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.
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.
It is evidence that bayonets were present, combined with Col Berry's recollection. Apparently at least some of the black artillerymen were armed with bayonets also, but I haven't found the documentation on that yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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.
Col Berry's account has Forrest's men using bayonets, as does Charles Robinson's letter to his family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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.
No, the types of weapons causing various casualties was not within the scope of their article. They sought to correct the casualty figures asserted by proconfederate authors such as John Jordan who claimed casualties were too low to indicate a massacre. Then they did an analysis of the casualty rates for blacks and whites, determining that blacks suffered twice as many deaths as whites. Applying a chi-square test, they determined that there was less than a 0.001 possibility the difference was due to chance alone. The article was not meant to be an exhaustive analysis of the massacre but only a statistical analysis of the casualties to provide evidence rebutting claims the casualty figures alone showed there was no massacre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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.
No, that's a mischaracterization of what Cimprich and Mainfort did. You have to see their 1982 article in Civil War History to see their methodology for source quotes. What they did was reject all Union sources after 22 April when the Congressional hearings began and all confederate sources after 25 April when the confederates became aware of the massacre charges. Other than the Official Records, they used five confederate sources in that article and one Union source, and referenced a second Union source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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.
Col Berry spent four years in the cavalry, serving with Morgan and then with Forrest. If it's true that cavalry never had bayonets, then he should never have seen confederate cavalrymen using bayonets, and therefore he could never have remembered seeing it, even if he got one battle confused with another. The fact that he clearly remembered bayonets being used is clear evidence that confederate cavalrymen had bayonets on at least some occasions, and is evidence they used bayonets at Fort Pillow. Sorry, but you can't simply wave your hand and make it go away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Why no mention from anyone of the open ammunition boxes prepositioned by the Union troops on the slope going to the river?
Pre-positioned ammunition boxes, whether they existed or not, are irrelevant to unarmed black soldiers being stood up and shot at close range after falling on their knees and begging for mercy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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?
Here's your chance to provide it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Why the willingness to accept the 1864 Congressional report as fact when Congress itself rejected the report?
I for one haven't accepted it, nor did Cimprich and Mainfort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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?
Shooting a fleeing armed soldier may not be an atrocity, but shooting an unarmed soldier begging for his life surely is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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.
Excellent advice. Perhaps you should read over your position again and ensure you're not guilty yourself.
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.
"Vidette," whose account appeared in the Mobile Advertiser and Register, didn't talk about a "No Quarter" threat from the defenders. Achilles Clark did mention such a threat, but his account also clearly shows unarmed, defenseless black soldiers being shot down in cold blood. Samuel Caldwell's letter makes no mention of a "No Quarter" threat. "Memphis," whose account appeared in the Atlanta Memphis Appeal, also mentioned a "No Quarter" threat. "Marion," whose account also appeared in the Mobile Advertiser and Register, makes no mention at all of any kind of "No Quarter" threat.
Still, it doesn't mean there wasn't a massacre. Even if both sides agreed there would be no quarter, that simply absolves them of guilt for a war crime. It doesn't mean a massacre didn't happen. Since I'm not claiming Forrest ordered a massacre or should have been prosecuted for the massacre, then whether there was a "No Quarter" threat from the Union forces or not is of little concern to my position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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."
Bedford Forrest called it a fort. So did William T. Sherman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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.
Achilles Clark was an eyewitness. So was "Marion." As was Charles Robinson. That's three eyewitnesses not connected with the Congressional Committee, two of them confederates. It's a documented fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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.
No, he wasn't an eyewitness to what was going on inside the fort. He was outside the fort and didn't see what was going on inside. And his 17 April report has nothing to do with the battle. It is a report of what he did the day AFTER the battle.
You apparently have no compunction about discounting eyewitness testimony that is inconvenient to your own strongly held idea in the previous paragraph.
