Fort Pillow

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by Glorybound

By Battalion:


Sorry, there's no debate there either.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Si0...um=2&ct=result

All those present and presenting sworn testimony in front of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War were lying right?

[The testimony was collected by the extreme Radical Congressmen Wade and Gooch. The witnesses did not appear before the committee.]
Leland

"[You] assume the privilege of denouncing me as a murderer and as guilty of the wholesale slaughter of the garrison at Fort Pillow, and found your assertions upon the ex parte testimony of your friends, the enemies of myself and country."

Forrest to Maj.Gen. C.C. Washburn (U.S. Army)

Official Records, Series 1, Volume 32, part 1, Page 590

Most any court of law would throw out such 'testimony'...

*

Do we have a lawyer here?

[Glorybound]

By Trice:

It makes more sense to regard Ft. Pillow as some horrible event unfolding before our eyes, like a train wreck or a riot. Horrible things happened. Why do you think Forrest is responsible for them?

Tim, thanks for your response. Forrest is responsible for the murders at Ft. Pillow because he was the Confederate commander there, and did nothing to stop the violence. I believe I cited a source for that. You say he sat on his horse between the lines while a truce was trying to be arranged? What an effort.

Your post seems based on your own opinions on what triggers a massacre, and no sources to base your unsupported defense of poor Forrest, probably the greatest cavalry commander to emerge from that war. You mention the Union force abandoning the fort and making a defense on the riverbank. You say this was a foolish plan for the garrison...so that is an excuse or legitimate reason for killing them after they had laid down their arms down by the river?

No one sitting there, hearing the roar and feeling the fury of both sides, could have thought this assault would be anything but a bloodbath. But that might mean a sea of Confederate blood if the attack failed, or a sea of Union blood if the attack succeeded. Would anyone be talking about the "Fort Pillow Massacre" if the Confederates had been repulsed with a few hundred casualties instead of winning with the 100 casualties they did have?

If there had been unarmed soldiers murdered, then yes, I believe the word "massacre" could be used there too.

Very heavy Union casualties would be expected if the Confederates had behaved with impecable control, because the Union tactical plan made them inevitable.

So the Confederates behaved with virtually no control because of the faulty Union plan, thereby justifying a massacre on the Union garrison after their surrender?

Things seem to have been over by about 4:40-4:45 PM. In any realistic scenario for this attack, that implies the Confederate officers rapidly regained control of their men after the fury of the assault. (It would appear there may have been incidents during the night -- the usual scavengers, soldier and civilian, roamed the place in the dark -- but Forrest/Chalmers withdrew the men from the fort to make camp away from the river that night.)

I have a source that I'll have to find that states the murder continued the following morning at first light down by the river, mainly inflicted on the wounded.

I'm not concerned with the other incidences of killings of unarmed USCT that you discuss, other than to say they were also war crimes. You seem to have a problem with the notoriety that Ft. Pillow has gained and sustained through the years, for some reason. The infamy that has attached to its name is there for good reason - large numbers of unarmed soldiers were killed there...a significant war crime. I don't know if it's the largest of the war, but it certainly ranks high in it's ferocity and brutality.


Respectfully,
Leland

[Glorybound]

By Battalion:

[The testimony was collected by the extreme Radical Congressmen Wade and Gooch. The witnesses did not appear before the committee.]

My understanding was that witnesses testified before the committee. I used to have an original first edition bound copy of that report, and I remember their testimony, so I stand by what I said. Even if the witnesses were not testifying directly to the committee, was it still not their testimony in the report? Or are you saying that Wade and Gooch manufactured the testimony themselves, then had it published?

"[You] assume the privilege of denouncing me as a murderer and as guilty of the wholesale slaughter of the garrison at Fort Pillow, and found your assertions upon the ex parte testimony of your friends, the enemies of myself and country."

Forrest to Maj.Gen. C.C. Washburn (U.S. Army)

I wouldn't expect him to say anything else.


