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.
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.
Surely not necessary. But here the Union had just deliberately and formally refused to surrender a few minutes before the attack you are describing. The Union commander's plan included abandoning the fort and continuing the resistance from the riverbank below the bluff. Some of them are shooting back; some aren't. Captain Bradford (Major Bradford's brother) is by the signal station on the bluff waving a flag (black or blue) trying to rally the men and continue the fight (a Confederate officer spots him and orders him shot).
Expecting the Confederates to pick and choose who they shoot at in this is unrealistic. Bullets are flying in all directions, and the normal expectation (i.e., it doesn't matter what nation or era we're talking about) in such a situation is that defenders will get killed just because they are there. Attackers will be very much in a shoot-first, worry-about-it-later frame of mind as they storm through. This is simply normal, because if they hesitate, they might be the one dead.
That doesn't mean that people trying to surrender weren't shot and killed. It doesn't mean that some Confederates were not looking to shoot any USCT they could, or to avenge perceived insults against other white Union troops. It simply means that if there had been no such motivations here you would still find many of the deaths you are describing, because that is what any experienced soldier would expect in such a situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glorybound
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.)
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
I've seen it before. While that's all pretty horrible, nothing included in it would actually have been considered a "war crime" at the time and I can find a hundred incidents of running men being shot or lanced or sabered or shelled in other wars if you want. It is all very horrifying, but it is fairly normal and routine in war, like airplanes strafing a road convoy that can't shoot back.
Also, while I've read Trudeau's book and have seen him speak in person, his account of Ft. Pillow is not 100% accurate. The major inaccuracy is in the account of the death of Major Bradford, which is a tale that has existed ever since the time of the war. There is no doubt about Bradford's death, and good reason to think he was murdered with forethought, not "shot while attempting to escape", but the version told in Trudeau's book is either somehow mangled or completely wrong.
Also, it isn't so clear as Trudeau says that the men threw down their weapons before they left the fort. Bradford's plan had included continuing the resistance from below the bluff, and the Confederates say they recovered many weapons (supposedly about 269 or 275 shoulder arms according to some accounts) and a supply of ammo (supposedly six cases of ammo) from there after the battle. But even if they had, just how would the Confederates chasing and shooting at them have known it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glorybound
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?
I think you may not be putting yourself in the place of a man assaulting a fort, expecting at any moment to be killed or maimed. He knows the garrison has just refused to surrender. He expects desperate resistance. Any hesitation on his part might mean he or his friends will be killed. If he sees a blue coat, he probably shoots at it.
I also think you are totally unrealistic in your view of lowering the flag (no offense). When you are in the middle of this kind of fight, that is generally how you surrender -- because it is the most visible thing you can do. No one more than a few feet away can hear what you say amid the uproar. Few can see you clearly in the smoke. So you pull down your flag and (if you have one) you fly a white flag so that the enemy knows what you are doing. If they look up and see a Union flag still flying, they assume the battle is still on. This is not some picky protocol: lowering your flag is the best and fastest way to get the firing stopped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glorybound
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.
If you look at the original accounts, you'll find that the participants themselves make reference to this "there was no surrender" thing.
For example, Dr. Fitch, a Union surgeon at the post: "I am not aware that there was any formal surrender of Fort Pillow to Forrest's command. I looked upon many things that were done as the result of whiskey and a bitter personal hate, especially as regards the Thirteenth regiment. There was considerable alcohol outside the fort, which Forrest's men must have got hold of long before the charge was made. I have always thought that neither you nor Forrest knew anything that was going on at the time under the bluffs. What was done was done very quickly." (This is in an 1879 letter from Fitch to Chalmers, when Chalmers was a Congressman and was being attacked on the floor of Congress over his part in the "Fort Pillow Massacre".)
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
How about when the other guy drops his gun and puts his hands on top of his head?
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.
Virtually all of the Union troops at Fort Pillow probably shot at the Confederates before they died.
The fight at Fort Pillow had been going on since early morning. Men had been getting shot since at least 9 AM and probably an hour or so earlier. It was at 9 AM that Major Booth, the Union commander, was shot and killed, followed minutes afterwards by his adjutant, who came to look at him. (Therefore, clearly two men who were not victims of a massacre, merely shot doing their duty.)
Supposedly, the USCT took more casualties than the white TN troops before the final assault (according to a USCT Sgt.) The USCT had sallied forth from the fort in the morning in an effort to burn some barracks the Confederates had occupied, burned one, been forced to retreat, taking casualties.
They had also (according to the Sgt.) been more reckless in firing back at the Confederates during the day, apparently taking something on the order of 25-30 casualties before the truce. He estimated the white 13th TN cavalry casualties as less than that. I have no idea what they actually were, but let's assume some 40 or more Union dead and wounded before the assault begins. In Civil War terms, for skirmishing like this for units inside a fort, that is a very heavy loss.