Beauford’s Cavalry Division - Brigadier General Abraham Beuford
Part of Bell’s Brigade
Wilson’s Cavalry Regiment
Barteau’s Cavalry Regiment
Russell’s Cavalry Regiment
Bell's Brigade of Buford's Division
CASUALTIES= Killed-20, Wounded-60
I cannot specifically find the reference I alluded to earlier in the thread and it is driving me bannanas. I had thought it in Firepower from Abroad by Sword but was wrong. All I can find is the inventory of arms I was referring to and it is not from April of 64 but January. And the bloody thing is incomplete because when I jotted down my notes I was looking to references of long arms instead of carbines used by the CS Cav in an effort to validate the issue that CS Cav was more often employed as mounted Infantry than traditional Cav. Thus it does not neccesarily apply to the CS troops at Ft Pillow a few mos later.
1 Brigade (and my note merely states of Forrests Command not which brigade) inventory mentions 75 Springfield .58, 185 short Enfield Rifles .58, 160 Enfield Rifle Muskets .58, 22 M1841 Rifles .54 & 25 Austrian rifles .54, 8 Spencer Rifles, 4 Sharps Rifles & 1 Hall Rifle. 12 Springfield bayonets, 65 Enfield Bayonets, 40 Austrian bayonets & 55 sword bayonets (probably for the M1841 & Short Enfields) Ironically the only shotguns mentioned were 4 Colt Revolving Shotguns. Why there were more Austrian bayonets than Austrian rifles is an odd question and begs the question if some may not have been adjusted to fit another arm.
As you can see there were 172 bayonets of various type for 480 Rifles I think thats about 1/3. IIRC the total Brigade strength was around 700-750 men w/ the balance of arms being pistols & Carbines Sharps and Smith in particular. There was no mention of Enfield Muskatoons which I found curious and wondered at the time if some of the Short Enfield might have had muskatoons numbered among them.
I thought it better to post what I could find on the subject so that there would be no appearance that I was dodging the issue. Keep in mind that this inventory may not be for one of the Brigades at Ft Pillow. However, I do feel it to be representative of the CS Cav in the west. Keep in mind that CS Cav often became "dismounted" and were for all intents and purposes merely Infantry w/ potential and were treated as Infantry. THe arms certainly reflected this and I have read often enough of their carbines and pistols being traded for rifles and infantry Accouterments to validate such an idea.
__________________ 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 shall reply in general to several postings which have quoted my earlier posts.
The evidence about Fort Pillow is mixed. There are numerous eyewitnesses who deny there was a deliberate massacre, there is the Congressional Report of 1864 which first alleged that there was. The discussion in this thread had produced no new evidence, but it shows that some minds are made up, as was the case in 1864.
The issue of bayonets is inconclusive. Any student of the war knows that in the west Confederate cavalrymen often functioned on foot. Forrest led his men against infantry at Chickamauga. This does not mean they were armed, equipped, or trained as infantry. They were cavalry. The clear accounts of these men in battle never mention bayonets. If there had been bayonets in Forrest's command they would have been employed at Brices Cross Roads but this weapon is conspicious by its absence. The assertions of bayonets in use at Ft. Pillow has produced firm evidence of one such weapon found in a position used by infantry for several years before 1864.
Cash can call the place a fort if he chooses. The position does not fit the definitive Civil War definition of "fort." It is a fortified position but both flanks are open.
It is interesting to me that in the face of confused and conflicting evidence there continues to be a willingness to draw such definite conclusions.
The matter of the open ammunition boxes and the 274 rifles found on the river slope go far toward undercutting the assertion that the fleeing members of the garrison were unarmed or that they had surrendered. This matter does not receive much attention from those who dogmatically assert there was a deliberate massacre.
Much has been made of the deliberate rate of death (Cimprich and Mainfort) but the death rate at Pillow is not higher than that on Shys Hill. Also, no one seems to have read Maniss, "An Untutored Genius," which contains a telling critique of Cimprich and Mainfort's conclusions.
There is also a marked reluctance to state that the garrison refused to surrender and was taken by storm. Any soldier, in any war, will tell you that the conclusion of a successful assault is the most dangerous time of all for the garrison. Having refused to surrender when summoned the defence has deliberately placed itself in jeopardy. Thus, deaths are likely to occur even if individuals attempt to give up. This jeopardy is enhanced if the defence runs away, many if not most with weapons in their hands.
The recent book by Nathaniel Hughes on Tyree Bell has an excellent account and analysis of Fort Pillow. I recomment it highly.
