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.
Like you, Larry, what I've read of Forrest is that he didn't think of blacks as anything less than human. They were slaves, and his inferiors, but they were not stupid beasts incapable of anything but simple labor.
There must have been more like him. Perhaps not enough.
For what this is worth...I've seen two breach-loading Carbines that were used by a 1st Sgt. & a private in the 6th Ala. Cavalry. The carbines were taken home by 1st Sgt. Crommelin, Co. G, 6th Alabama Cav. in 1865. I know the descendants of these soldiers and the carbines were bracketed to a display plaque. A brass ID plaque is inscribed: First Breach Loading Carbines Captured From The Union Army By Forrest's Cavalry and Brought Home In 1865."
I've always thought most of Forrest's Troopers carried the 'latest' in captured Union firearms, U.S. carbines?
Which battle or raid would have netted Forrest's men beau coup carbines and in what year would this have happened?
Looking at Forrest's mens victory at Fort Pillow through a modern perspective might tend to change what really happened. It's difficult to see Gen. Forrest, who saved the life of a negro woman after the war ended, ordering his men into a 'no quarter' fight. Perhaps the USCT's fought well? Were scared and reacted in a bad manner, ie..continued to fight after surrender was instituted? What are the chances that MANY of the USCT casualties were killed in the same manner as many of the same at the Battle of the Crater; shot in the back by their own troops? I read an eyewitness account of the Crater and this happened, according to a USCT private. This could account for the larger number of USCTs KIA than whites.
I've heard those and similar stories. I can't confirm or refute any of them, but it doesn't make sense. I can understand killing those of another color on your side. What I don't is killing them in battle. 100 of you, 100 of the enemy. Who's going to increase the odds of the enemy by shooting down some on your side?
From your post: "It's difficult to see Gen. Forrest, who saved the life of a negro woman after the war ended, ordering his men into a 'no quarter' fight. Perhaps the USCT's fought well? Were scared and reacted in a bad manner, ie..continued to fight after surrender was instituted?"
Forrest's ultimatum did not offer "no quarter," but the threat that had served him so well before (paraphrased): "Surrender and receive good treatment, but if I'f obliged to storm your works, I cannot be held responsible for the results (or something like that)." I know of no record of his order to his lieutenants. In any event, I have yet to see a poster asserting that Forrest ordered the killings.
Perhaps the heat of the Confederate troops can be attributed to the confusion,
Just a thought. The Federals fighting well, being scared, continuing to shoot after surrender would also have raised the temperature. In no case do any of these excuse the murder of unarmed, perhaps even kneeling and begging soldiers until, apparently stopped by Forrest's order. (By the way, how does one surrender and continue to shoot?)
In another by the way, there was no surrender. The officer who refused Forrest's ultimatum was killed early on, and the Federals became scattered. Any surrendering done was the individual throwing down his rifle (or, as Shane pointed out, raising it vertically by the muzzle).
The killing of soldiers on your own side is what I term 'frendly fire.' It's not done with gross intent to kill your own men.
I didn't intend to suggest the USCT's were killed by their own side via racial hatred. The USCT's and their white Tennessee allies were (at least portions were), I believe, retreating toward the river. In a desperate fight, as Fort Pillow was, I'm suggesting that the troops who had reached safer ground turned and fired into the masses of troops; both enemy & friendly. My theory is only a suggestion?
Your clarification of the official battle order per Gen. forrest is noted. Thanks. I see that he didn't order per se, a 'no quarter' contest. We have to face the hard facts; these were different times and lots of folk North & South would have been appalled upon seeing negroes in blue uniforms. I'm sure this added to some, but not all of the lopsided casualties. I don't think Gen. Forrest or any mortal man could have stopped atrocities in battles. Actually, it's a wonder not more of these 'incidents' didn't transpire. But Fort Pillow perhaps was a knee-jerk reaction to "that Devil Forrest" (as the Northern leaders dubbed him) gaining yet another victory of arms?
Your thought of "confusion" being a possible cause is a fine one. Walking those battlefield's as I (maybe you & others have), gives an idea of the magnitude of how fighting a battle must have been. Confussion would have been rampant during the desperate fighting. This is what I meant with my statement re: "friendly fire."
I agree. The killing of an unarmed prisoner is intolerable. What I suggest is that only a very small percentage of atrocity actually took place, overall. The white officers leading the USCT's would have naturally 'played this up' to off-set their loss of the Fort? This is human nature; its a natural response. Ten cases of atrocity turns into dozens, in hindsight? What I suggest is the 'massacre' was probably isolated cases few in number and exaggerated by 2n-3rd string, etc.. 'sources.'
