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.
I am surprised to see so many postings which still accept the tired old propaganda of the 1864 Congressional hearings, a source now thoroughly discredited by competent historians. There is no reason to think there was a deliberate slaughter of people who had surrendered--no round them up and shoot them down
Read Achilles Clark's letter to his sisters. It's a contemporary account from a confederate sergeant detailing the murders of black soldiers who surrendered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Read the new book on Tyree Bell by Nath. Hughes and you will get a well-balanced, accurate accouint of Fort Pillow written by a professional historian with no ax to grind.
Read Brian Steel Wills' biography of Forrest and you'll get a well balanced, accurate account of Fort Pillow written by a professional historian with no ax to grind. Read Albert Castel's article from Civil War History and you'll get the same. Read the articles by John Cimprich and Robert Mainfort and you'll get the same.
"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.
You apparently haven't looked into this too deeply. There are contemporary confederate sources that provide evidence of a massacre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The position at Fort Pillow (not even a fort, but a breastwork open to the rear)
It was a fort. Forts are not necessarily what you see depicted in Hollywood westerns. If you happen to be near Petersburg, VA, stop in and take a look at the battlefield there and see what meets the definition of "fort."
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Some with empty hands are killed (something which happened often when a position was carried by storm).
Not just empty hands but on their knees begging for their lives, then stood up and shot down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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.
He was a captain at the time, and if you're talking about his 17 April report it does nothing of the kind. There's no question that a massacre occurred. The basic question concerns what responsibility Forrest had. I'm sticking with my original assessment on that.
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.
An archaeological excavation in the 1970s uncovered at least one bayonet at Fort Pillow. Additionally, there's this testimony from a confederate officer in the 9th Texas Cavalry who participated in the battle:
"sheets of fire and flame, bayonets, clubbed muskets, revolvers, swords, flashed and rung among the maddened soldiers who shot the frantic negroes and slew the men who had urged the negroes to this rash act and who now rushed pell mell about and over the embankment and redoubts, only to be impaled on the bayonets of those outside the fort." [Thomas F. Berry, _Four Years with Morgan and Forrest,_ pp. 269-271]
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.
Actually, there is definite evidence Forrest's men had bayonets that day. See Thomas F. Berry, _Four Years with Morgan and Forrest,_ (Oklahoma City, OK, 1914).
Also see the letter of Charles Robinson to his family, dated 17 Apr 1864.
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.
No reason to include it, since the Cimprich/Mainfort article in question was a statistical analysis of the casualty figures.
Whatever may or may not have happened at Fort Pillow, the black troops in the Union army seemed to remember something. There were times they would yell "remember Fort Pillow" when they charged. It was an indication of no mercy and it scared the heck out of many Rebs.
Calicoboy
__________________ My dear mother:- I have come safely through two more terrible engagements with the enemy, that at South Mountain and the great battle of yesterday (Antietam). Our splendid regiment is almost destroyed. We have had nearly 400 men killed and wounded in the battles. Seven of our officers were shot and three killed in yesterday's battle and nearly 150 men killed and wounded. All from less than 300 engaged. The men have stood like iron....Maj. Rufus Dawes, 6th Wisconsin Volunteers
It was an indication of no mercy and it scared the heck out of many Rebs.
Actually it probably ended up having the reverse effect. Hearing blacks shouting for no quarter infuriated Rebs and really got their fighting dander up.
Indeed, the Archaelogical Report lists one bayonet found. But you are leaning on a mighty frail reed if that is your evidence that Forrest's men carried bayonets. Fort Pillow had been an infantry post in 1861 and 1862 and had been occupied, on occasion, by Union infantry in 1863 and 1864. The chances that the bayonet dates from an earlier period is overwhelming since there is no account of Forrest's men using bayonets.
Of course the Cimprich report should have included the archaelolgical evidence. The casualities had to be caused somehow, the knowledge of how they were caused would alter the conclusion about the event--a nuclear bomb would have produced 100% casualities; breechloaders produced higher than normal casulities. Saying X casualities were suffered does not prove any particular point about how and when.shoul Read "An Untutored Genius" for a searching critique of the Cimprich report in both its 1982 and 1985 versions. Cimprich chose to reject all the evidence written by Confederates except for the two sources which fit his thesis.
The 9th Texas letter is a nice quote from an old man 50 years after the event and provides a general description which could fit any battle, especially in memory.
Why no mention from anyone of the open ammunition boxes prepositioned by the Union troops on the slope going to the river? Why no citation of the O.R. which states that the buildings at the southwest end of the position were burned by a Union soldier on orders from his own officer? Why the willingness to accept the 1864 Congressional report as fact when Congress itself rejected the report? Why no mention that 274 Union rifles were recovered from the slope to the river showing that the garrison was running with weapons in their hands?
One should be careful about drawing hard and fast conclusions on the basis of weak evidence. History is much too complex to allow that practice.
[quote=cash]You apparently haven't looked into this too deeply. There are contemporary confederate sources that provide evidence of a massacre.
The contemporary Confederate sources you cite, letters from two men, say that the Union garrison threatened the attackers with "No Quarter" if a storming party came over the wall.
It was a fort. Forts are not necessarily what you see depicted in Hollywood westerns. If you happen to be near Petersburg, VA, stop in and take a look at the battlefield there and see what meets the definition of "fort."
Having visited both Petersburg and Fort Pillow I will stick by my statement that Fort Pillow in 1864 was not a "fort." The name comes from the 1861/62 construction of a fort by Confederate authorities. I know of no military authority who would call the 1864 position a "fort."
Not just empty hands but on their knees begging for their lives, then stood up and shot down.
So some contend. This is an assertion but is not a documented fact. There are numerous accounts to the contrary, but one can choose which to believe.
He was a captain at the time, and if you're talking about his 17 April report it does nothing of the kind. There's no question that a massacre occurred. The basic question concerns what responsibility Forrest had. I'm sticking with my original assessment on that.
Anderson was an eyewitness. His report is of considerably more historical value than second-hand testimony before a Congressional committee which had a political agenda. For historians, eyewitness testimony cannot be discounted just because it is inconvenient to a strongly held idea.
I've been to Fort Pillow also, and the staff there is studiedly nonpartisan. Our group had quite a heated private discussion about what actually happened. As our guide (Richard McMurry) said, "All those who could tell us are long dead." As it is, we rely on conflicting accounts. Memory is faulty at best, especially when an agenda might be involved.
The nonfamous members of the garrison were Tenessee Unionists, probably as much hated by Forrest's men as the USCT.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
