Civil War History - The South & Western TheatersCheck this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.
I don't see a thread anywhere specifically dedicated to Fort Pillow, so I thought I'd start one.
On April 12, 1864, a confederate force under Bedford Forrest stormed and captured Fort Pillow, built on the bank of the Mississippi River in Tennessee. This is one of the most controversial events in Forrest's colorful life, with some claiming he ordered the massacre of black troops at Fort Pillow, others claiming there was no massacre at all, and still others holding various mixtures of opinions.
So I pose 1 or 2 questions for the group [depending, of course, on how you answer #1]:
1. Was there a massacre of black troops at Fort Pillow?
If yes,
2. What responsibility does Bedford Forrest bear for it?
I'll lay my cards out on the table:
1. Yes.
2. Only the responsibility of a commanding officer for the actions of his troops. The evidence I've seen so far does not substantiate a charge that Forrest ordered the massacre, and the weight of the evidence I've seen indicates he tried to stop it.
Cash, when I first began studying the ACW I placed all of the blame of Ft Pillow upon Genl Forrest believing some sources that suggest that he ordered it. However, upon further review of period sources, after action reports etc I do not believe that he was aware of the initial murders nor did he condone them. All the credible evidence I have seen does point to the fact that he did attempt to stop it. I admit I concentrated upon period documentation and things written shortly after the War by men who were there or who dealt w/ survivors as I thought them the least likely to be clouded by agenda or fading memory. It must be remembered that Ft Pillow was not an isolated incident; though it was by far the worst.
The slaughter/murder/massacre is undeniable just from the number of wounded vs KIA when compared to any other similar engagement. My own opinion is that Forrest lost control of his men and when he was made aware of the situation he did his best to stop it.
In short Forrest was responsible for the actions of his men; but as he neither ordered nor condoned the actions of his men... All in all I think him to have been a decent man and a ****ed good soldier and I agree w/ Genl Sherman that he might well have been the best General the War produced. I can think of little higher praise than that which comes from a victorious enemy.
__________________ 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 will agree with you, Shane. My opinion is based on reading only one book on Forrest, A Battle from the Start by Brian Steel Wills. I look forward to reading more on NB Forrest in coming years.
The book leans to the idea that Forrest did try to stop the slaughter of the Fort Pillow garrison and civilians in the fort, but had lost control of his men. I paraphrase and quote from Wills's writing: Dr. Charles Fitch, a doctor for an Iowa group, reported that while tending wounded below the bluff, he asked a Confederate soldier, taking him as a prisoner up the hill, "Who is in command?" The soldier said Forrest, and pointed to a man aiming a Parrott gun down at the gunboat.
Forrest was also very concerned about the approaching boats apparently full of reinforcements. Dr. Fitch spoke to Forrest and asked for his protection.
Another guard took Fitch into the fort where he saw Southern soldiers “kill every negro that made his appearance dressed in Federal uniform.”
Eventually General Chalmers rode in and ordered a stronger guard to be mounted. In 1879 Dr. Fitch said the greatest slaughter had occurred under the bluffs next to the river. “The Confederate commander was so preoccupied with what he was doing that, Fitch surmised, “I do not think Forrest knew what was going on under the bluffs.”
Wills infers that had Forrest really wanted to massacre the garrison, he would have led in the killing, as his fighting style was well known to put him in the front.
Wills further says that what really made Fort Pillow so distasteful to Forrest afterwards was that he had been powerless to control his men. Wills points out that Forrest, while not regarding negros as equal to whites, and being especially enraged by seeing them “deluded” and in Federal uniforms, would have been happy to conquer the fort bloodlessly, as long as its fall aided his plans.
However, the fact remains that black troops suffered disproportionately heavy losses.
“For a variety of reasons, Fort Pillow became a collective release of pent-up anger and hatred. It became, in clinical terms, a group catharsis. And as the overall commander of the troops on the scene, some of whom carried out these acts, Nathan Bedford Forrest was responsible.”