Respectfully,
Leland

[trice]

Originally Posted by Glorybound

By Battalion:


Sorry, there's no debate there either.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Si0...um=2&ct=result

All those present and presenting sworn testimony in front of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War were lying right?

Surely not all. Many were either lying, or speaking hysteria as truth, or suffering from the normal problems of eyewitnesses to traumatic events. Some, of course, were dead-on accurate. The problems come from trying to determine which is which.

For instance, if you read through all that testimony, you'll find two witnesses testifying to the death of the same man. One says he was with him at after 4 PM when a Rebel shot and killed the man in cold blood. The other says he was standing with the same man at about 10 AM when a bullet took him through the head and spattered the mans brains all over him. Which one is lying? Which one is telling the truth? Or are they simply confused about the man involved and talking about two different dead men?

Another instance: one USCT swears he saw Forrest in the fort, directing the slaughter. He swears he knew Forrest from before the battle, when he was still a slave, and describes him as a little bit of a man. Yet Forrest was 6'2" tall, 175 pounds, and by all accounts a dominating physical presence in any situation. Do you think this man was lying or telling the truth? Given his obvious credibility problem on identifying Forrest, why pay any attention to what he says on other things?

Other testimony should be given credence. For instance, four members of a Union burial party (in the fort the next day) swore affidavits they found a body in a burned out building; they said spikes had been driven through the uniform into the floor to trap the man there. Other accounts seem to prove there was a second body found in the same condition. Sounds likely to me, but the stories about this grew with every telling.

But even more: have you ever talked to a combat veteran -- not just a soldier, but a man who has actually been in firefights like this -- about what happens there, about what he remembers? Most such won't talk about it to people who have no similar experience. A few will, but usually they do it when you aren't asking them about it.

My Dad was in those sorts of situations: a combat infantryman on Leyte and Okinawa. In 1945, he spent three months in the front lines, attacking head-on the Japanese defenses all the way from Kakazu Ridge through Shuri Castle and down to the final surrender at the southern tip of Okinawa.

About 30 years back, he and I were reading a series of books (the Richard Bolitho series) of Napoleonic naval adventures. This is like Hornblower, but a bit grittier. One day I had finished a book and told Dad at breakfast he could have it next. Dad asked me if I liked it. I said yes, but that the boarding action at the end was choppy and confusing, hard to follow, like seeing scenes from a nightclub in strobe lighting.

Dad looked at me in surprise (maybe more like I was an idiot, but he'd never think that of a son) and said: "But that's what it is like in action".

When Dad finished that book, I asked him what he thought of the scene. His impression was that the man who wrote it had either been in combat or knew a lot about what it was like. Turned out that Douglas Reeman (writing as Alexander Kent here) was a WWII British naval officer serving in destroyers and motor torpedo boats, re-entering the service for the Korean War.

I think that difference in approach and understanding prevents anyone who hasn't been in such situations from understanding what they are really like. I tend to think it can be reduced to some orderly description that makes sense. My Dad thinks no one who was in the middle of it is likely to have a clear-cut picture of what went on, and he tells me that talking to other soldiers in his company about any particular assault would simply give you jagged pictures and conflicting descriptions.

To get back to Ft. Pillow, I remember having a discussion of it online back in the Nineties. The group was bringing up all the same points and making all the same charges, but there was more discussion of the actual military situation (the attack, the firing positions, etc.) Suddenly, a member of the group who'd been conspicuously absent from the Ft. Pillow discussion jumped in. He was a retired Lt. Col., but he'd been a junior officer in Vietnam days and served in the infantry there.

Essentially, he told us (politely) we didn't know what we were talking about, that any close assault like this would be filled with heavy casualties and horrid incidents, no matter what. That undoubtedly men were killed that we would think were murdered, that we didn't have a clue what it was like to be in that bloody Hell when the assault swept over the wall, and that the amount of time it took the officers to get the blood-lust contained and under control was pretty short. After that, I don't think he ever posted anything else in the Ft. Pillow discussion.