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.
Hence the fury of Mahone's brigade at the Crater.
Actually, most of the Union troops that entered the crater were white. A black unit was trained to make the initial assault after the mine was exploded; but Burnside decided that it would look as if he was sacrificing those troops. So he changed the troop order at the last minute. Once again he blew it. It was a great opportunity squandered.
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
RebProf, interesting snippet about the 274 rifles on the slope... as there was no Infantry contained w/in the fort, only Cav & Arty... who was carrying rifles?
You will note that neither Cash or Myself hold NBF responsible as once he took control the situation was brought back under control. For at least some of the same reasons you mention in your post above we hold NBF innocent. THe most dangerous time for a prisoner is the time immedietly after his surrender on that we agree. However, his commanding officer doesn't have to be the one to surrender him. Hands high in the air or a long arm raised butt up in the air are distinct indicators of surrender.
NBF suffered 80 casualties attacking, 20 killed & 60 wounded to how many Union KIA? THe numbers are quite backwards from any assault on breastworks during the war that I can think of. To me a very clear indicator that something happened out of the ordinary.
As to it being a Fort or not... As Cash mentioned both Sherman & NBF called it such and I won't contradict them.
As I have literally read several thousand letters & diaries I can recall enough incidents where CS cav used infatry accoutraments to be positive that the above inventory I quoted from is accurate and representative. CS Arty units became infantry as they lost or abandoned their guns and were utilized as Infantry (w/ bayonets) on several occasions. So obviously their is/was precedence.
I will agree that the scope of the massacre or surrendered men has been enlarged but I will not maintain that there were no murders there.
Have you read either Trudeau or Glatthaar on the subject. I admit o having not read two of the authors you mentioned in an earlier post. Yet I have read the others in a study of NBF. I consider myself at least decently studied on NBF and don't think I'm speaking from any kind of bias here.
The mystery isn't if there was murder of surrendered USCT men at Ft Pillow, but how bad it was.
THe list below is I believe an incomplete list of Union officers at Ft Pillow and their fate.
War is full of percentages and this one in particular was not the norm for officers.
Major L. F. Booth - Killed
Major W. F. Bradford - Died while a prisoner
Lieutenant Barr - Killed
Lieutenant Nicholas d. Logan - Captured
Lieutenant Porter - Mortally Wounded
Lieutenant Francis A. Smith - Captured
Lieutenant William Cleary - Captured
Lieutenant Mack J. Leaming - Captured
Captain Theodore F. Bradford - Killed
Lieutenant Wilson - Died while a prisoner
Lieutenant J. C. Ackerstrom - Died while a prisoner
Lieutenant Cord Revelle - Died while a prisoner
Lieutenant Bischoff - Captured
Lieutenant A. M. Hunter - Missing presumed died as prisoner
Captain Carson - Killed
Lieutenant J. D. Hill - Killed
Captain Charles J. E. Peneter - Wounded & Captured
Lieutenant Thomas W. McClure - Wounded & Captured
Lieutenant Daniel Van Horn - Captured
Lieutenant Lippert - Wounded
__________________ 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
The evidence about Fort Pillow is mixed. There are numerous eyewitnesses who deny there was a deliberate massacre, there is the Congressional Report of 1864 which first alleged that there was. The discussion in this thread had produced no new evidence, but it shows that some minds are made up, as was the case in 1864.
Including yours, apparently. Certainly the evidence is mixed. There are also several eyewitnesses who claimed the massacre was deliberate. I haven't gotten too involved in whether it was deliberate or not, just that there was a massacre, though I don't believe Forrest ordered it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The issue of bayonets is inconclusive.
Which is a shift in your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Any student of the war knows that in the west Confederate cavalrymen often functioned on foot. Forrest led his men against infantry at Chickamauga. This does not mean they were armed, equipped, or trained as infantry. They were cavalry.
Could they have not gotten bayonets from the field?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The clear accounts of these men in battle never mention bayonets.
Col Berry's account is pretty clear, and he mentioned bayonets, as did Charles Robinson in his letter to his family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
If there had been bayonets in Forrest's command they would have been employed at Brices Cross Roads but this weapon is conspicious by its absence.