Re: the surrender & subsequent death of the Northern Commanding Officer:
That is the key to the whole matter. Combined with confussion of the Union forces, (as you said "they were scattered),"makes for a recipe of disaster.
Union Tennessee troops vs. Confederate Tennessee troops, a mixture of confusion/unorganized scattering & USCT's in blue would be the most highly volatile situation a soldier could have been involved.
Gen. Forrest was a highly successful Commander and also highly resented by Gen. Sherman. I don't think Gen. Forrest should be held responsible for these 'reports' of massacre. Individual 'pockets' of resistance combined with confussion and great rivalry, racial or state, caused some brutal acts which were exaggerated beyond belief. Had thier been any culpable evidence, I think the U.S. Gov't would have certainly found Bedford Forrest guilty. This is only my opinion.
Thak for listening.
Best Regards,
Rob Adams (Alabaman)
I'm aware of the 'muzzles-down' surrender sign of WBTS policy, being a re-enactor for a few years.
Personally, if I had surrendered I would have dropped my weapon immediately and raised both hands above my head! I know 'muzzles-down vertically' was taught to CW soldiers, but seeing this in re-enactments proved to me the danger of doing so. In smoke-filled battlefields, raised (butt stock up) Enfields sometime resemble a 1st Sgt. reforming line of battle. I'm not comparing this to Fort Pillow, however.
We're on the same page. An inquiry certainly devoted to prove NBF guilty and acknowledging failure is good enough for me. Conversely, an inquiry into a "massacre" certainly indicates that something resembling same was in question. Perhaps it was in response to public outrage stirred by the press. Perhaps not.
The statistics of even more spectacular routs do not approach that of USCT killed at Ft. Pillow. An extra 10, or even 20 percent might be laid at the feet of excitement or heat of battle. To my mind, only intentional killing can explain the disparity.
Seems to me percentages of folks killed would be a direct function of the characteristics of the folks available for killing? Statistics are a cruel animal.
The archaeological report shows that a great deal of evidence of breechloading weapons (cartridge remains, dropped bullets) were found in the positions occupied by Confederates. The OR reports shows that Forrest had captured a number of these weapons on the raid which culminated at Pillow. The O.R. and personal memoirs show that Forrest's Escort carried Spencers.
The Sharps is a breechloading, single-shot weapon. The Spencer is a lever-action repeating weapon using self-primed metallic cartridges. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to what kind of remains could be found after so long, but I'd have to believe that archaeologists would at least be able to determine the caliber of the relics and, thus the weapon for which it was intended.
If the purpose of bringing breech loading into the picture is to imply that rapid-fire would account for the high percentage of killed, then it must also be admitted that the Sharps (the most common breech loader of the period) was not that much faster than the muzzle loader -- the breech was levered open, a cartridge inserted, the breech closed, the hammer cocked, a cap installed on the nipple, full-**** on the hammer, aim and fire. Faster, but not exactly rapid-fire. There was time to reflect upon one's actions between each shot.
The Spencer was another matter. Feed 7 (11?) cartridges into the feeder-tube one at a time, jack the lever to eject a cartridge and feed in a new one, **** the hammer, aim and fire. I can imagine the excitement -- not unlike that of a kid with a new toy -- delighting in working it again and again. There are two problems with this scenario: the Spencer was not a particularly lethal weapon; what was a General's Escort doing on the front lines?
I'll remain with my statement that there is plenty of evidence that something went terribly wrong at Ft. Pillow. Exactly what and how much is not certain, and responsibility has not officially been laid at the feet of Forrest.
I'm finding this post interesting and informative. Are there more out there with something to contribute.?
THe idea of breach loaders accounting for the higher proportion of KIA to wounded is a goof. Look to the battles of Alltoonna in particular. A large portion of htose Illinois boys had Henry Rifles. The KIA to wounded was no larger than any other battle.
Sharps & Smith carbines in particular... what kind of debris would a archaelogist find to id either weapon other than the bullet? For the smith the rubber or brass cartridge which troops usually went to great pains to retrieve because they were intended to be reloadable. The sharps was a paper or linnen cartridge...
THe Spencer was a 7 shot w/ one up the pipe... IIRC only Forrests Escort carried them and they were w/ him... Also I don't recall ever reading of more than about 50 being in the hands of Forrests men because the ammo was difficult to acquire. The .56 slug was big but it was not particularly lethal except at close range.
The TN US Cav were also carrying breach loaders... so no doubt there would be ample evidence of breech loaders on the site.
Perhaps specifics about what evidence the archaelogical dig dug up would be in order.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