The fort itself was poorly laid out. The six guns could not fire on the low ground near the fort. Men on the parapet could not fire on it either: they had to stand up and lean out over the four-foot thick wall, highlighting themselves against the skyline in order to take aim. Anyone who did so made themselves a perfect target for Confederate sharpshooters under cover.
In addition, the Confederates had occupied high ground that overlooked the fort from rifle range. From this ground, they could deliver a reverse plunging fire on most of the parapet (i.e., if you are facing front, the Rebels are shooting at your back).
That's all in the way of explaining why the Confederate casualties are so low. This "fort" was so poorly laid out as to negate the advantage of the walls. Major Booth built it; Major Booth bears responsibility for it. But he died early. Perhaps he would have had the will to surrender when the time came, because the fort truly was a hopeless proposition by then.
In any assault such as this one (outnumbered 3:1, artillery useless, enemy can get in the dry moat without being fired on) casualties are going to be horrendous for the defense. The first shot the Union gets is when the Rebels come over the wall, only four feet away. Weight of firepower is with the Rebels and it will be impossible to prevent the Confederates from getting inside the walls. What follows is a melee, and chaos will immediately take hold. No one on either side could possibly take real command and control of this until the firing is stopped or the sides are seperated with time to reform.
They are in the middle of clouds of blinding, acrid spoke, jumped up on fear and excitement, within feet of an enemy who might or might not be about to kill them. Hundreds and hundreds of guns are going off around them, deafening them to verbal orders from more than a few feet away. Men are screaming, in triumph, in fear, in agony.
So what you are asking people to do here is to pause and reflect in the midst of all that. A few might. Most will not. The thought running through their mind is "Kill them!", not "Is he surrendering?" What they do is see-the-Blue-shoot-the-Blue. Reload and do it again.
In the middle of that, there is plenty of evidence of Confederates shooting Union who thought they'd surrendered. Some of that is deliberate from the evidence. Some of it is you surrendered to me and Charley 10 yards over that way shot you. Some Confederate accounts say Yankees who surrendered took up arms again and started shooting, so they shot them (not surprising if the Yankees took up arms again if they were seeing other men who had surrendered shot down). There are enough Confederate accounts of hearing the cry "Forrest says no prisoners!" or Forrest says "Kill them all! to believe that someone was shouting it -- but no evidence at all that Forrest ever gave such an order.
That it was horrible I am sure. That there were murders done I am sure. That Forrest was responsible for the murders seems highly unlikely. That all of the deaths were "massacre" is impossible, but surely some might fit that description as long as it does not include a direct order from the commander. So I guess at 50 of the 250+ dead being "massacred". What's your guess?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Excellent and informative posts.
They are appreciated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vareb
I'm with Blue, Trice. Nice job.
Thanks, but it is similar to many things posted here in the past. War is pure Hell, just as Sherman said, and Ft. Pillow is an example of it. It is actually easier to find evidence that the Confederate Congress or the Davis administration was willing to execute/abuse captured USCT than it is to find evidence that they were murdered in the field by Confederate troops.
But I can also say there were murders at Ft. Pillow, undoubted ones. I've just never seen any evidence that Forrest or Chalmers ordered it done, or let it pass without trying to re-establish control.
There were legitimate military reasons why Forrest should have attacked Ft. Pillow that April. His whole purpose was to strike Sherman's posts, gather supplies and equipment, establish control of the area, and round up recruits. Victories would help that. But beyond those, Bradford's new TN cavalry was riding through the Dyer County countryside and Forrest was receiving calls for aid against their requisitions/abuses. In war-torn TN, letting local Unionists organize and establish control of a former Confederate stronghold must have seemed a bad idea.
In addition, Forrest had just complained about the depredations of Col. Hurst and his TN cavalry (murders and torture of Forrest's men, extortion of civilians, etc.) to the Union commander in Memphis. No help there from Union authority. If the Union wants to be strict on attrocities, they need to do it both ways. Blaming one side and not the other in these bloody affairs in TN, AR, MO is never really going to work. There is always something on the other side you can point to (like Hurst shooting a prisoner for his boots, say). The Ft. Pillows of the war don't exist in a vacumn.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
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.
This Lt.Col. was correct as well as was Tim's Dad.
This Lt.Col. was correct as well as was Tim's Dad.
Dragging my Dad in for another example, there was a point on Leyte where the Japanese counterattacked. As part of that, they sent paratroopers to attack US air bases. Dad's unit was one those sent back to retake the airfields as the battle raged.
