Fort Pillow

[RebProf]

"There is ample evidence that atrocities occurred at Fort Pillow . . . " Indeed? What evidence? There were/are accusations from some sources, all from the North but there is equal evidence from eye-witness Southern sources that no atrocities occurred. There seems to be a willingness to believe the Northern evidence while discounting the Southern evidence. Citing the actions of the U. S. Army Provost Marshal is not an attempt to "change the subject" but is an attempt to place Fort Pillow in context.

The position at Fort Pillow (not even a fort, but a breastwork open to the rear) has been carried by storm. Soldiers are running, some throwing down their weaons, others still carrying them. Under the bluff toward the river are open boxes of ammunition. The flag of the garrison is still flying. The commanding officer has refused a demand to surrender. The troops coming over the breastwork are firing into the crowd of fleeing enemy. Some with empty hands are killed (something which happened often when a position was carried by storm). A Congressional committee, at the height of the hysteria of war effort in 1864, hears testimony designed to whip up flagging Union enthusiasm. Accusations are made--no charges are brought, no action is taken even after the Union victory in 1865. This set of circumstances cannot support charges of "atrocities." Needless deaths, yet; atrocities, no.

Read the report of Major Charles W. Anderson, the man who handled the evacuation of the Union wounded and prisoners. He makes clear there were no atrocities. Thus, the question of Forrest's "responsibility" becomes an attempt to create a massacre where none occurred.

RebProf

[johan_steele]

Look to the percentage of killed vs wounded and compare it to any other battle of the war...

I have read Andersons report... I'll still make the accusation that there were murders of surrendered men, mostly USCT. Fort Pillow was neither the first nor last such instance of USCT men being killed merely because thye were black and in the Blue Uniform.


Two books by reputable authors have said a good bit on the subject:

Glatthaar, Joseph T., Forged in Battle The Civil War Alliance of Black Soldiers and White Officers, The Free Press, 1990.

Trudeau, Noah Andre, Like Men of War, Little Brown & Company, 1998.

[ole]

I'll admit to caring very little about the Ft. Pillow controversy. To me, it's quite plain that its perpetuation is northern propaganda and that its refutation is southern.

The only thing that strikes me about it is the disproportionate percentage of deaths among the the USCT. That is the sore thumb that screams for notice. In every battle statistic there is a relationship in the statistics: x killed, y wounded, z missing (skedaddled, captured or bodies not found). The numbers vary with the intensity of the unit's engagement. But the percentage comparison does not, except in cases like Ft. Pillow.

There is evidence in the form of letters that burning living prisoners occurred. But they are letters and not official evidence. The official finding was that Forrest could not be proven responsible. End of story.

I believe there was a "massacre" of USCT troops. The statistics show me that much, but no more than that. If I were a hard-line neounionist, I would hold Forrest responsible. But I am not and cannot. His responsibility is that tired argument that he was in command. That and only that links him with the controversy.

Usually, the argument over that engagement takes the form of defending or villifying Forrest. I'm a bit surprised that this one has taken a turn toward "it never happened."

Ole

[RebProf]

I have not seen any contemporary letters which substantiate the burning of wounded or prisoners at Fort Pillow. I have seen second-hand material, not from eye-witnesses, which alleges such. It is rather clear from both Union and Confederate sources that the buildings at the southwest end of the position were burned by the Union forces and that some bodies may not have been removed from them before they were fired. The rest of the buildings were fired by Major Anderson as he evacuated the position late the next day.

The numbers of killed to wounded are in line with other occasions on which a position was carried by storm. It is mistake to compare the casuality figures with a battle. For example, look at the Confederate casualities at Mobile when the fortifications there were captured by the USCT, see the numbers of Confederate casualities at Shys Hill at Nashville or in the redoubts along the Hillsboro Pike at Nashville.

The book by Nath. Hughes on Tyree Bell gives the best balanced, most nuanced account of Fort Pillow and I recommend it highly.

[johan_steele]

Wounded and POWs vs KIA... quite a high percentage. 64% of the USCT were killed vs 31% of the white troops.

Castel "THe Fort Pillow Massacre", An Unnerving Fire: The Massacre at Fort Pillow by Fuchs.

Instead of unnerving Blacktroops which may well have been the intent of those who purpotrated the murder; it had the opposite effect. All too many USCT used "Fort Pillow" as a rally cry or hoisted black flags w/ the crimson letters "Ft Pillow" embalzoned on. If the USCT men could expect no quarter is it any wonder that they sometimes gave none?

THe Fort was held by 580 men: 285 were white men of the 13th TN Cav (US) while roughly 300 black men were those of the 6th US Arty. Commanded by Major Booth w/ Major Bradford as the 2nd. Booth was killed by a sharpshooter early in the engagement. As the Union skedadle began many men ran down to the River and jumped in hoping to reach the New Era While others attempted to surrendered by throwing down their arms and raising the hands skyward. THe majority of USCT men were gunned down after they surrendered and many more were shot in the back while they tried to flee to the river. Countless accounts, both Union & CS tell of the mayhem and cries of "No Quarter" and "Kill the ****ed ******s." THere were more bayonet & saber wounds noted on USCT men at this site than at the batte of Nashville. By the time Forrest got control of his men around 50% of the Union troops were dead.

THe stories of live burials, burning of the wounded, and atrocities commited on the women and children in the town just south of the fort were for the most part justified. THough Northern papers certainly exaggerated, there was enough truth in them to harden the hearts of many.

While I am one who is willing to believe that Forrest stopped the killing before casualties reached 100% and that many of the tales were exaggerated. I am also all too aware that there are survivors to every massacre and those survivors told their story. To make matters more obvious the CS troops that took part were proud of the fact.