But I try to remember it when I fall into these discussions. I have no experience in what combat is like (thank God!), and can only try to murkily picture the fury and fear involved. Whatever else happened at Ft. Pillow, the assault had to be filled with that, and any attempt to understand the events that doesn't include it is automatically wrong.

Tim

[Glorybound]

Tim, I'm not disputing that there were exaggerations in some of the testimony about the massacre, or contained in some of the newspaper coverage of it. A riverboat captain testified he picked up a large number of women and children, black and white, at the riverbank that afternoon while much of this was going on. And these people had been already reported killed in the massacre in some of the first editions that came out.

My problem is with those who say it didn't happen, and try to minimize Forrest's role in it. It did happen (a mass illegal killing) and Forrest did little if anything to stop it.

You're trying to rationalize the behavior of the soldiers doing the killing here. You're right - fury, anger, especially at Negro soldiers could send many rebs into a blind, murderous rage, and in those times shooting an unarmed negro soldier probably was a very easy thing to do anyway for some Confederates.

I have no experience in what combat is like (thank God!), and can only try to murkily picture the fury and fear involved. Whatever else happened at Ft. Pillow, the assault had to be filled with that, and any attempt to understand the events that doesn't include it is automatically wrong.

No combat experience here either. I understand the rage/fury/fear involved in the assault, but in no way does that emotion excuse murder. It may perhaps explain it, but does not excuse it.


Respectfully,
Leland

[trice]

Originally Posted by Glorybound

Tim, thanks for your response. Forrest is responsible for the murders at Ft. Pillow because he was the Confederate commander there, and did nothing to stop the violence. I believe I cited a source for that.

Your source was not a worthwhile one (no offense) and makes no reference to the actual accounts of what was going on.

The assault went in about 4 PM. Forrest was where you'd expect a commanding officer to be: about 400 yards away, observing the attack. When he saw the Union flag fall (about 4:20 PM by Union and Confederate accounts), Forrest rode forward and entered the fort. (Chalmers entered the fort about the same time.) By about 4:40-4:45 PM the firing was generally stopped, again according to both and Confederate accounts.

Originally Posted by Glorybound

You say he sat on his horse between the lines while a truce was trying to be arranged? What an effort.

No, if you read my post again you'll see that is merely a description of the fury and anger already present before the assault on both sides. Union and Confederate troops, white and black, were standing in the open less than 100 yards apart, screaming insults and threats at each other. Obviously no one where Forrest was could believe any assault would be less than a bloody horror -- as I told you. But the same applies to Major Bradford, the Union commander, who was busy concocting one of the silliest defense plans of the war and arranging it with the commander of the gunboat New Era (who steamed away and abandoned the Union troops when the time came).

Had Bradford surrendered, any subsequent casualties would clearly and absolutely have been "war crimes" for which Forrest, or his troops, would be guilty. But Bradford chose to fight on (foolishly, and perhaps in the fear that retribution for earlier "war crimes" by his own troops would be visited upon him). In the common usage of the day, that transferred a lot of the responsibility for what followed to Bradford's shoulders.

(Note: there was no clear definition of "war crimes" at this time other than common military practice. The "Lieber Code" of the Union was the first example, but was simply an order applying to US forces, and not adopted by anyone else. The Geneva Convention had not yet been approved, and the US and the Confederacy were not among the original nations signing it, anyway.)

Originally Posted by Glorybound

Your post seems based on your own opinions on what triggers a massacre, and no sources to base your unsupported defense of poor Forrest, probably the greatest cavalry commander to emerge from that war.

Nope. If you start at the beginning of this thread and read forward, or check other ones here, you'll see a lot of documentation on it.

But let me ask you this: what should Forrest have done differently? We have evidence he tried to get the Union to surrender on terms to avoid the assault, and that he acted quickly to get the situation back under control after the assault. Just what, specifically, should Forrest have done to prevent this, or to stop it quicker?

Originally Posted by Glorybound

You mention the Union force abandoning the fort and making a defense on the riverbank. You say this was a foolish plan for the garrison...so that is an excuse or legitimate reason for killing them after they had laid down their arms down by the river?

