Fort Pillow

Fort Pillow

Massacre 12 Apr'64

[Cpt. Steinhauer]

this screwed the confederacy's prisoner exchange. Grant ended all exchanges. If Forrest had a bit of control over himself, the massacare never would've happened and the Confederacy could've had many more soliders in their ranks.

[trice]

Originally Posted by Cpt. Steinhauer

this screwed the confederacy's prisoner exchange. Grant ended all exchanges. If Forrest had a bit of control over himself, the massacare never would've happened and the Confederacy could've had many more soliders in their ranks.

There is no evidence to support this. Forrest gave no orders for a massacre; there is evidence he risked his own life to get the firing stopped.

On POW exchanges, they had essentially broken down in 1863. Stanton had ordered them suspended on May 23rd for officers, and on July 13th for enlisted men. Things moved in fits and starts after that, and the Federals claimed they were never compensated for their early parole of the Vicksburg and Port Hudson garrisons.

On April 1, 1864 Grant visits Ben Butler, the Union Agent of Exchange, and Butler tells us Grant was definitely opposed to re-opening the exchanges. On April 17, Grant issues orders to Butler forbidding exchanges unless and until the Confederates agree to treat black troops equally with white, and to compensate the U.S. for the early release from parole of the Vicksburg and Port Hudson garrisons. Fort Pillow falls in between those events. It may have had an impact, but the fact is the exchanges had already been halted.

Tim

[DHPatrick]

Originally Posted by Cpt. Steinhauer

this screwed the confederacy's prisoner exchange. Grant ended all exchanges. If Forrest had a bit of control over himself, the massacare never would've happened and the Confederacy could've had many more soliders in their ranks.

In my understaning of 'masscares', essentially none of the opposing combatants are left alive. Not so at Fort Pillow. The Fort was given every opportunity to surrender and it elected to not do so. Fort Pillow doesn't even appear to be a 'no quarter' siege - a type of attack which has been used on ocasion by most civilized countries.

The fact that there were so many African-American soldiers in the Fort seems to have some bearing on the discussion of a massacre at Fort Donelson. This perspective of the assault seems to have no merit as 20% of the African-Americans were taken alive as prisoners. No particular race was exempt from being shot, including both commander and the subsequent Union commander of the Fort.

The prisoner exchange was brought to a halt by the Union forces (Grant & Lincoln). They demanded that all enlisted escaped slaves be treated as POWs as well. The South refused to accept this condition. These captivess would be returned to the plantation from whence they had escaped and not be made available for prisoner exchange.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by DHPatrick

In my understaning of 'masscares', essentially none of the opposing combatants are left alive. Not so at Fort Pillow. The Fort was given every opportunity to surrender and it elected to not do so. Fort Pillow doesn't even appear to be a 'no quarter' siege - a type of attack which has been used on ocassion by most civilized countries.

The fact that there were so many African-American soldiers in the Fort seems to have some bearing on the discussion of a massacre at Fort Donelson. This perspective of the assault seems to have no merit as 20% of the African-Americans were taken alive as prisoners. No particular race was exempt from being shot, including both commander and the subsequent Union commander of the Fort.

The prisoner exchange was brought to a halt by the Union forces (Grant & Lincoln). They demanded that all enlisted escaped slaves be treated as POWs as well. The South refused to accept this condition. These captivess would be returned to the plantation from whence they had escaped and not be made available for prisoner exchange.

Don, you have made a clear statement of what I believe to be fact. Little more could be asked of any man. Great post.

[DHPatrick]

Larry,

Good to hear from you. Thanks for your remarks.

It has always surprised me that there is never any word mentioned about the Union failure at this battle. There was a Federal gunboat which was stationed by the fort to help protect it. It was also stationed to cover any retreat the Union forces had to make. The gunboat was supposed to fire grapeshot at the Confederate forces in that event.

This helps explain why the retreating forces ran toward the docks. They were fully aware of the plan. Unfortunately for them, the gunboat did not fire even one covering shot at the Confederate forces.

[larry_cockerham]

If Forrest's Escort were coming at me, I'm not sure I would have fired, either. Forrest's mobile cannons were more than up to the task of making life quite miserable for a riverboat.

[DHPatrick]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

If Forrest's Escort were coming at me, I'm not sure I would have fired, either. Forrest's mobile cannons were more than up to the task of making life quite miserable for a riverboat.

Larry

In fact you are probably right. The Union sailors reported that they received so much acurate fire from Confederate Sharpshooters that they were compelled to batten down their gun covers.