Fort Pillow

Cash, my friend, if you are saying that Forrest's troops needed additional motivation, I really doubt that was the case. TN was full of Union troops shooting their guns and burning stuff. That was motivation enough. Not even Forrest would antagonize the enemy unnecessarily. The 'enemy', my ancestors among them, were enough of a problem for Forrest without adding fuel to the flames. Having studied this man for some time now, I have no reservation in concluding that his character was not of the type that would have harmed a defenseless enemy (or even guys with guns who were not trying to harm him). Forrest himself said war was about killing. He confined himself to that concept for the most part. Killing in battle or self defense, not massacre. Murder just wasn't in his character.
 
Blue: 5fish likes to stir the pot.

Back on the subject, if Shernan's "commission"

Sherman had no such "commission." He assigned a single officer to investigate.

couldn't find Forrest at fault, that pretty much ends it for me. Sherman had every reason to command his people to find Forrest a criminal sunavaseacook.But he didn't. That means something.

To me, it means that Sherman knew that Forrest's actions, however having been beyond his control, were well within the slide given a commander. It happens. And Sherman knew and believed that. He simply left it with the USCT. That they would exact justice and retribution.

ole

Actually, Sherman didn't exonerate Forrest at all. The "investigation" was never finished by the military.

"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]

"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]

This was all pointed out in the other Fort Pillow thread, but the misconceptions remain. Sherman formed no commission. He didn't conduct the investigation, he assigned a single officer to the task. The investigation was never completed by the military, it was taken over by the Congress. They found Forrest to be culpable. Sherman never proposed not punishing Forrest. He proposed letting black troops take vengeance on rebels for it. Sherman never showed any vindictiveness toward anyone after the war. He said several times during the war that once the war was over he'd extend his hand toward every southerner in friendship. Sherman's role in the affair has been mischaracterized time after time by the SCV types and people have been swallowing that line without actually bothering to look into it to see that it's nothing but a pack of lies.

Regards,
Cash
 
Cash, my friend, if you are saying that Forrest's troops needed additional motivation

Think a minute, Larry. Why would Sherman want to give Forrest's troops additional motivation? Obviously you have misread my post.

Sherman believed black troops needed additional motivation.

Regards,
Cash
 
Yes, Cash, I was having comprehension problems with your post, hence my question. Comprehension is still sometimes a challenge for me.

Somewhere I got the notion that these black soldiers at Ft. Pillow either didn't hear or perhaps ignored the 'order' to surrender. That could be comprehended one of two ways. They made a horrible mistake either way. Was it massacre on the part of the soldiers on the attack? You'd have to ask them. Forrest said no.

Cash, you wrote: "Sherman never proposed not punishing Forrest. He proposed letting black troops take vengeance on rebels for it. Sherman never showed any vindictiveness toward anyone after the war. He said several times during the war that once the war was over he'd extend his hand toward every southerner in friendship."

Did the black troops 'take vengeance'? I don't recall many instances where black troops were the primary force in a battle. I know the Confederates weren't wandering looking for black troops or Germans to engage. They were focused more on the blue uniforms and the sound of those Sharps repeaters.

W.T. Sherman was a professional soldier. Few could effectively argue that point. Forrest was a novice soldier, though a well conditioned one. Few could effectively argue that point.

As usual, thanks for your explanation of the details under which Sherman was acting.
 
Somewhere I got the notion that these black soldiers at Ft. Pillow either didn't hear or perhaps ignored the 'order' to surrender. That could be comprehended one of two ways. They made a horrible mistake either way.

As the testimony we have shows conclusively, blacks, and some white soldiers, were murdered after they had surrendered.

Was it massacre on the part of the soldiers on the attack? You'd have to ask them. Forrest said no.

It was a massacre. The evidence doesn't prove Forrest's culpability, in my opinion. We have some testimony that he ordered it, some testimony that he tried to stop it. Unless we find some long-lost letter from Forrest saying words to the effect of, "Oh, yeah, I ordered it all right" or unless we find some corroborating eyewitness accounts that show he ordered it, we'll never know for sure.


Cash, you wrote: "Sherman never proposed not punishing Forrest. He proposed letting black troops take vengeance on rebels for it. Sherman never showed any vindictiveness toward anyone after the war. He said several times during the war that once the war was over he'd extend his hand toward every southerner in friendship."

Did the black troops 'take vengeance'? I don't recall many instances where black troops were the primary force in a battle. I know the Confederates weren't wandering looking for black troops or Germans to engage. They were focused more on the blue uniforms and the sound of those Sharps repeaters.

