What actually happened at Fort Pillow?

I would encourage people visit Fort Pillow if you are in the area. I did and when see you will clearly see how a 40% casualty rate probably could happen in very short period of time. The redoubt area is very small and a good deal of the was camp tents for the USCT. There now way to fire out. It is totally undefendable. The cannon was useless as lower enough. Balls Bluff had the same casualty rate. My opinion on this event changed after I saw the ground.
 
I think Larry Cockerham gave us the best clue to understanding the events of Ft. Pillow as the relate to what General Forrest may or may not have done. larry said, and this is a paraphrase... If you look at Nathan Bedford Forrest both before and after the war, the character of the man does not support the charges... The charges leveled at Forrest are completely inconsistant with his character.
Then it was his troop under his command without orders in the emoition of battle took it upon themselves to do this? What was Forrest character prior the the war as far as the blacks? Did he carry that into the war? If as the Northern writers report what happened,why was he not brought in front of a military court,as was the warren at Andersonville was.Was it like J.Davis the country just wanted it over?
 
If as the Northern writers report what happened,why was he not brought in front of a military court,

If you mean by "writers" to refer to the newspaper reporters, i can quote some out landish statements made by reporters. Reporters arrived on the first boats but there were very few wutnesses remaining at the fort.
 
I would encourage people visit Fort Pillow if you are in the area. I did and when see you will clearly see how a 40% casualty rate probably could happen in very short period of time. The redoubt area is very small and a good deal of the was camp tents for the USCT. There now way to fire out. It is totally undefendable. The cannon was useless as lower enough. Balls Bluff had the same casualty rate. My opinion on this event changed after I saw the ground.

I seem to recall reading that many blacks that tried to escape from being captured ran into the Mississippi River which at the time of the battle extended closer to the fort. This might also account for the higher casualties. The on/off surrender orders may have been confusing for both sides and contributed to further deaths.
 
What was Forrest character prior the the war as far as the blacks? Did he carry that into the war?

That's an interesting inquiry there - Forrest's character. Usually it's assumed that Forrest was very cold and unconcerned about the excesses, especially where blacks were involved. In a way, that's true. The essential thing here is to understand the feelings between the two races at that time. It's not possible to understand what happened at Ft Pillow unless the racial issues are understood. Being as the question is usually asked from the Confederate viewpoint, it may already have been noted on this thread that Forrest's troops were mostly local men who had much against the people in the fort. The black soldiers under Booth's command were mostly local recruits - Forrest recognized several as having been through his slave market. So, to him these were not real soldiers but rebellious runaways who had taken up arms against their masters, some of whom were among his troops. That alone was enough to make this battle extremely ugly - there was nothing the whites hated more than an armed black. The colored troops knew this very well and knew their chances of survival were not at all good. They were in it for keeps and were not inclined to surrender. That would be my feeling were I in their place.

Forrest's personal belief was shared by most of his command - the black soldiers were slaves who had broken the law by stealing themselves from their masters and by taking up arms, insurrection, against those masters. He believed any black, free or otherwise, who was serving the Union - whether as a soldier or as a servant - was a traitor. But he didn't execute them out of hand. He followed Confederate policy and law - captured black soldiers were sent back to their masters or back to Confederate authorities to sort out. There were several encounters between his forces and USCT which did not result in excessive death - he followed his orders under Confederate policy.

Forrest was not the killer he has often been thought to be but he was darned good at staying alive! But this was not something he enjoyed or was proud of - he wasn't Bloody Bill Anderson. He knew the number of men he had personally killed and knew their names because he understood they were men like himself with families, children, plans for the future - and they would have killed him for the same reasons he killed them.

There was a lot of the lawman in Forrest, and he often referred to his escort as his 'posse'. The lawlessness around Ft Pillow was out of the control of either the Confederates or the Union and the population around, whatever color they were, were in very dire straights. In fact, a committee from the area had sent a plea to Forrest to leave a brigade with them for protection. Many of the near-renegade troops belonged to the commands of Bradford and Hurst. Hurst was somebody who was already walking on eggs with his own commanders - who had sat down four times to court-martial him - and since the Union authorities appeared unable to control him, Forrest declared him and his men outlaws to be shot on sight. The fort itself was no longer of much significance or use except as a base for raiders - Sherman had ordered it closed for those reasons - and Forrest went there to restore some law and order. His official reason was to obtain supplies located at the fort - which he did - but it was really to provide some relief to the civilians of the area.
 