No, it is an explanation of why any reasonable analyst would expect the Union force to suffer disproportionate casualties in such an action. Because of their foolish plan, the Union troops ended up exposed on the open riverbank under fire from three sides. Extremely heavy casualties were only to be expected in such a situation.

Also, please note that the Union force never surrendered here. Some individuals laid down their arms; others did not. The entire area is blanketed by the smoke of fire of about 2000 men, Union and Confederate, with bullets flying in all directions. Some stop shooting, bullets keep flying, they start shooting again. Undoubtedly many innocent men attempting to surrender got shot down in this; some were deliberately shot when helpless. But firing in such a situation does not stop in the blink of an eye. It goes on and on, dying out gradually as men tire and the chaos fades. It may have been a little worse here than normal, and probably was, but 45 minutes from beginning to end for the engagement is pretty quick.

Originally Posted by Glorybound

If there had been unarmed soldiers murdered, then yes, I believe the word "massacre" could be used there too.

Good, because the fury of the Union soldiers during the truce can easily lead to a belief that much the same might have happened. But this also implies that you would not think any "armed" Union men killed were "massacred". Is this true, and how many of the Union dead at Ft. Pillow do you think were "massacred"? (My own guess: somewhere around 50.)

Originally Posted by Glorybound

So the Confederates behaved with virtually no control because of the faulty Union plan, thereby justifying a massacre on the Union garrison after their surrender?

Once again, according to both Union and Confederate sources, the Union garrison never surrendered.

Also, it appears that the Confederate command (Forrest and Chalmers) did quickly re-establish control over their troops (i.e., the entire engagement from the beginning of the assault to the general end of the firing lasted about 40-45 minutes according to both Union and Confederate sources).

Originally Posted by Glorybound

I have a source that I'll have to find that states the murder continued the following morning at first light down by the river, mainly inflicted on the wounded.

Might have been some accounts -- but remember as well this Union report:
=====
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXXII/1 [S# 57]
MARCH 16-APRIL 14, 1864.--Forrest's Expedition into West Tennessee and Kentucky.
No. 17. --Report of Acting Master William Ferguson, U. S. Navy, of the capture of Fort Pillow.
...
I arrived off the fort at 6 a.m. on the morning of the 13th instant. Parties of rebel cavalry were picketing on the hills around the fort, and shelling those away I made a landing and took on-board some 20 of our troops (some of them badly wounded), who had concealed themselves along the bank and came out when they saw my vessel. While doing so I was fired upon by rebel sharpshooters posted on the hills, and 1 wounded man limping down to the vessel was shot.

About 8 a.m. the enemy sent in a flag of truce with a proposal from General Forrest that he would put me in possession of the fort and the country around until 5 p.m. for the purpose of burying our dead and removing our wounded, whom he had no means of attending to. I agreed to the terms proposed, and hailing the steamer Platte Valley, which vessel I had convoyed up from Memphis, I brought her alongside and had the wounded brought down from the fort and battle-field and placed on board of her. Details of rebel soldiers assisted us in this duty, and some soldiers and citizens on board the Platte Valley volunteered for the same purpose.
...
=====

I am not sure what time "first light" would have been on April 13th, 1864 50 miles above Memphis, but 6 AM probably means this gunboat was there at the time or close to it. They are firing cannon at the Confederates; the Confederates are shooting back. Union survivors are trying to escape to the gunboat, and at least one of them is shot in the attempt. Others may have been, unknown to the gumboat master. After 8 AM, a truce has been arranged, and shortly afterwards Union burial/stretcher parties are moving through the fort. Do you see "massacre" in here somewhere? Would any Confederate casualties as a result of the Union shelling have counted as "massacred"?