As Brice's Cross Roads was a completely different type of battle, that's not terribly surprising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The assertions of bayonets in use at Ft. Pillow has produced firm evidence of one such weapon found in a position used by infantry for several years before 1864.
That's the physical evidence. We also have Col Berry's account and Charles Robinson's firsthand account written shortly afterward to his family and not a part of the Congressional investigation. And I don't think we can simply wave our hands and make the testimony given to the Congressional Committee go away. We can certainly question the committee's conclusions, but the testimony can't be just ignored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Cash can call the place a fort if he chooses. The position does not fit the definitive Civil War definition of "fort." It is a fortified position but both flanks are open.
I'll take the word of General Forrest and General Sherman, who I think would know what the Civil War definition of a fort was. They both called it a fort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
It is interesting to me that in the face of confused and conflicting evidence there continues to be a willingness to draw such definite conclusions.
You seem to have drawn some pretty definite conclusions yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The matter of the open ammunition boxes and the 274 rifles found on the river slope go far toward undercutting the assertion that the fleeing members of the garrison were unarmed or that they had surrendered. This matter does not receive much attention from those who dogmatically assert there was a deliberate massacre.
Perhaps because nobody claimed that everyone fleeing the fort was unarmed or had surrendered. I specifically referred to men who were unarmed, down on their knees in front of rebel soldiers begging for their lives who were stood up and shot to death. That is from an eyewitness account by a confederate soldier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Much has been made of the deliberate rate of death (Cimprich and Mainfort) but the death rate at Pillow is not higher than that on Shys Hill.
I don't think you make an accurate comparison. Shy's Hill was part of a larger battle and you're not taking into account the casualties on the part of the attackers as well as the racial disparities in the casualty figures at Fort Pillow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Also, no one seems to have read Maniss, "An Untutored Genius," which contains a telling critique of Cimprich and Mainfort's conclusions.
If you're getting your criticisms from Maness, then I'd have to say the critique doesn't appear to be that telling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
There is also a marked reluctance to state that the garrison refused to surrender and was taken by storm. Any soldier, in any war, will tell you that the conclusion of a successful assault is the most dangerous time of all for the garrison. Having refused to surrender when summoned the defence has deliberately placed itself in jeopardy. Thus, deaths are likely to occur even if individuals attempt to give up. This jeopardy is enhanced if the defence runs away, many if not most with weapons in their hands.
Whether the garrison refused the demand to surrender or not is immaterial as to whether or not there was a massacre. The garrison refusing to surrender has nothing to do with murdering a soldier in front of you who is quite obviously unarmed and no threat at all to you.
This discussion on Ft. Pillow is very intresting and very informative. The question that I have is about Forrest. In many of his later actions, it seems that he was somewhat constraned in is dealings with the USCT. In particular is his capaign in northern Alabama in September 1864.
Could this be because of the Ft. Pillow incident, or could it have been his view of the blacks as labor. As reports now are saying that the black troops were treated somewhat better than the white POW's.
This discussion on Ft. Pillow is very intresting and very informative. The question that I have is about Forrest. In many of his later actions, it seems that he was somewhat constraned in is dealings with the USCT. In particular is his capaign in northern Alabama in September 1864.
Could this be because of the Ft. Pillow incident, or could it have been his view of the blacks as labor. As reports now are saying that the black troops were treated somewhat better than the white POW's.
Forrest, a former slave trader, saw blacks as commodities. Being a good businessman, he would rather put commodities to good use rather than simply wantonly destroy them. In his written messages about blacks he is very consistent in saying that he would return blacks to slavery when he captured them. This is one reason why I don't think he ordered the Fort Pillow massacre.
I believe your assessment of Forrest is essentially accurate. Being a slave dealer was probably a hard habit to discard over night. It is said he offered the 44-45 slaves who were mostly his waggoneers their freedom at the end of the war which I believe he upheld. In the years after the war, the good General 'got religion' and at least changed his actions, statements and perhaps beliefs openly if not completely. He in the actions and battles I've studied, really never showed animosity toward blacks or whites who weren't trying to kill him. Some have argued that there was a bit of self defense in the action at Fort Pillow. None of us know for absolute certainly, obviously.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
