some who refused to work after they were captured.

I have heard that 11 white USCT officers were executed by the Confederate government.

After Ft. Pillow, the Lincoln administration apparently made it clear to the Confederacy that any executions of USCT would be matched one for one from Confederate POWs. This may account for the low number of executions.

Tim

[J_Man0507]

The probable reason that there were so few that were executed was the fact that Secretary of War Seddon (CSA) had recommended that these black troops be treated as "deluded victims" though some may be taken and "a few examples might perhaps be made." He understood that just killing them would make them fight more desperately, and that President Lincoln and the Union leaders had said that if USCT men were killed, as there had been reports of such occurences happening, they would begin executing Confederate POW's; an eye for an eye. There were few documented executions of blacks captured because of this, though there are a few examples out there.

In response to negro troops captured by Brig. Gen. Hugh Mercer in South Carolina, he requested that they be made an example of. Secretary of War Seddon, in response, wrote that "Slaves in flagrant rebellion are subject to death by the laws of every slave-holding state...They cannot be recognized in any way as soldiers subject to the rules of war and to trial by military courts; yet for example, and to repress any spirit of insubordination, it is deemed essential that any slaves in armed insurrection should meet condign punishment. Summary execution must therefore be inflicted on those taken... (OR Series 2, 4:954, emphasis added)

I don't know how many black troops were officially executed. That isn't my point here. My point is that it was the policy of the Confederate government, as shown, to execute at least some of the blacks who were captured, in arms, against the Confederacy.

The killing of blacks, wounded or captured, on the field of battle is not an execution; that is a war crime. I am not saying it was rampant, or that it happened all the time. What I and some others here are saying is, it happened. There is documented evidence from many witnesses, at Ft. Pillow, at Saltville, at Poison Springs, at the Crater, and other battlefields in which black troops fought, that it happened. If anything, it was more isolated than anything. But it happened. And even if it was only one time, that is still wrong, and can in no way be condoned.