I seem to recall reading that many blacks that tried to escape from being captured ran into the Mississippi River which at the time of the battle extended closer to the fort. This might also account for the higher casualties.

Absolutely. Today the Mississippi River is 1+ Mile away from the bluffs. The old river bed is now Chute Lake. There was sufficient space between the Bluffs and the river for the Confederates to place water batteries in 1861.
The river bank below the fort was a killing zone as it was in the cross-fire by Barteau's and Anderson's troops who were already in position below the bluff.
 
Last edited:
If you mean by "writers" to refer to the newspaper reporters, i can quote some out landish statements made by reporters. Reporters arrived on the first boats but there were very few wutnesses remaining at the fort.
Do you mean that they were of the same mind set as the media mind set is today? Facts are unimportant what matters is to arouse the population into a hyper anti mind set and then act as though you had no intention or was totally blameless in what the results were. There is no reasoning in this except to cause an atmosphere of hostility and an appeal to the base instenct in the people,but remember they,just as today from either side , were reporting only what they saw ,just a little nearsighted.This is the same method that was used prior to the war to sell papers and arouse the population to their point of view,but they were blameless,it was the people who read these reports and belieaved them.Free press does not mean that it is not without responsibility to the masses.
 
I seem to recall reading that many blacks that tried to escape from being captured ran into the Mississippi River which at the time of the battle extended closer to the fort. This might also account for the higher casualties. The on/off surrender orders may have been confusing for both sides and contributed to further deaths.

Yes. I probably would have done so myself, and frankly would have chosen drowning over what happened around the fort. We'll also never know for sure how many were wounded and got into the water, where their strength simply ran out.

The on\off games played by the Union officers absolutely caused a lot of the carnage. I'd recommend reading the Hurst biography on Forrest for an excellent accounting of the actions that day.
 
I know Larry held Forrest in high esteem, so he wouldn't think so, but I've never found it in me to admire a slave trader and KKK founder.

So that argument doesn't work with me, sorry.

Whatever happened, Forrest was responsible for it - he was in command. Either he ordered it, or his leadership was lacking, one or the other.

No way does he get a 'by' because he has his admirers here (much as I respect the members here who do).

It certainly bears more investigation.
Sorry, How can he be a KKK Founder when he was questioned about being a member and said no?
 
http://www.tennessee-scv.org/ForrestHistSociety/forrest_speech.html
You ever saw or read this?
Sherman had doubts a massacre happened!

Sherman had no doubt a massacre happened.

"Four days after the massacre, Stanton ordered Sherman to 'direct a competent officer to investigate and report minutely, and as early as possible, the facts in relation to the alleged butchery of our troops at Fort Pillow.' Sherman promptly passed the task on to Brayman, who began collecting affidavits from the patients at Mound City. But no doubt to Grant and Sherman's enormous relief, the investigation was soon turned over to the Joint Subcommittee on the Conduct of the War, whose recommendations they would not be obliged to follow.

"One of the arguments Forrest's defenders would make to prove that even the Union command did not believe the reports of a massacre at Fort Pillow was the fact that even such harsh and remorseless generals as Grant and Sherman never ordered reprisals. But by April 23, Sherman had concluded that Northern threats and condemnations would prove entirely useless and so proposed that the question of reprisals be quietly left up to 'the negroes themselves.' The Confederate army 'cares no more for our clamor than the idle wind,' he wrote Stanton, 'but they will heed the slaughter that will follow as the natural consequence of their own inhuman acts.' The truth, he said, was that the rebels' savage hatred of black troops 'cannot be restrained.' Thus far black troops had been 'comparatively well behaved, and have not committeed the horrid excesses and barbarities which the Southern papers so much dreaded.' But eventually 'the effect will be of course to make the negroes desperate, and when in turn they commit horrid acts of retaliation,' he wrote with characteristically brutal pragmatism, 'we will be relieved of the responsibility.' He doubted the wisdom 'of any fixed rule by our Government, but let soldiers affected make their rules as we progress. We will use their own logic against them, as we have from the beginning of the war.'" [Andrew Ward, River Run Red: The Fort Pillow Massacre in the American Civil War, pp. 311-312]

HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
Nashville, Tenn., April 23, 1864.

