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.
Fredrickburg = Estimated Casualties: 17,929 total (US 13,353; CS 4,576) close to three to one.
Second Cold Harbor= Estimated Casualties: 15,500 total (US 13,000; CS 2,500) over 4 to one. I would say that's lop side. Wouldn't you.
8thvacav
__________________ "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
Out of the two battles you mention above, how many reports surfaced that Union soldiers who were killed were black? How many reports came to light that Union soldiers who tried to surrender were shot instead?
While I agree with the numbers you present above on the battles you list, are the circumstances viewed the same as happened at Ft. Pillow during the fighting? This is what makes this particular event a bit unique out of all the blood and carnage of the other, more familiar battles, the questions that concern the supposed events after the main fighting had taken place.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
8thVaCav, the ratio of Union to CS casualties is not the issue and has not been. Look at the ratio of Killed to wounded; that is what has been bandied about. That is the disparate issue that strikes Ft Pillow as so odd and the hardest evidence to refute that something more than just a simple battle went on there.
__________________ 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
I've held back mention of the killed percentage at Ft. Pillow because I don't remember exactly what it was and am too lazy to look it up. If I recall correctly, it was in the neighborhood of 70 percent killed. This just doesn't happen -- 40 percent is an outlandish number and indicative of hard, brutal fighting, and that's counting casualties (k/w/m). 30 percent casualties is an average considered very high.
30 percent killed in action would be catastrophic. Any figure exceeding that leads to the inevitable conclusion that something more than a butt-whipping (PC police, please take note of the gutter language of perverted senior citizens) occurred.
I am not sorry to conclude that there was most certainly a massacre. I am not sorry to conclude that the victims were blacks and Tennessee Tories. I am not sorry that the heat of battle and a grudge factor played a large part. I am not sorry that blame cannot reasonably be attributed to Forrest. I am sorry that we cannot acknowledge that an unfortunate incident did occur, without attempting to pretend it didn't happen.
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
I can only speak for myself, but I do think that black and white troops were killed while trying to surrender. That seems pretty clear. My main question, one that likely will never be answered, is to the scale of the massacre.
I think most of us here agree that Forrest did not participate in the unfortunate events, but it seems to me that he still has an image in a lot of people's minds that he somehow "led" a massacre.
I think a lot of people ignore atrocities committed by black troops, and Unionists, against Confederates in similar incidents. And I think people simplify the race issue here...the atrocities were much more complex in motivations than "kill the other race."
Respectfully
__________________ Up men, and to your post! And let no man forget today that you are from old Virginia!
The subject of this thread is Fort Pillow. That other unfortunate incidents happened -- all too frequently -- is a given. We are concentrating on this one.
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
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?
Sorry, just because you claim it's ludicrous doesn't make it ludicrous. There is evidence available they had bayonets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Cash, the Senate testimony is discredited.
Straw man on your part, since we haven't been using the Senate testimony. You should probably deal with what has actually been posted instead of making claims about things that haven't been posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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.
Interesting that the one piece of testimony you claimed was not eyewitness testimony, nor did it deal with the assault on Fort Pillow, plus you persist in ignoring all the eyewitness material which contradicts your own point of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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.
Really now? Which article in particular. I just made a quick glance at it and I saw nothing about that whatsoever in GO 100.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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.
Anderson was occupied with the troops moving down to the river. He made no claims at all about what was happening inside the fort. Your claiming he did is a mischaracterization of his 17 April letter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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.
Anyone with an agenda can contest anything they want. It's incontestable if people are being objective about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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.
Wrong again. For someone who talks a lot about proper historical method you sure aren't using any right now. The eyewitnesses I am using wrote contemporaneously to family members or reported what they saw in newspapers before any charges were made. Those who reported after charges were made have reason to lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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.
These statements were already dealt with earlier in this thread and shown to be inapplicable.
Fredrickburg = Estimated Casualties: 17,929 total (US 13,353; CS 4,576) close to three to one.
Second Cold Harbor= Estimated Casualties: 15,500 total (US 13,000; CS 2,500) over 4 to one. I would say that's lop side. Wouldn't you.
8thvacav
You are misapplying the figures. What percentage of the Union force were killed? Lopsided victories are not necessarily massacres.
At Fort Pillow, 47-49 percent of the Federal garrison were killed outright or mortally wounded. Blacks suffered a 64% casualty rate, whereas white troops had a 31-34 percent casualty rate.
Livermore's _Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America, 1861-65_ puts the figures for Fredericksburg as:
113,987 Union troops engaged
1,284 killed, 9,600 wounded, 1,769 missing.
That's only about 1.1% killed. If we add wounded, that's only about 9.55% killed and wounded.
The same source puts the figures for Cold Harbor [for all three days together] as:
107,907 Union troops engaged
12,000 killed and wounded
That's only 11.1% killed and wounded.
As you can see, there's quite a bit of difference between Fort Pillow and these two battles.
Out of the two battles you mention above, how many reports surfaced that Union soldiers who were killed were black? How many reports came to light that Union soldiers who tried to surrender were shot instead?
While I agree with the numbers you present above on the battles you list, are the circumstances viewed the same as happened at Ft. Pillow during the fighting? This is what makes this particular event a bit unique out of all the blood and carnage of the other, more familiar battles, the questions that concern the supposed events after the main fighting had taken place.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
You also have to take into account the time it took for each. Cold Harbor was a 3-day battle. Fredericksburg took all day. Fort Pillow was about a half-hour.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