The paratroopers had taken the bases without much trouble. When Dad's company got back there, they were nicely dug in, making use of a lot of sand-bagged emplacements with .50 caliber machine guns they'd captured. The paratroopers pretty much died to the last man, and the Americans took heavy casualties.
Once it was over, the Army Air Corps came rushing back to get the field operational. Dad and some others were sitting in what had been the mess hall when an Air Corps major came in and started steaming about all these smelly, dirty GIs in his mess hall. Really dumb. To show the temper of men in combat:
Dad's Captain took out his service .45 and poked it in the Major's face. He told him to shut up, that'd he'd just lost a bunch of good men taking those MGs the Air Corps had left behind for the Japs, and that the major better darn well be thinking about getting some hot food served for his men instead of complaining.
Somehow hot food appeared not too long after this. The Captain never heard anything further about it through channels, so he assumed the major never filed a complaint.
Dad always thought the world of that Captain. He was a Mennonite, normally a very polite and reseved man. He was also the most-decorated living survivor at the last division reunion Dad attended, about 2 years back. Dad thought he was the best combat officer he ever saw. But Dad also thinks that nice Mennonite came very close to blowing the head off that Air Corps major. The wrong word, the wrong twitch, and no more major.
Also, interestingly enough, Dad told me that he only heard the Captain swear once during the war. This wasn't it.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Tim, sorry I had to leave the discussion. As usual on the other threads, and as Vareb and Unionblue have said, you made your case well here too. If I'm correct, your case presented in this thread was and is: (sort of paraphrasing here, not pasting any more quotes) "Don't be so quick to judge the intentions and actions of men who are fully involved in the fog of battle." (or something close. If I'm wrong please tell me.)
Ok, now, I've always allowed for that fog at Fort Pillow. I know confusion reigned, and both sides were locked in a fight that was almost guaranteed to have a disastrous ending. But I don't think I put that in any of my previous posts, reading back through some of them,and I see why you made such a strong case for the fog, so that I would be sure to understand that. Thank you.
But...(uh-oh,butt monkey)....the fight started at what, 9:00am or so? If you and I both agree that there were 50 murders/executions of Union soldiers, black and white... and this fight took all day... then I see a lot of whiskey, and/or lack of leadership control and/or premeditation there.
Forgive me for not giving Forrest the benefit of the doubt. Just because he didn't get an answer from a Union officer in Memphis, on a personal objection to atrocities committed against his own men, and whatever his personal feelings may have been about negroes in blue, he did not have the right to look the other way at Ft. Pillow, which I think he did. I can't prove it, and you know I can't prove it, but I think he made minimal, if any effort to stop the slaughter. If anyone that day could have at least lowered the situational heat down to a simmer, if not doused the fires completely, it was Forrest. It seems strange that his men had access to, and consumed whiskey during the day. Nathan B. Forrest could not have stopped that?
Thanks for the civil discourse Tim.
Respectfully,
Leland
__________________ "What armies and how much of war I have seen, what thousands of marching troops, what fields of slain, what prisons, what hospitals, what ruins, what cities in ashes, what hunger and nakedness, what orphanages, what widowhood, what wrongs and what vengeance."
Clara Barton
Last edited by Glorybound; 10-03-2008 at 07:18 PM.
Tim, sorry I had to leave the discussion. As usual on the other threads, and as Vareb and Unionblue have said, you made your case well here too. If I'm correct, your case presented in this thread was and is: (sort of paraphrasing here, not pasting any more quotes) "Don't be so quick to judge the intentions and actions of men who are fully involved in the fog of battle." (or something close. If I'm wrong please tell me.)
Ok, now, I've always allowed for that fog at Fort Pillow. I know confusion reigned, and both sides were locked in a fight that was almost guaranteed to have a disastrous ending. But I don't think I put that in any of my previous posts, reading back through some of them,and I see why you made such a strong case for the fog, so that I would be sure to understand that. Thank you.
Pretty much the way I see it: a huge mess, a terrible fight, a looming crisis ... disaster was inevitable from the moment Bradford turned down the surrender demand. Forrest wasn't bluffing, and there was no way he would decide not to attack, to walk away. No commander would if he wasn't bluffing in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glorybound
But...(uh-oh,butt monkey)....the fight started at what, 9:00am or so? If you and I both agree that there were 50 murders/executions of Union soldiers, black and white... and this fight took all day... then I see a lot of whiskey, and/or lack of leadership control and/or premeditation there.
Here's where we part. There is whiskey in the outer fort, stored by the Union; eventually some of the the Rebels will find it. That doesn't mean we have 1600 drunk Confederates, only some. You'll also find claims that Bradford gave whiskey to the men on the walls that afternoon (true or not). So if both sides have men who've been drinking, wouldn't both sides be more or less equally losing command and control in this mess?
