Fort Pillow

[RebProf]

Anyone with an agenda can contest anything they want. It's incontestable if people are being objective about it.

Regards,
Cash[/quote]

Thank you for making my point so very well. The Ft. Pillow affair was created by people who had an agenda. In 1864 there was a perceived need to arouse public opinion in the North. Ft. Pillow was used to do just that. There was an agenda, it served its purpose, and then it was dropped.

I remind you, Cash, et al., that many historians have and do contest about the events at Ft. Pillow. Disagreeing with your view does not make one lacking in objectivity. From 1864 to the present the events there have been argued about.

Oh, yes! The records of the war in the west are just full of Union officers commenting "The Confederate cavalry fixed bayonets and charged our position.:" Those comments are second in number only to Confederate cavalry officers reporting "I ordered my cavalry to fix bayonets and advance." The only report of cavalry using bayonets is the hysterical and bogus account related to Ft. Pillow.

[milhistbuff1]

Originally Posted by RebProf

Anyone with an agenda can contest anything they want. It's incontestable if people are being objective about it.

I remind you, Cash, et al., that many historians have and do contest about the events at Ft. Pillow. Disagreeing with your view does not make one lacking in objectivity. From 1864 to the present the events there have been argued about.

RebProf.
Nothing in history is "incontestable" without credible evidence. Unfortunately history condemns us to a guessing game ad infinitum because of gaps in the historical record. Speaking of credibility, the more passion the participants have about a subject, the more likely it is that some of them will have an ax to grind. The Civil War is a perfect example since it involved literally decades of strong feelings on both sides. Concerning the primary sources, time and agendas tend to fog memories, John B. Gordon's and Jubal Early's works are perfect examples of this. That is not to say they are the only ones who do this, secondary source authors often have their own biases. Our sources of information are imperfect, to put it mildly, unfortunately the existing historical record is all we have to work with. To add to our agony in discovering the truth, sources disappear, books go out of print, or are misprinted. Short of new primary sources surfacing, or new perspectives in the historiography, there is no alternative to the impasse we now find ourselves on this subject. There is no doubt that an unusual amount of troops died, what the historical record doesnt answer is who ordered it and why so many died at Fort Pillow.
respectfully,
Matt

[cash]

Originally Posted by RebProf

The Ft. Pillow affair was created by people who had an agenda.

Wrong. Achilles Clark had no agenda, nor did Charlie Robinson. It is incontestable among objective historians that there was a massacre at Fort Pillow. But Forrest, IMO, didn't order it.

Regards,
Cash

[RebProf]

Simple assertions that "impartial" historians see something is leading this discussion nowhere. Face the facts. There are many historians who deny there was a massacre. If you wish to reject all these simply because they disagree with your position, do so. But you cannot ignore the plain truth, the matter has been debated for 140 years and continues to be debated. Self-certainty that one is right does not make all others wrong--it merely places them on the "other side."

Nathanies Hughes does not conclude there was a massacre. Lonnie Maness does not see a massacre. Jack Hurst does not see a massacre. None of the early biographers of Forrest saw a massacre. Are all these to be rejected as lacking in impartiality? If so, you are adopting the very convenient position that only you and your point of view have any validity.

A. Clark, et al. are indeed eyewitnesses. But what of all the other eyewitnesses who deny there was a massacre? Are they to be rejected because they did have an agenda? How do you know what any of these men thought or whether or not they had an agenda? The fact that there is much we do not know is the reason simple assertions concerning a complex matter cannot be satisfactory. It is quite clear that the Congressional hearings had an agenda. They were quite open about it. Their agenda was to stir up the war spirit in the North at a time when the road ahead was sure to be long and rough.

A rather tendentious posting suggested that I stick to what was on the list, not what I wished was there. This was in referrence to the Congessional hearings. It is clear that these hearings are "on the table." True, they have not been cited directly but many participants have cited authors whose conclusions are based on or include the Congressional hearings. If you cite those authors then any participant is free to question the sources of those authors. No discussion can be limited to the terms one side only wishes to include. This destroys a free and open debate.