Originally Posted by Glorybound

I'm not concerned with the other incidences of killings of unarmed USCT that you discuss, other than to say they were also war crimes. You seem to have a problem with the notoriety that Ft. Pillow has gained and sustained through the years, for some reason. The infamy that has attached to its name is there for good reason - large numbers of unarmed soldiers were killed there...a significant war crime. I don't know if it's the largest of the war, but it certainly ranks high in it's ferocity and brutality.

The references to other incidents are merely there to place this in perspective. It is also worth noting that the Radical Republicans had many reasons for using Ft. Pillow as a propaganda tool. Personally, I think the Hood and E. Kirby Smith incidents are much more indicative of a high command predisposition to slaughter/kill/abuse USCT than Ft. Pillow is, but Ft. Pillow was easier to spin as a "Remember the Maine!" type event.

You should also note that Ft. Pillow is one of the very few successful close assaults of a position after a refusal to surrender. Normally, the defenders surrender once their position gets bad enough. When they don't, it is assumed a fight to the death might result, and if the position is actually carried by assault, defender casualties will be heavy.

Tim

[Elennsar]

One thing I would like to know.

What level of authority did Forrest exercise here?

That is, to what extent could he, if he was in the fort and said "Stop shooting at these men!" to his troops, expect them to stop at his command.

As best as I can determine as a civilian, it is possible to make a full out assault without murder (beyond the war is murder arguement.)

But if the garrison is fighting to the death, and there is no clear "I surrender" statement, then it is hard to blame anyone for obliging them in dying for their cause.

As for propaganda: It rubs me the wrong way that we're supposed to trust that the Radicals were deeply interested in manipulating events for their own benefit, but that this was somehow something that stood out from what anyone else was doing.

Ultimately, it was not a good day, and it does not sound like anyone comes off well here.

[trice]

Originally Posted by Glorybound

Tim, I'm not disputing that there were exaggerations in some of the testimony about the massacre, or contained in some of the newspaper coverage of it. A riverboat captain testified he picked up a large number of women and children, black and white, at the riverbank that afternoon while much of this was going on. And these people had been already reported killed in the massacre in some of the first editions that came out.

Many women and children had been evacuated via barge to an island that day. Not all were. Confederate reports refer to a number still there after the fighting (20-40, IIRR). At least 2 women were among the dead bodies, but they may have been simply people caught in the shooting, not any type of "massacre" victims.

Just as when counting the dead and calculating percentages, little allowance is made for civilians who were present (such as the contract black workers at Edward Benton's plantaion, just outside the fort, or the black people at the contraband camp at Ft. Pillow) and likely to be caught up in this mess.

Originally Posted by Glorybound

My problem is with those who say it didn't happen, and try to minimize Forrest's role in it. It did happen (a mass illegal killing) and Forrest did little if anything to stop it.

There certainly was an assault, with lots of people killed and wounded. Forrest ordered the assault. Other than that, what do you mean by "Forrest's role in it"?

As to "a mass illegal killing", what do you mean by it? Of the 250+ dead, how many do you think were illegally killed? Do you think it was ordered by someone, or merely happened in the midst of the fighting?

Originally Posted by Glorybound

You're trying to rationalize the behavior of the soldiers doing the killing here. You're right - fury, anger, especially at Negro soldiers could send many rebs into a blind, murderous rage, and in those times shooting an unarmed negro soldier probably was a very easy thing to do anyway for some Confederates.

No, merely trying to come to some accurate description of it. I actually think the killing of some white Union TN soldiers (like the ones called out of the crowd by name and then shot) comes closer to murder as the law would define it.

Originally Posted by Glorybound

No combat experience here either. I understand the rage/fury/fear involved in the assault, but in no way does that emotion excuse murder. It may perhaps explain it, but does not excuse it.

So you're in Fort Pillow. The other side is shooting at you; you're shooting at them; or maybe just somebody somewhere is still shooting. The air is full of black powder smoke and bullets are flying, men are falling. The Union is still resisting, in part at least (after all, 100 Confederate casualties in this action, with at least 15 dead). At what point do you stop shooting? How many of the dead were illegally killed, and how many just dead in a battle?