"Remember Fort Pillow"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lincolns/atwar/es_aaregiments.html

http://www.pamplinpark.org/press_releases/040407FortPillow.pdf

http://www.tnstate.edu/library/digital/BlacKs.htm

Regards,
Cash
 
It's a useless argument, gentlemen. Can't pin Fort Pillow on Forrest. If Sherman's minion couldn't find a reason to pin it on NBF (and I'll bet a steak dinner that Sherman would have very much liked to have named NBF a war criminal), then Sherman couldn't either. So he weaseled and said that whatever retribution was required would be handled by the USCT. In my feeble recollection, some of that was handed out.

ole
 
ole,

I seem to remeber reading somewhere in my Ft. Pillow related sources that USCT troops often stated that when their white Union officers weren't looking or about, they took no prisoners in revenge for Ft. Pillow.

Anyone recall something similiar?

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Ole!!

Blue: 5fish likes to stir the pot.

Yes, I do like to Stir cauldron!

Back on the subject, if Sherman's "commission" couldn't find Forrest at fault, that pretty much ends it for me. Sherman had every reason to command his people to find Forrest a criminal sunavaseacook.But he didn't. That means something.


I must bring an observation to this topic. Form what I have read Sherman never finished his inquiry into the "Fort Pillow Affair" for the Congress chose to investigate the "Affair". He dropped his inquiry into it and gladly it seems.

I did not know what was found out by Congress's investigation was but seems old Forrest is not off the hook.

Ole wanted to update you on the Sherman inquiry into the "Fort Pillow Affair" of "Massacre"....
 
Bobbie!

Think how the whole "Fort Pillow affair" ruined Forrest's life :( Firstly- his troops were particularly hated by USCT and were promised to be given no quarter. Secondly- it change Forrest's life forever, because since then he had to answer countless charges of various newspapers and "witnesses". As the New York Times noted in his obituary: " his principal occupation seems to have been to try and explain away the F.P. affair".
Many people didn't want to know the truth- they just wanted the scape-goat. And there are still such people today.

Bobbie you sound like Larry,

USCT would not give any quarter to Forrest men. Well! All I found was a story where it was Forrest men yelling "NO QUARTER, NO Quarter," at the union troops as they moved through the fort shooting.

The problem with the "FT. Pillow Affair" is there was no scape-goat, no truth, no closure only questions and lack of justice for the fallen.... It not the first time in war and it will not be last time in war that the fallen find no peace....

Lets be true if there was justice for the fallen at FT. Pillow then Forrest would have had peace in life... no justifying, no explaining only peace...

Am I looking for a scape-goat, no only a cauldron to stir!
 
Forrest had good reason to bear a grudge against the Tennessee Tories in Ft. Pillow. They had been terrorizing "his people" for months. He also had good reason to not be involved in the subsequent massacre.

Yes. The numbers alone indicate a much too high percentage of KIA. What the numbers do not tell us is whether Forrest encouraged it or participated in it. Therefore, I cannot conclude that he was personally guilty. Sherman reached the same conclusion. Through his minion or the Congressional Committee, he saw very quickly that Forrest couldn't be convicted. The evidence was simply not there.

Forrest's men simply got their blood boiling and vented their rage against the Tories and the USCT. That sort of thing happens and happened. If someone forgot to lower the flag or issue an order to cease fire, that's quite incidental. It was overkill. But Forrest can't be shown to be responsible for it.

ole
 
Forrest said he wasn't. I believe him. Yes, he was in command of the attacking force. That makes him the officer to whom questions would normally be directed and they were. As I recall there was a Union gunboat or two involved as well. Must have been a bit of a confusing mess. From what I 'know' of the character of this man, he could not have been expected to vent his anger at black soldiers or any other kind, unless they were threatening. He just wasn't like that. He captured, by his own count, upwards of thirty thousand prisoners in the war. Curious that none of the other incidents caused this same, I suspect political, uproar. Forrest, as has been stated before, became a civil rights proponent after the war. He liked black folks; they had afforded him a good living prior to 1859.
 
Lets be true if there was justice for the fallen at FT. Pillow then Forrest would have had peace in life... no justifying, no explaining only peace...

Actually Forrest did find peace towards the end of his life, as he accepted the faith. "In the providence of God I am in a way to discharge soon every obligation I owe to man" he said to his preacher.

Justice for the fallen? He, God, repays a man for what he has done; he brings upon him what his conduct deserves. (Job 34:11). Forrest believed so.
 
It's a useless argument, gentlemen. Can't pin Fort Pillow on Forrest.

As I've said over and over again, I don't.

If Sherman's minion couldn't find a reason to pin it on NBF (and I'll bet a steak dinner that Sherman would have very much liked to have named NBF a war criminal), then Sherman couldn't either.

Now, this is why I get frustrated sometimes. No matter how many times I show that the investigation showed there was a massacre, no matter how many times I show that the military investigation was never completed, no matter how many times I show there were no conclusions from the military investigation beyond there was a massacre, it seems nobody reads the posts because the same bogus claims are made time after time. And Sherman's bark was worse than his bite. He wasn't vindictive at all after the war. Even if Forrest came out and claimed responsibility for Fort Sumter after the war, Sherman would have sat down with Forrest and shared that steak dinner.