[tarheel]

Being very unlearned you'll all forgive me if this ends up being a stupid question for whatever reason but here goes ... earlier on in this thread there was much banter about bayonettes and the use/non use of them by Forrest's men. One of the links that Unionblue posted was to a site that listed several letters of descriptions of the happenings at Ft Pillow, one of them being Forrest's. Much to my surprise there was nothing in it that would lead anyone to think that anything happened out of the ordinary that day except the usual taking care of business ... we came we saw we conquered kind of thing. But toward the end he specifically mentioned "without the use of bayonettes"

My question I guess would be, would that be out of the ordinary for him to mention that specifically, if his men didn't normally use bayonettes or weapons that were outfitted to use them. Or was he maybe practicing a little 'CYA' for the future knowing that somewhere down the line questions were going to come up and have to be answered.

[ole]

My question I guess would be, would that be out of the ordinary for him to mention that specifically, if his men didn't normally use bayonettes or weapons that were outfitted to use them. Or was he maybe practicing a little 'CYA' for the future knowing that somewhere down the line questions were going to come up and have to be answered.

A thoughty observation, Tarheel. That's going to be worth a few posts continuing your speculation. Thank you.
Ole

[cash]

Originally Posted by RebProf

Jack Hurst does not see a massacre.

Now, that's completely false. Jack Hurst does indeed see a massacre.

"He [Forrest] has never been cleared of perpetrating the Fort Pillow Massacre, an 1864 atrocity whose exact details remain cloudy, but in which many black Union soldiers and a lesser number of white ones plainly were killed after attempting to surrender. The Fort Pillow Massacre is notable not only for its intrinsic ugliness but because it can be viewed as a prelude to other horrors." [Jack Hurst, Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography, p. 6]


So does Brian Steel Wills. So does Noah Andre Trudeau. So does Albert Castel. So do John Cimprich and Robert Mainfort. So does Robert Huch [Robert K. Huch, "Fort Pillow Massacre: The Aftermath of Paducah," Illinois State Historical Society Journal, Vol. 66, Spring, 1973]

Originally Posted by RebProf

None of the early biographers of Forrest saw a massacre. Are all these to be rejected as lacking in impartiality?

The early biographers of Forrest's were defenders of Forrest. They certainly were lacking in impartiality.

Originally Posted by RebProf

If so, you are adopting the very convenient position that only you and your point of view have any validity.

I'm saying that there are those with an agenda who deny that a massacre took place.

Far more historians agree a massacre took place. In fact, today it's almost unanimous.

"In a few instances Negroes were killed rather than captured, notably at Fort Pillow, on the east bank of the Mississippi, some forty miles above Memphis, where on April 12, 1864, a Rebel force swept into the garrison, and of the 262 Negro soldiers stationed there, 229 were killed, wounded in escape or buried alive." [Benjamin Quarles, The Negro in the Civil War, p. 206]

"While the extent of the massacre was exaggerated by Wade and Gooch, and while Union casualties may have amounted to less than two hundred killed, wounded, and missing, still the testimony of some of the officers and men who survived shows that there was 'indiscriminate slaughter' of Union troops, particularly of Negroes, after the fort had fallen." [Dudley Taylor Cornish, The Sable Arm: Black Troops in the Union Army, 1861-1865, p. 174]

"Without doubt, the most famous series of atrocities in the war occurred at Fort Pillow, some forty miles north of Memphis, in April 1864. ... No one will ever know how many men from the USCT lost their lives after they had surrendered, nor will anyone satisfactorily determine Forrest's role in the massacre." [Joseph T. Glatthaar, Forged in Battle: The Civil War Alliance of Black Soldiers and White Officers, pp. 156-157]

"Long before Fort Pillow, where 66 percent of the blacks assigned to that Federal garrison were massacred by troops commanded by General Nathan Bedford Forrest, black soldiers and their white officers worried about how they would be treated--as prisoners of war or as insurrectionists--if captured by the Confederates." [John David Smith, "Let Us Be Grateful That We Have Colored Troops That Will Fight," in John David Smith, ed., Black Soldiers in Blue: African American Troops in the Civil War Era, p. 43]