[RebProf]

Shane says many USCT were marked by wounds from bayonets and sabers. That statement alone is proof that the assertions of massacre are based on rumor, not fact. Forrest commanded cavalry, his men did not carry bayonets! Forrest was well known to abhor sabers as weapons for his men and for himself. The Union troops in Fort Pillow were cavalry and heavy artillery. They did not carry bayonets and would not have carried sabers while manning the breastworks. Basing an argument on the use of weapons which were not to be found at Fort Pillow reveals the nature of the accusation--rumor, war-time propaganda, and continuing tradition. Facts are inconvenient, but they still must guide historical debate.

Fuchs' book is the product of a lawyer who presents a case for the prosecution, it is not the result of a historian plying his profession. The book is rejected by historians because it makes no attempt to consider all the facts but makes a highly selective argument.

[johan_steele]

I think perhaps you need to do a little research. Look to the arms carried by CS Cav, in particular the men under Forrest. They were more mounted rifleman than Cav. And yes they carried bayonets. THere were a lot of 2 band & regular 3 band rifle & rifle muskets in their inventory and a simple look to some of the arms invntoried in Forrests command you will find bayonets. When they stormed the works they were, for the most part, on foot.

Sometimes lawyers, as much as I despise them, have a tendency to search for real info than allow the Lost Cause to influence their opinion. THough I am not above noting biases, please feel free to point them out in Fuchs work. I haven't read it in several years and could use a refresher. What historians reject it in particular? THe Kennedy brothers, DiLorenzo add nauseum?

[RebProf]

Now, Johan, don't get testy! I have read a number of books about Forrest, including the accounts of both sides and there is no evidence that any of Forrests men carried bayonets. Such a suggestion is laughable. Forrest's command is often referred to as moiunted riflemen but you will find, from the ordinance records, that they never were issued bayonets. The most reliable evidence about the armament of Forrest's command at Ft. Pillow is the report of the State of Tennessee Dept. of Archaeology from the excavation done when the state park was created there. That publication is available from the Tennessee State Library and Archives and I recommend it to you. It will save you from asserting that cavalry on a raid carrying bayonets.

Bibliography:
Bearss---Forrest at Bryces Cross Roads
Henry----First with the Most Forrest
Hurst-----Nathan Bedford Forrest, A Biography
Hughes--Tyree H. Bell, Forrest's Fighting Lieutenant
Jordan & Pryor---The Campaigns of General Nathan Bedford Forrest
Lytle--Bedford Forrest and His Critter Company
Maness--An Untutored Genius
Morton--The Artillery of Nathan Bedford Forrest's Cavalry
Willis--A Battle From the Start
Wyeth--That Devil Forrest

And I have read Fuchs, and I have read the reviews of Fuchs, and no serious Civil War historian takes the man seriously.

The problem is, you see, one of the sources you cite has just been reduced to obvious propaganda by the internal evidence of his own testimony. This supports my position that something bad happened at Pillow but it is dangerous to make sweeping generalizations based on questionable evicence.

By the way, have YOU read Kennedy?

[johan_steele]

Yes and vomited my way through it. At least I'll give credit that there was no attempt to hide the bias. I rank the work as credible as any done by the currently living politician of the same name.

When I get home I'll dig out the ordananve report that contains numbers of bayonets, IIRC it was about 1 in 5 or 6 men.

I'm probably most fond of the Biography by Hurst. In particular I suggest you find and read Albert Castels excellent work "THe Fort Pillow Massacre: a Fresh Examination of the Evidence" Cimprich in the Journal of American HIstory "THe Fort Pillow Massacre: A Statistical Note"

I've not read either Bearrs or Mortons work on the subject.

I can understand why a black mark on a heroes reputation would have to be defended; but the denial of it even happening whenall too much evidence exists. Was the massacre inflated in scope? Absolutely. And while most of the above authors you mention assign blame to Forrest for failing to maintain control of his men I believe his subordinates should be blamed not Forrest as when he was made aware of the situation he did what he could to stop it & did stop it. IIRC, it's been several years since my Forrest studies so I might be off here, Forrest never denied the murders and refused to comment on it.

In no other situation did the command of Forrest inflict such a high percentage of killed. That in itself is hard to get past when claiming there were no murders.

[RebProf]

Cash, the Cimprich article was printed in 1989, as I recall, and I find it to be the most careful study except for the fact that it omits the report of the archaeologists. That study reveals that Forrest had armed his command with breech loading carbines captured on the raid. The firepower from the breech loaders helped compensate for the lack of artillery. The rate of fire also helps account for the higher number of casualities in the garrison once the storming party came over the walls. Cimprich has just been reprinted in an expanded book form by the way.

The O.R. lists the arms carried by Confederate cavalry as determined by the Inspector General. No bayonets are listed in any of the reports at any period during the war. We agree, I assume, that Forrest was classified as "cavalry" since that was his official designation and there was a separate designation for "mounted infantry." It is also factual that Forrest did request, when he moved to Mississippi in 1864, that his command be furnished with long arms but there is no record of any use of bayonets. If bayonets had been used by Forrest the battle at Brices Cross Roads would have been the time and place but there is no mention of them there. There are numerous mentions of pistols and clubbed rifles.

Forrest's command indeed did not inflict anything like this number of casualities again during the war, but---they never again had to carry a position by storm.

As to defending Forrest from a "black mark", my objection is that C.W. "buffs" have all heard of Ft. Pillow but very few professional historians have ever heard of the Union massacres which are clear and are documented in official orders in the National Archives. Discuss both sides or leave both alone.

By the way, I never have read Kennedy.