Civil War History - The South & Western TheatersCheck this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.
In summation, my personal view of Fort Pillow upon gleaning info of this this discussion is that some brutality existed but not to the degree of a full-scale massacre. Confederate troops resented colored troops, and colored troops sought revenge whenever they could, and resented white troops. The Federal commander was killed early in the battle and confusion reigned. Pockets of resistance, carried on after the majority of Fed colored troops surrendered, led to CS troops mopping up. In essence, CS troops probably committed atrocities but the numbers were very much lower than reported by northern accounts. Gen. N.B. Forrest foretold all this before it happened and tried to obtain a surrender. The intent failed. Comparing the so called lop-sided racial casualties fails to take into consideration the numbers of new recuits which filled colored ranks. Friendly fire, some atrocity and a brutal defense took it's toll on the USCT. General Forrest can't be held responsible for the relatively small number of atrocities which occurred. N.B. Forrest was aquitted as per a Federal investigation as Fed authorities found no substantial proof of a true massacre.
In summation, my personal view of Fort Pillow upon gleaning info of this this discussion is that some brutality existed but not to the degree of a full-scale massacre. Confederate troops resented colored troops, and colored troops sought revenge whenever they could, and resented white troops. The Federal commander was killed early in the battle and confusion reigned. Pockets of resistance, carried on after the majority of Fed colored troops surrendered, led to CS troops mopping up. In essence, CS troops probably committed atrocities but the numbers were very much lower than reported by northern accounts. Gen. N.B. Forrest foretold all this before it happened and tried to obtain a surrender. The intent failed. Comparing the so called lop-sided racial casualties fails to take into consideration the numbers of new recuits which filled colored ranks. Friendly fire, some atrocity and a brutal defense took it's toll on the USCT. General Forrest can't be held responsible for the relatively small number of atrocities which occurred. N.B. Forrest was aquitted as per a Federal investigation as Fed authorities found no substantial proof of a true massacre.
Sincerely,
Rob Adams
Actually, they found abundant proof of a massacre. They found no clear proof Forrest ordered it, and I don't believe he did order it. It is without question there was a massacre. Achilles Clark's letter and the letter of Charles Robinson, along with the accounts of "Marion," "Vidette," and "Memphis" all corroborate it. These were all contemporaneous documents written by eyewitnesses. Your claim of friendly fire has no evidence to substantiate it and is just an assumption on your part. Friendly fire has nothing to do with blacks on their knees begging to be spared, then stood up and shot down.
Actually, proof was found that a lot of casualities occurred. A lot of casualities do not make a massacre. There is more testimony that no massacre took place than there is that one did. The word "massascre" has a definite meaning and the available testimony does not rise to the necessary level to prove "massacre." That is why the Congressional Committee investigating Ft. Pillow took no action. The testimony of the Union surgeon that a massacre took place is balanced by the testimony of Confederate officers who say one did not. Of course, you can reject the Confederate testimony as "self-serving" but the same can be said of the Yankee doctor. Two Confederates say prisoners were killed, and Alabamian agrees that some were. In the heat of battle there were numerous instances where prisoners were killed. Major Anderson says no prisoners were deliberately killed.
The evidence cited earlier in this thread about Union deaths has been shown to be questionable in that bayonets were supposed to have been used when Forrest carried no bayonets. The rate of fire from the breech-loaders used by Forrest has been ignored. The failure of the garrison to surrender has been ignored. So far, Maness, Untutored Genius . . . has been ignored.
The question of just what happened is too murky simple conclusions to be justified.
"The rate of fire from the breech-loaders used by Forrest has been ignored" Can yuo cite me any other engagement w/ one side or both partially or completely armed w/ breech loaders that aproaches the KIA vs WIA rate. Absolutely none of the engagement w/ Wilsons Cav were largely armed w/ Spencers & Sharps approach the mortality rate of Ft Pillow. None of the engagements involving Greirson in his Vicksburg campaign reach even close. Even Alltoona where the 7th IL was armed largely w/ Henry Rifles the KIA vs WIA rate is no where near Ft Pillow.
Evidence was presented that Forrests Commands, as Cav carried Bayonets.
Maness, has not been ignored, neither has First W/ the Most or others.
I think the case has been made that Forrest was innocent of any complicity; but there is enough evidence to point out that Black soldiers who surrendered were murdered. Massacre, murdered... depends entirely upon who is on the receiving end. Regardless, Ft Pillow was merely the most well known and most heavily propogandized. Ft Pillow was neither an isolated incident nor a solitary one. Trudeau & Glaathar (sp?) both make that pretty clear in their excellent works.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Gentlemen, this account of an episode during the retreat of the Army of Tennessee during December 1864 was written by Pvt. Calvin Livesay of the 63rd Virginia Infantry who were in the command of Forrest and Walthall and fought the rear guard action. This is another example that brutality was rampant. As some of said this was civl war.
This example just happens to be Union in origin.
"We were now falling back toward Florence again. General Forrest was waiting before attacking again till he knew the result of the battle at Nashville. We could hear the roar of the cannon all day and in the night a courier came telling us to get out for Hood was beaten at Nashville and for us to meet the main army at Duck River. When we arrived there most of the army was across. We crossed this by ford. General S..D. Lee was wounded in retreat. He was our corps commander. Hood was now in full retreat to Florence, Alabama. Major General [Carter L.] Stevenson was now in command of our corps. None of my old mess was with me except Preston Parks. What has become of the rest I did not know. The enemy followed us until Christmas Day. This was the last fight of the retreat. Negroes were put in front and charged our lines. What a slaughter of them! They were filled with liquor and then charged. At one place I saw a German charge overt the breast works. He would not surrender and was shot down, drunk as a bear. They were hired substitutes for the North. General Forrest was doing much fighting, having his cavalry dismount and fight as infantry. I saw a number of mules mired and shot."