Tim

[Glorybound]

Tim, is it necessary for a "formal" surrender to be arranged in order to take a prisoner, or is it possible in the heat of battle for a single soldier, or several, to surrender (throw down their arms, hands up, the whole nine yards) without their commander's permission, and still not be shot to pieces? "Pardon me, but do you have your superior's permission to surrender?"

"Well, no but"...BANG.

I'm not sure if the source below is the one that you pooh-poohed earlier, but I posted it a few pages back. If you could look at it again please: (by the way it is extensively foot-noted if you haven't actually opened the link.)

http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/i...55&subjectID=3

(bold emphasis mine)

According to historian James M. McPherson: "Black prisoners who survived the initial rage of their captors sometimes found themselves returned as slaves to their old masters or, occasionally, sold to a new one. While awaiting this fate, they were often placed at hard labor on Confederate fortifications."15 However, an even worse fate awaited soldiers who attempted to surrender after Confederates led by General Nathan Bedford Forrest on Fort Pillow in Tennessee on April 12, 1864. Major Lionell F. Booth commanded the black Union soldiers at Fort Pillow. The garrison's 570 soldiers were half white and half black. Noah Andre Trudeau wrote in Like Men of War: Black Troops in the Civil War that when the Confederate attacked, "Panic spread among the Union troops, with blacks and whites each later blaming the other for breaking first. What is clear is that while a few Federals stood their ground, most threw down their guns, some to run for the presumed safety of the bluff, others to raise their hands in surrender. No one had lowered the U.S. flag."16 Although Union soldiers attempted to surrender, many were instead killed. According to Trudeau, "What came next was a massacre, pure and simple. Corporal William A. Dickey, 13th Tennessee Cavalry, ran from the wall when Forest's men breasted it. 'The rebels followed closely,' he recalled, 'shooting down all who came in the way, white and black....One rebel came to me and took my percussion caps, saying he had been killing negroes so fast that his own had been exhausted; he added that he was going to shot some more.'"17

So I guess I'm asking if this apparent lack of protocol of surrender or whatever it's called, (lowering the US flag)is a lame excuse being used as the justification for the rebels shooting the unarmed Union soldiers?

You seem to be hung up on this "there was no surrender" thing, and frankly I've heard of individual surrenders of a single or pairs or more, of soldiers to the enemy before, without them being summarily executed for not having the correct paperwork, if you will.

By Tim

So you're in Fort Pillow. The other side is shooting at you; you're shooting at them; or maybe just somebody somewhere is still shooting. The air is full of black powder smoke and bullets are flying, men are falling. The Union is still resisting, in part at least (after all, 100 Confederate casualties in this action, with at least 15 dead). At what point do you stop shooting?

How about when the other guy drops his gun and puts his hands on top of his head?

How many of the dead were illegally killed, and how many just dead in a battle?

The illegally killed were the guys you shot/bayoneted/blowed up, who were not offering any resistance, hands up, perhaps pleading for their lives, and had no weapons. The just dead shot at you first, or at least pointed their weapon in your direction before you shot them. It's not that complicated.

Ok forget "illegal killing", "war crimes", and whatever military terms I used that you don't like and just insert your own. Thanks.

Respectfully,
Leland

[trice]

Originally Posted by Elennsar

One thing I would like to know.

What level of authority did Forrest exercise here?

That is, to what extent could he, if he was in the fort and said "Stop shooting at these men!" to his troops, expect them to stop at his command.

As best anyone can determine, Forrest and Chalmers arrived in the fort (really a redoubt constructed inside the two earlier forts built on the site) about 25 minutes after the assault started. It was shaped like a W, with walls four feet thick and a dry moat in front, built by Major Booth after he arrived to take command. Six guns inside, at least 550 troops present inside, about half or a little more USCT, the rest raw white TN cavalry just forming.

The skirmishing started early AM. Union Major Booth (a pre-war Regular Army Sgt) was killed about 9 AM, followed shortly by his adjutant. This left the totally inexperienced Major Bradford (a local lawyer and Union loyaltist raising this TN regiment) in command.