Honorable E. M. STANTON,

Secretary of War, Washington:

SIR: Pursuant to your orders two officers are now engaged in taking affidavits and collecting testimony as to the Fort Pillow affair. They are ordered to send you direct a copy of their report and one to me.

I know well the animus of the Southern soldiery, and the truth is they cannot be restrained. The effect will be of course to make the negroes desperate, and when in turn they commit horrid acts of relation we will be relieved of the responsibility. Thus far negroes have been comparatively well behaved, and have not committed the horrid excesses and barbarities which the Southern papers so much dreaded.

I send you herewith my latest newspapers from Atlanta, of the 18th and 19th instant. In them you will find articles of interest and their own accounts of the Fort Pillow affair.

The enemy will contend that a place taken by assault is not entitled to quarter, but this rule would have justified us in an indiscriminate slaughter at Arkansas Post, Fort De Russy, and other places taken by assault. I doubt the wisdom of any fixed rule by our Government, but let soldiers affected make their rules as we progress. We will use own logic against them, as we have from the beginning of the war.

The Southern army, which is the Southern people, cares no more for our clamor than the idle wind, but they will heed the slaughter that will follow as the natural consequence of their own inhuman acts.

I am, &c.,

W. T. SHERMAN,

Major-General, Commanding.
[OR Series I, Vol 32, Part 3, p. 464]

"On May 3 Lincoln informed his cabinet that the fact of a massacre 'is now quite certain' and asked for their recommendations as to an appropriate response; the one ultimately adopted recommended that no 'extreme' action be taken until the result of Grant's Wilderness offensive in Virginia became evident. Some observers have assumed that the fact that no Union reprisal was ever ordered by Lincoln or taken by Sherman is proof that neither was convinced a massacre really had taken place; the reality, however, probably was that Sherman was one of the least sensitive toward blacks of all the supreme Federal commanders, and Lincoln was facing a tough November election in which many voters seemed to feel as much as Sherman did." [Jack Hurst, Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography, p. 180]
 
Last edited:
Forrest knew a massacre had taken place - he used the term in one of his early reports. He deleted it, much to Grant's irritation, when he understood the legal ramifications of that word - but he used it as a civilian would because that is what happened. The question for the Union was who to hang over it, and they all agreed on who they wanted to hang.
 
I see it as two separate issues.

1. Was there a massacre? Answer: Yes, undoubtedly. The historical evidence is too strong. It's undeniable if one is to use credible information.

2. Was Forrest responsible? My answer: As the commander of the forces, yes, because a commander is responsible for what his soldiers do. As someone who ordered a massacre or wanted a massacre to occur, the evidence is mixed and I don't think we can say he ordered it or wanted it to occur. It's sure possible, but then again there is evidence on both sides of the question, including some evidence he stopped it.
 
I don't think Forrest ordered or wanted a massacre, but I do think he knew there was a distinct possibility of that very thing happening. Many of his actions were different from his usual conduct because it was not a usual battle. My opinion is Forrest understood how his men felt and what the true situation was but that it was necessary for the fort to be taken to remove a base for raiders and opportunists. Not everybody inside was like that, by the way, as many civilians of both colors had taken shelter there. No matter which way he looked at it, he knew it was going to be an ugly matter. One of the truths about it was that Forrest was there because the Union would not send troops to restore order - it's embarrassing to have to send troops to control your troops who are already there! - and his was the only substantial Confederate force who could enter and exit the Union-held territory. After many complaints and clear descriptions of bad behavior in the area directed to Union authorities and no action, Forrest decided that as part of his raiding operations he would 'attend to Ft Pillow'. His superiors were fully aware of this - Ft Pillow was a legitimate military target and within the scope of his mission.
 
Since there was no official retaliation what really happened did not seem important. The bulk of General Sherman's command seemed to believe that a massacre had occurred, which did create some reprisals.
 
Back
Top