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.
Some of the discussion on some of them other threads has got me to thinkin' it might be good to have a thread to discuss specific events during the War of Northern Agression and if they were Atrocities or Legitimate Tactics.
Fort Pillow for instance.
Much has been made about this so-called "autrocity". Violations of the Rules of War, heartless and cold-blooded murder of soldiers under a Flag of Truce.
But taking no prisoners on a battlefield is now and always has been a legitimate tactic especially for light / mobile forces operating behind enemy lines. Just how was Gen. Forrest supposed to deal with all of them prisoners? He couldn't hardly feed himself he was in no position to secure POWs and escort them to the rear. If he turned 'em loose, they'd be enemy combatants again just as soon as they could get armed.
I've got more examples too. If'n you all are so inclined.
Just so's you all don't acuse me of beatin' up on the black man, I thought I ought to post another example of what I am talking about.
The Centralia Massacre on September 24, 1864. There weren't no black people there as far as I know.
Much is made about Bloody Bill Anderson's rough treatment of unarmed and furloughed union soldiers on board the train. Fact is, them boys were shot down in cold blood. No doubt about it. But what was Cap'n Anderson supposed to do? Yankee Invaders and Local Union Militia were chasin' him hard. They'd beat him up real bad in Fayette, Missouri earlier in the week. They weren't takin' no prisoners neither.
And what most folks don't know about the Centralia Massacre is that MAJ. A.V.E. Johnston was flying the Black Flag his ownself. He was outraged at the killin' of them boys in town and he went after the rebels with reckless abandon. He vowed to "take no prisoners". It seems to me, he only got what he was givin'.
Atrocities or Legitimate Tactics! The more I think about it; the more I think this is going to be a good thread.
Much has been made about this so-called "autrocity". Violations of the Rules of War, heartless and cold-blooded murder of soldiers under a Flag of Truce.
But taking no prisoners on a battlefield is now and always has been a legitimate tactic especially for light / mobile forces operating behind enemy lines. Just how was Gen. Forrest supposed to deal with all of them prisoners? He couldn't hardly feed himself he was in no position to secure POWs and escort them to the rear. If he turned 'em loose, they'd be enemy combatants again just as soon as they could get armed.
But Forrest DID take POWs at Ft. Pillow, and he DID take them back to his base with him (some white, some USCT). He also handed a number of badly-wounded POWs over to Union parties under a flag of truce the following day (some white, some USCT). So what you are saying simply did not apply here.
He did take POWs in his operations, sometimes giving parole and releasing the disarmed POWs before he moved on, sometimes bringing them back. This was typical of Confederate units as well as Union operating on fast-moving raids. Forrest probably had more encounters with USCT units, and more POWs, than almost anyone else because of his area of operations and success. Ft. Pillow is really the only example of this type of behavior in his command during the war.
What is not typical is the large numbers or percentage of dead USCT at Ft. Pillow, and the sheer volume of evidence about it. Some of it can be discredited; some of it is undoubtedly just rumor and hysteria, or propaganda; however, there is no doubt that a number of Union troops (some white, mostly black) were killed in ways that cannot be credited as legitimate acts of war. The responsibility for and conditions of that can be argued. The size of the "massacre" can be debated. Mitigating circumstances can be introduced to put it in perspective. But when you come to the bottom, the evidence is that some Union troops (some white, mostly black) were simply murdered.
Bad as it may sound, some of this is normal in a close assault like this, which is why military commanders of those days often surrendered when it was clear an assault was about to carry the position. At Ft. Pillow, the slave/black factor played a part, as did the personal knowledge for the local Union/Confederate troops of Dyer County facing one another, the liquor involved, and the general inexperience/incompetence of the Union command. Forrest actually comes off looking fairly good when you see the accounts of what he did clearly. To doubt that there was some "massacre" in there somewhere, though, is to ignore too much.
Killing POWs is very, very rarely regarded as legitimate in war, or at least in the normal understanding of that of western civilization in many, many centuries. When it is grudgingly allowed, the circumstances are very unusual.
Regards,
Tim
But Forrest DID take POWs at Ft. Pillow, and he DID take them back to his base with him (some white, some USCT). He also handed a number of badly-wounded POWs over to Union parties under a flag of truce the following day (some white, some USCT). So what you are saying simply did not apply here.