There is no question as to whether there was a massacre at Ft. Pillow. Given the feeling against blacks at the time, and having blacks in uniform shooting at you certainly does not excuse the conduct, but it does explain it.
Forrest, as the commander bears the ultimate responsibility however much we'd like to exonerate his conduct. For what it's worth, I've given him my personal pass, but legally and morally, he was responsible.
An armed, angry mob has it's own dynamic. Forrest's command at Ft. Pillow fits that definition. The fault, if there is any, should lie in Forrest's loss of control. That doesn't exactly sound like him, does it? Forrest losing control? I've given him my personal pass, but there is this niggling of suspicion.
Ole
It looks to me as if Gen. Forrest was not aware of what was going on at first. As many of you have stated, He did try to stop it when he was made aware of it. If you look at some of his other encounters with black troops ie Sulphur Trestle, you will find that non of what happened at Ft Pillow, happened there. In fact, the Black troops were given "extra care", according to many reports.
You gentlemen seem to be on the general right track in your analysis of Forrest. I've read about a half dozen of the biographies and tracked Forrest through the war as well as looking at other members of his family, two brothers and a son all gallant warriors, not to mention slave traders. Therein, I believe, lies the irony of Nathan Bedford Forrest. He didn't hate black soldiers, he had made his sizeable living prior to the war from their unfortunate status in 'society'. Forrest had forty plus of them in his command as drivers. The part of the battle at Fort Pillow that is not usually discussed is the fact that the Union soldiers were firing at Forrest's men. These men in return may have over-reacted. A bullet from any source is a threat. No, Forrest would never have sent his men into a situation while he watched. That was proven over and over again to not be his style.
The part of the battle at Fort Pillow that is not usually discussed is the fact that the Union soldiers were firing at Forrest's men. These men in return may have over-reacted.
Isn't what is considered the "massacre" at Ft Pillow the many acts of executing men who had surrendered, and burning buildings with bedridden men inside? Every battle has soldiers firing at other soldiers. I'm not sure I'm following you -you're not inferring that being fired on somehow is grounds for the murders of these prisoners, are you?
Isn't what is considered the "massacre" at Ft Pillow the many acts of executing men who had surrendered, and burning buildings with bedridden men inside? Every battle has soldiers firing at other soldiers. I'm not sure I'm following you -you're not inferring that being fired on somehow is grounds for the murders of these prisoners, are you?
Cedarstripper:
I think what Larry was referring to is the story that Forrest's boys were being fired on after surrender was assumed. (I say assumed because it's unclear whether there was a surrender -- such was the confusion that reigned.) It is a believable story, so it is widely accepted. Some might say the story offers an excuse for the massacre. Some will not.
That is supposed to have happened after the Hornet's Nest was taken as well, but without the same result.
I am surprised to see so many postings which still accept the tired old propaganda of the 1864 Congressional hearings, a source now thoroughly discredited by competent historians. There is no reason to think there was a deliberate slaughter of people who had surrendered--no round them up and shoot them down--and the idea that wounded were burned alive went out the window onto the dustheap of propaganda by 1865! Read the new book on Tyree Bell by Nath. Hughes and you will get a well-balanced, accurate accouint of Fort Pillow written by a professional historian with no ax to grind.
By the way, read what the Union Provost Marshal forces were doing to Southern civilians and you will see another "massacre" that is never discussed, the slaughter of women and children, documented in written orders issued by U. S. army officers. These actions put Fort Pillow into a very different light. They show human life had become quite cheap by 1864.
There is ample evidence that atrocities happened at Fort Pillow. That Forrest was responsible for them cannot be proven, which was the upshot of the inquiry.
Dropping in "they did, as well" is a red herring attempt to change the subject. Each reference can be debated separately, but they do not apply to Ft. Pillow. I do, however agree that human life had become quite cheap. "By 1864" does not compute.
On another note, welcome aboard. I noticed that your offering was your first post. I -- and I'm certain many others -- welcome new outlooks and opinions. You will get support and "poohs" in equal measure. But the important thing is that you care about the WBTS and are willing to mix it up.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Fort Pillow 
Linear Mode