"The most recent and objective studies, however, have concluded that while the Congressional committee's report was distorted and exaggerated, nevertheless several score Negro soldiers and some white troopers were indeed murdered after they had surrendered." [James M. McPherson, The Negro's Civil War: How American Blacks Felt and Acted During the War for the Union, p. 221]

"Except for the Fort Pillow Massacre and other scattered instances of murder after capture, the South did not treat Negro prisoners barbarously. But the Confederacy did refuse to exchange Negro prisoners, contributing to the prisoner-exchange breakdown which caused overcrowding in both Union and Confederate prisons." [Ibid., pp. 335-336, Note 7]

"Immediately after he heard about the massacre of Union soldiers at Fort Pillow, Tennessee, Gen. Augustus L. Chetlain, a recruiter of black troops stationed in Memphis, wrote to Illinois congressman Elihu Washburne: 'This is the most infernal outrage that has been committed since the war began.' " [Bruce Tap, "'These Devils are not Fit to Live on God's Earth': War Crimes and the Committee on the Conduct of the War, 1864-1865," Civil War History, Vol 42, No. 2, June, 1996, p. 116]

Originally Posted by RebProf

A. Clark, et al. are indeed eyewitnesses. But what of all the other eyewitnesses who deny there was a massacre? Are they to be rejected because they did have an agenda? How do you know what any of these men thought or whether or not they had an agenda?

Setting aside the fact that I only recall you putting forward one witness, Anderson, who was occupied with troops escaping from the rear of the fort and who didn't write about the actual taking of the fort in his 17 Apr letter, any confederate who wrote after 25 Apr has to be suspect because after that time the confederates became involved in a defensive effort against the massacre charges. Similarly, any Federal who wrote after 22 Apr has to be suspect because that was when the Congressional hearings began.

Originally Posted by RebProf

The fact that there is much we do not know is the reason simple assertions concerning a complex matter cannot be satisfactory. It is quite clear that the Congressional hearings had an agenda. They were quite open about it. Their agenda was to stir up the war spirit in the North at a time when the road ahead was sure to be long and rough.

That's a strawman because we haven't been relying on the congressional hearings.

Originally Posted by RebProf

A rather tendentious posting suggested that I stick to what was on the list, not what I wished was there. This was in referrence to the Congessional hearings. It is clear that these hearings are "on the table." True, they have not been cited directly but many participants have cited authors whose conclusions are based on or include the Congressional hearings. If you cite those authors then any participant is free to question the sources of those authors.

You can't just wave away what's been cited. You first have to establish the cited author relied on the congressional hearings for the specific information you are questioning. Your next step is to show whether this was actual testimony or if it was a conclusion from the committee. Finally, you have to show where the testimony, if it be such, is wrong. Just because the conclusions of the hearings are suspect doesn't make all the testimony suspect.

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Originally Posted by tarheel

But toward the end he specifically mentioned "without the use of bayonettes"

My question I guess would be, would that be out of the ordinary for him to mention that specifically, if his men didn't normally use bayonettes or weapons that were outfitted to use them. Or was he maybe practicing a little 'CYA' for the future knowing that somewhere down the line questions were going to come up and have to be answered.

I don't think he could see into the future, so I don't believe he was practicing CYA. His use of the phrase "without the use of bayonettes" can be looked at a number of ways. One interpretation that makes sense to me is that his troops had bayonets but for whatever reason did not use them for the assault, hence his specific mentioning that the assault was done without their use. There are, of course, other interpretations that would fit this phrase as well, but I find it strange he would specifically mention bayonettes if his troops didn't have access to them.

Regards,
Cash

[8thvacav]

Maybe he was asked about bayonetts and thats his response.

[cash]

Originally Posted by 8thvacav

Maybe he was asked about bayonetts and thats his response.

No. You have to read his dispatch to see that's not the case.

Regards,
Cash