But one thing to remember about any charge about drinking in the Civil War is that they are very common. Lots of people are said to have made a bad decision or acted cowardly are said to be drunk (and some undoubtedly were).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glorybound
Forgive me for not giving Forrest the benefit of the doubt. Just because he didn't get an answer from a Union officer in Memphis, on a personal objection to atrocities committed against his own men, and whatever his personal feelings may have been about negroes in blue, he did not have the right to look the other way at Ft. Pillow, which I think he did.
I have never seen any real indication that he did -- or at least no more than I would ascribe to General Lee at The Crater shortly after this.
Forrest arrived in the early afternoon. He immediately did his usual up-close-and-personal recon. He usually did these from horseback because he believed the added height gave him a better viewpoint. He had three horses shot out from under him as he made the circuit. After that, he handles some details in the preparations for the attack and then sends in his surrender demand. The truce begins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glorybound
I can't prove it, and you know I can't prove it, but I think he made minimal, if any effort to stop the slaughter.
What is it, specifically, you expected him to be doing? To call off the attack and go away?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glorybound
If anyone that day could have at least lowered the situational heat down to a simmer, if not doused the fires completely, it was Forrest.
I don't mean to sound endlessly argumentative, but how was he going to do that? If he's going to attack, he needs to do it now. If he's going to attack, calming the men down is exactly the worst thing he could do: it will get many of his own men killed. If he isn't going to attack, what is he doing here in the first place?
But the truth is, if anyone could have avoided this, it was Bradford first, not Forrest. All Bradford had to do was surrender when he found himself in a bad situation. It is what military practice said he should do -- just as it said Forrest should send in a surrender demand before the assault in that situation.
The surrender demand has two purposes in war. Both of them are the same: to avoid the horror and casualties of the assault. The only difference between them is which set of casualties you want to avoid most.
Once the assault starts, Forrest seems to have the firing stopped in about 20 minutes from when he enters the fort. How many minutes do you think he should have shaved off that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glorybound
It seems strange that his men had access to, and consumed whiskey during the day. Nathan B. Forrest could not have stopped that?
The whiskey was supposedly found in Union stores, captured during the morning, when Forrest was not yet at Fort Pillow. Such things are to be handled by junior officers, not commanding generals, and the lieutenants and captains have to find out the men have it first. Forrest probably didn't even know about it. Just what is it you expect Forrest to have done?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Union (in general): Guilty of screwing up.
Bradford: More screwing up. Should be shot for incompetence.
Confederates: ...okay, I'll get back to this in a second.
Forrest: Not guilty of ordering a massacre, possibly guilty of insufficient control of the situation. (It does not sound like anyone would have been able to stop it cold entirely...too much confusion in this melee.)
It does, however, sound like a massacre (conscious or not) took place...defined in this sense:
A one sided slaughter of helpless individuals.
Cannae was a "massacre" in this sense, as was Little Bighorn.
It appears that the signals of "we surrender" were unclear at best, but that the Confederate soldiers weren't going to any great lengths to see if any were being shown, either.
Part of that is understandable for the reasons stated by the vets. Part of that appears to be bias (racial and otherwise).
So, while I cannot exactly say Forrest should burn for "massacring the garrison", I cannot exactly say he is innocent of having be in charge over one half of a truly ugly situation.
What I am still unclear on (and I doubt this lack of clarity will go away) is how much control Forrest had over his men.
For instance, take Pickett's charge. If Armistead says "Crawl on all fours!", his men will (presumably) hit the ground.
But Fort Pillow is a much more chaotic situation. And it doesn't sound like that was just "during the actual fighting"...the whole mess was considerably uglier and more irregular.
So Forrest may well have been able, under other circumstances, to do more than he did, but it does not sound like he had the power (fact of war, possibly made worse by his command) to simply shout "Stop!"
And without telepathy, no one can tell if he wanted to.
It does sound like his objective was "take the fort", not "kill the garrison". So by that reasoning, I would presume that Forrest did everything he thought (whether was wrong or not is something we can state but hardly judge him for) he could do to keep the assault focused on that as a first-and-foremost goal.
However, as stated, Bradford should have been shot for incompetence, so to speak. Even assuming everyone is entering into this cool headedly (not likely), he ensured an uglier situation than there was any reason to be by his mistakes, including but not limited to failing to surrender when asked.
There's a reason for all the formalities and regulations. The demon of battle fury is hard to rein in even at the best of times, and war rarely works out smoothly.
Murphey's law and all.
So..."not guilty", but not precisely innocent, is my verdict on Forrest. His men did go overboard, in a situation in which that was almost inevitable.
__________________ Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee
The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just. - Abraham Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