Well you obviously know more about Ft. Pillow than I do. I ain't saying I condone the killin' of prisoners (black or white). I just think it might be a good topic for discussion.
Didn't Lincoln have some Prussian military historian / strategist who helped him devise some Rules of Engagement or some such definitions regarding the conduct of Union forces vs. organized billigerant forces and unorganized irregular or guerilla forces?
Who was that guy and what did he have to say about these matters?
Last edited by Ozark Iron John : 05-22-2007 at 01:06 PM.
Well you obviously know more about Ft. Pillow than I do. I ain't saying I condone the killin' of prisoners (black or white). I just think it might be a good topic for discussion.
Didn't Lincoln have some Prussian military historian / strategist who helped him devise some Rules of Engagement or some such definitions regarding the conduct of Union forces vs. organized billigerant forces and unorganized irregular or guerilla forces?
Who was that guy and what did he have to say about these matters?
At the time, there was no recognized and official code of conduct for land warfare among nations. There was one international treaty signed by a few before the Civil War, dealing with sea warfare, pirates, privateers, and such.
The very first "code" anyone refers to in these matters is the "Lieber Code". General Halleck, who might have ben a fuss-pot but was an acknowledged military authority on such matters, asked Lincoln to let him have a clear-cut policy drawn up by Dr. Lieber, a well-known and respected authority on international law. Lieber had been born in Prussia, fought in the Prussian Army against Napoleon, and was wounded at Waterloo in 1815. A bit of a rebel himself, he ended up barred from attending any university in Prussia and fled to England, then got his degree from the University at Jena in another part of the Germanies. He also fought in the Greek War of Independence before moving to Boston in 1827.
There, he helped found and edit the Encyclopedia Americana before moving on to teach history and political economics at what is now the University of South Carolina. In 1856, he took a job at Columbia University in New York. His son joined the Confederacy in 1861 and died at the Battle of Williamsburg in 1862.
After Halleck got Lincoln's approval, Lieber set to work, corresponding with officers and gathering material on historical precedents worldwide as well as corresponding with Union officers to get their input on the issues. This resulted in the Union issuing "Code for the Government of Armies in the Field", also known as General Order No. 100, on April 24, 1863.
In Europe, the first efforts to get the Geneva Convention started were going on about the same time, and the first Geneva Convention was signed a little later. Those people made reference to the "Lieber Code" in their work.
I will post the text of the "Lieber Code" in another thread for those who are interested.
Unfortunately, there are too many examples of troops being "massacred" during the ACW. And unfortunatley, and goodly number of them were members of the USCT. Fort Pillow is just one example. Many black troops were shot down in cold blood during the Battle of the Crater and at Saltville, just to name a couple. This was all due to some southerners not accepting a black man taking up arms against a white man, and in the south, that was punishable by death. Because a military order was sent out saying that any black soldier captured, along with any white men commanding them, would be summarily executed, it was to an extent general practice, though probably not as common as some may think.
As to the killing of POW's it isn't accepted practice, and in no way is it condonable. Even if you are behind enemy lines and being hotly pursued, you were supposed to parole the men and let them go. Parole was a generally accepted practice and men who were paroled generally would not fight, though some just went right on and picked up their rifles again and fight. But to kill unarmed prisoners just because you can't feed them or take them with you is not acceptable.
From what I understand, the men under Forrest at Ft. Pillow didn't kill pows; they killed men who rufused to surrender or ignored the opportunity. That's war, given the fact they were armed. Their racial make-up was more under their control than Forrest's. The men who were killed were a threat to the Confederate army.
__________________
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
From what I understand, the men under Forrest at Ft. Pillow didn't kill pows; they killed men who rufused to surrender or ignored the opportunity. That's war, given the fact they were armed. Their racial make-up was more under their control than Forrest's. The men who were killed were a threat to the Confederate army.
Larry,
This is a bit too strong. While it is definitely incorrect to state that anything like the full casualty list at Ft. Pillow was the result of "attrocities", some definitely were. While some attrocity stories are definitely false, and some are certainly suspect, some are apparently true. While it seems to me there is no real case that higher Confederate authority can seriously be considered to have ordered, caused, or allowed the attrocities to be committed, there is a lot of evidence that lower officers and enlisted men did commit, participate in, or allow some to go unpunished.