Chalmers had been running the action up until Forrest arrived (about 1 PM). He had McCulloch's brigade of his own division and Bell's brigade of Buford's division, some 1600 men, maybe a bit more. This was their first real operation together, although they had known of one another before the war (and did not socialize). Forrest had relieved Chalmers of his command shortly before this, been over-ruled by higher authority, and had Chalmers reinstated, so they were not on cordial terms at the time.

Forrest immediately made his usual up-close-and-personal recon, during which 3 horses were shot out from under him. One apparently pinned his leg when it went down. I don't ride, but this sounds like it would make a man sore and stiff to me. When the attack began, Forrest was on a rise about 400 yards away from the walls. About 20 minutes after the start, a Confederate cut down the US flag. Forrest saw this, mounted, and rode up to the fort (but could not enter mounted).

When Forrest (and Chalmers about the same time) get into the fort, his first concern is getting the captured guns turned around to fire at the Union gunboat New Era. (New Era's commander is afraid of exactly this and steams away abandoning the Union troops on the riverbank despite his previous agreement to support them there.)

It appears that Forrest/Chalmers re-established control within about 20 minutes of actually entering the fort (according to both Union and Confederate accounts) and the firing largely stopped 25-30 minutes after the US flag was chopped down. Given the difficulties of the situation and the need to communicate by messengers on foot down to the riverbank, that seems remarkably quick to me. It probably implies that the 2 brigade commanders were already making efforts to get it done when Forrest arrived.

Originally Posted by Elennsar

As best as I can determine as a civilian, it is possible to make a full out assault without murder (beyond the war is murder arguement.)

But if the garrison is fighting to the death, and there is no clear "I surrender" statement, then it is hard to blame anyone for obliging them in dying for their cause.

Major Bradford (using the name of the dead Major Booth) refused Forrest's surrender demand during the truce. He had arranged a plan with the New Era commander to continue the resistance even after the fort fell (and the New Era commander left him in the lurch when the fort did fall).

The fort never did surrender during the assault; as noted, it was a Confederate who cut down the flag. One Union officer (Major Booth's brother, Captain Bradford) was seen waving a flag (either a "black flag" or a dark blue signal flag) in an attempt to rally the troops as the Confederates swept through it, he was shot and killed.

Bradford's plan called for the Union troops to retreat to the riverbank and fight on from there (an idiotic plan: if they couldn't hold a fort with six guns, they'd be slaughtered on the open riverbank below the bluff). Whether they actually retreated or fled in panic, the riverbank is where they ended up, under fire from three sides.

There is a point at the end of this where Major Bradford is hiding behind a barge in the river. He walks up to the fort, supposedly with Confederates volleying at him all the way, and surrenders himself to Chalmers. That's the earliest point at which anyone could say a "surrender" of the garrison occurred. (Bradford is allowed to bury his brother, then escapes during the night in civilian clothes, is recaptured a few days later and recognized while attempting to get to Memphis, and "shot while attempting to escape"/murdered. If anyone is reading Trudeau's Like Men of War on this, the account you'll find there is completely incorrect on Bradford, largely good on most other things.)

Originally Posted by Elennsar

As for propaganda: It rubs me the wrong way that we're supposed to trust that the Radicals were deeply interested in manipulating events for their own benefit, but that this was somehow something that stood out from what anyone else was doing.
Ultimately, it was not a good day, and it does not sound like anyone comes off well here.

Cold-bloodedly: In April of 1864 the most critical campaigns of the war were about to start. Anything that could strengthen the Union side would be appealing. Fort Pillow as a deliberate massacre was a handy tale, a rallying point for the USCT, a horror story to wave about in the re-election campaign. The real tale is bad enough, which just made it easier to use as propaganda and led to it being spun to some ridiculous lengths -- but undoubtedly there were things that can only be called murder committed here. Just not as many as the most partisan would have us believe, and with no obvious intent in the Confederate high command.

Tim