Regards,
Cash
 
What the numbers do not tell us is whether Forrest encouraged it or participated in it. Therefore, I cannot conclude that he was personally guilty.

And if we look at the eyewitness testimony, it conflicts as to whether he ordered it or not. If you stop right here, I'm with you all the way.

Sherman reached the same conclusion. Through his minion or the Congressional Committee, he saw very quickly that Forrest couldn't be convicted. The evidence was simply not there.

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sherman came to NO conclusions. The investigation was taken over by the Congress. The Joint Committee said Forrest was guilty, but as it was a politically tainted conclusion we can't give it much in the way of credibility. Forrest couldn't be convicted because Forrest wasn't in custody at the time.

Regards,
Cash
 
Forrest had good reason to bear a grudge against the Tennessee Tories in Ft. Pillow. They had been terrorizing "his people" for months. He also had good reason to not be involved in the subsequent massacre.

Yes. The numbers alone indicate a much too high percentage of KIA. What the numbers do not tell us is whether Forrest encouraged it or participated in it. Therefore, I cannot conclude that he was personally guilty. Sherman reached the same conclusion. Through his minion or the Congressional Committee, he saw very quickly that Forrest couldn't be convicted. The evidence was simply not there.

Forrest's men simply got their blood boiling and vented their rage against the Tories and the USCT. That sort of thing happens and happened. If someone forgot to lower the flag or issue an order to cease fire, that's quite incidental. It was overkill. But Forrest can't be shown to be responsible for it.

ole

What people need to understand to begin with is that casualtuies in such an assault are very often horrendous, whether or not there is a "massacre".

In this particular case, the redoubt was badly laid out, subject to reverse plunging fire from higher ground the Confederates occupied early in the day, while the Yankee troops could not fire into the low ground near the ramparts without exposing themselves against the skyline to fire from sharpshooters close by and under cover. It was also possible for the Rebels to get into the dry moat without being fired upon, and the six cannon on the wall could not be depressed enough to fire on the approach to the wall.

We also need to bring in the incompetence of the defense plan. After Booth was killed (9 AM) Major Bradshaw was in command. His ability is questionable: he was a lawyer, a Tennessee Unionist. He sent his brother out to arrange the details of this dumb idea with the commander of the gunboat New Era. Unfortuantely, that Captain decides it is too risky, that Forrest might turn those six guns on him and sink his gunboat, so he steams out into the river and leaves the Union troops fatally exposed on the riverbank.

Then there is the known fact that men on both sides were drinking that afternoon before the assault. And that at least some of the Rebels and the white TN Union troops were from Dyer County, knew one another, and had plenty of real and perceived offenses between them. There are stories of men -- white men -- being called out of the huddled crowd on the riverbank by name and then shot down. The Union TN troops had been riding about the county for some week flying a "black flag" and abusing the local Confederate supporters. Many of them may have been killed outright at the end, but they weren't exactly innocents.

It is also worth noting that the USCT had taken casualties that morning, being the troops Bradshaw sent out to try to retake the barracks. One USCT sergeant said they had taken heavy casualties before the 4 PM assault: probably 25 men or more already down.

Then we need to remember that there was NO surrender of the fort, and that according to both Union and Confederate testimony the firing stopped about 20 minutes after the Confederates chopped down the flag. In fact, it seems to have been Forrest and his senior officers who stopped it, with Forrest supposedly running out between the lines with his revolver and saber waving to get his men to stop.

There is no doubt some men were killed in a fashion that can be called "massacre". Many more were slaughtered because of incompetent Union leadership. And many more were killed because that is simply the nature of a hand-to-hand assault on a fortified position.

So what we know is that at least 226 Union men died, white and black. Is there anyone who wants to say which part of that was "massacre" and which merely the normal horror of war?

Tim
 
Solution!

A solution to the Ft. Pillow episode.

First, I assume the bodies of the victims of the FT. Pillow massacre are in a know resting place.

I propose that the bodies be exhumed by forensic experts and have them study the remains. I believe with modern forensic science could tell us from the remains if there was a massacre at Ft. Pillow or not.

It is the only way to bring truth and maybe justice to the poor souls lost at Ft. Pillow.

It would either clear Forrest are make him the demon he should be known for...

How bad do we want to know the truth about Ft. Pillow?
 
5fish:

Post-mortem forensics are going to prove nothing. How do you determine that this body was killed in the course of battle or killed as a wanton act of murder?

It was a vicious fight and there are legitimate reasons for the ferocity. I usually go to the statistics. Rarely is a 50 percent KIA recorded for a defending force. For me, the difference between a 30 percent KIA and a 50 percent KIA is evidence of some wanton killing. If one wishes to define wanton killing as a massacre, so be it. If one would rather define it as heat of battle, so be it. To me, many more were killed than necessary to gain control of the fort.

There are persuasive reasons for the overkill, but it remains that many were unnecessarily killed. A massacre? That might be an extreme description, but it works for me.

ole
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top