For example, Major Booth was shot in the chest and killed sometime in the morning by a sharpshooter -- 6 or 7 hours before the final assault. He wasn't an "attrocity", just a normal casualty. Neither were any other men killed before that assault. But I have also seen an account of four wounded lying in a tent, obviously casualties from early in the day, who were all killed by the attacking Confederates as they swept through -- those could easily be counted as "attrocities". There are many accounts of men who had individually surrendered being shot, and disputes about some of them -- but I doubt that all the stories are wrong.
The only questions about this revolve around how bad it was overall at Ft. Pillow, not whether something bad happened.
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.
From what I understand, the men under Forrest at Ft. Pillow didn't kill pows; they killed men who rufused to surrender or ignored the opportunity. That's war, given the fact they were armed. Their racial make-up was more under their control than Forrest's. The men who were killed were a threat to the Confederate army.
The evidence shows that statement to be inaccurate, Larry.
"The poor deluded negroes would run up to our men fall upon their knees and with uplifted hands scream for mercy but they were ordered to their feet and then shot down. The white men fared but little better. Their fort turned out to be a great slaughter pen. Blood, human blood stood about in pools and brains could have been gathered up in any quantity. I with several others tried to stop the butchery and at one time had partially succeeded. but Gen. Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs. and the carnage continued. Finally our men became sick of blood and the firing ceased." [Sgt Achilles V. Clark, 20th Tennesee Cavalry, CSA, to his sisters, 14 Apr 1864]
"As soon as the rebels got to the top of the bank there commenced the most horrible slaughter that could possibly be conceived. Our boys when they saw that they were overpowered threw down their arms and held up, some their handkerchiefs & some their hands in token of surrender, but no sooner were they seen than they were shot down, & if one shot failed to kill them the bayonet or revolver did not. I lay behind a high log & could see our poor fellows bleeding and hear them cry 'surrender' 'I surrender' but they surrendered in vain for the rebels now ran down the bank and putting their revolvers right up to their heads would blow out their brains or lift them up on bayonets and throw them headlong into the river below. One of them soon came to where I was laying with one of the 'Co C' boys. He pulled out his revolver and shot the soldier right in the head scattering the blood & brains in my face & then putting his revolver right against my breast he said 'You'll fight with ******s again will you? You d--d yankee,' and he snapped his revolver, but she wouldn't go off as he had shot the last load out when he killed the soldier by my side. 'Come up the hill,' he said & I went up with him in front of me. When I got near the top the soldiers wanted to shoot the d--d yankee but the fellow who took me told them no, that I was his property. I all the time just had to keep quiet. He said that he saw by my pants and vest that I must be a citizen. I told him that I was. Then he said I want your Greenbacks & that watch. I told him I was a prisoner & would not let him rob me. He called to another soldier & borrowed his revolver & putting it up to my face he said 'Shell out--shell out quick.' I shelled out. Another little cuss came up to me after these fellows left me & said, 'say mister I want them boots.' I told him I would give them to him if he would get me a drink of beer as I was very dry. He went after the beer & I went to another part of the Fort & did not see him again.
"I had as yet no guard over me, & as I had a grey suit on except the blouse, & as the rebels killed our boys they would take off their coats & put them on, so that now I was dressed as they were I now went to the top of the hill right amongst them & they thought I was one of their own men. I stood there & I saw them shoot & bayonet our poor fellows after they surrendered. I saw them take off their clothes after they were dead. I saw them pick the pockets of the dead, & heard them laugh & cheer when they were shooting our boys who had jumped into the river to keep from being cut to pieces. I stood there after the fireing [sic] was over, and looked at the dead. It was truly a hard sight (I thought then that they had done all they could do, but when I returned two days after and went up to the Fort I found that I had not seen all their cruel actions for there lay the charred remains of some of the wounded soldiers, who we had left in their houses thining that as they were wounded they would be treated kindly." [Charles Robinson to "Folks at Home," 17 Apr 1864, printed in George Bodnia, ed., "Fort Pillow 'Massacre' Observations of a Minnesotan," _Minnesota History,_ Vol 43, No. 5, Spring, 1973, pp. 188-189]
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Atrocities or Legitimate Tactics 
Linear Mode