Actually, proof was found that a lot of casualities occurred. A lot of casualities do not make a massacre. There is more testimony that no massacre took place than there is that one did.
Not true at all. There's plenty of testimony taken by the Senate Committee that a massacre took place that hasn't been used in this thread. There are the accounts by "Vidette," "Memphis," "Marion," and Achilles Clark, all confederates, and there is the letter by Charlie Robinson of the Federals, written to his family and not part of any plan to embellish accounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The word "massascre" has a definite meaning and the available testimony does not rise to the necessary level to prove "massacre."
Sorry, but that's just not a true statement. If you want to claim there is some specific level to a massacre and that this doesn't rise to it, let's see the claim and its source. Absent that, the standard definition of "killing a large number of people by atrocity or by cruelty" suffices, and this case meets that standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
That is why the Congressional Committee investigating Ft. Pillow took no action.
No, that's not why they took no action. They took no action because there was nothing they could do, since there was no proof Forrest ordered the massacre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The testimony of the Union surgeon that a massacre took place is balanced by the testimony of Confederate officers who say one did not. Of course, you can reject the Confederate testimony as "self-serving" but the same can be said of the Yankee doctor. Two Confederates say prisoners were killed, and Alabamian agrees that some were. In the heat of battle there were numerous instances where prisoners were killed. Major Anderson says no prisoners were deliberately killed.
As has already been pointed out, Anderson was outside the fort during the assault and was not in a position to see what was happening, and his 17 April letter has nothing to do with the assault, so you're making a claim that isn't supported by his letter.
And we haven't relied on Fitch's testimony, except to exonerate Forrest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The evidence cited earlier in this thread about Union deaths has been shown to be questionable in that bayonets were supposed to have been used when Forrest carried no bayonets. The rate of fire from the breech-loaders used by Forrest has been ignored. The failure of the garrison to surrender has been ignored. So far, Maness, Untutored Genius . . . has been ignored.
You've ignored Achilles Clark, Charlie Robinson, "Vidette," "Memphis," and "Marion," even though they've been brought up several times. That seems rather irresponsible to me, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The question of just what happened is too murky simple conclusions to be justified.
It is incontestable that a massacre took place. The question of whether it was planned or not is very much in question. I believe the weight of the evidence points to it being unplanned and not ordered by Forrest. You are going far out of your way to claim there was no massacre and in the process ignoring compelling eyewitness testimony of people who had no reason to lie, pretending it just doesn't exist.
I'd be interested to know the specific meaning of massacre outside the dictionary definition. Mine doesn't quantify, just mentions murder as opposed to killing while fighting.
One can debate endlessly on the validity of contemporary accounts, eyewitness or otherwise. To me, the incredible, singular ratio of killed to wounded or captured tells the story. That kind of number just didn't pop up in the most heated actions of that unfortunate war.
An aside, today we would hold Forrest responsible because he was in command. I find it interesting that, today, we can find him apparently without guilt. It shows a great deal of tolerance and recognition of the time, conditions, and fog of war.
Just thinking out loud.
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
To me, the incredible, singular ratio of killed to wounded or captured tells the story. That kind of number just didn't pop up in the most heated actions of that unfortunate war.
What about Fredericksburg. Should Lee be held accountable for that?
__________________ "I want to bury myself in a den of books. I want to saturate myself with the elements of which they are made and breathe their atmosphere until I am of it."
--Lew Wallace, 1885
Johan, have you read Maness? No evidence about cavalry with bayonets has been presented. There was a reference to material which could not be brought to hand that one thought might have indicated that such was the case. The idea of cavalry with bayonets is ludicrous, when were they trained to use them? Where did they ever use them?
Cash, the Senate testimony is discredited. The Senate itself refused to take action on this testimony, judging it to be nothing more than wartime propaganda. It is interesting that you persist in giving credence to the material which speaks of a massacre but ignore all the eyewitness matrial which counters that point of view.
My source for the claim that Ft. Pillow does constitute a massacre is General Orders #100, the rules of engagement for the U. S. Army. The order deals with a garrison which is summoned and refuses to surrender. This may also answer the queery posted by Ole.
Anderson was in a position to see what happened on the slope behind the position as the garrison ran toward the river, many with weapons in their hands, heading for an area where open boxes of ammunition were located.
If it were "incontestable" that a massacre took place historians would not have been discussing and arguing over the matter for 141 years! The continuance of the debate shows that the matter is highly contestable.
If I am to assume that the eye-witnesses you cite "had no reason to lie" then you imply that those eye-witnesses who say different did have a reason to lie. I think that is an unwarranted position on your part.
Now, as to the rate of fire, Wilson did not inflict such casualities because he never was in an analogious situation--assualting a small position crowded with troops who refused to surrender but who ran. And similar ratios of killed to wounded to captured occurred at Nashville in the detached redoubt line and on Shys Hill.
What about Fredericksburg. Should Lee be held accountable for that?
Martin, what was the percentage of killed/wounded/missing at Fredericksburg? How does it compare with the k/w/m at Ft. Pillow? As bad as Fredericksburg was, in no way does it equate with the Ft. Pillow numbers.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
