What actually happened at Fort Pillow?

Apologies in advance for starting a thread on what may prove a highly controversial topic...

I've read conflicting reports on just what happened during/after Nathan Bedford Forrest's attack on Fort Pillow in 1863 - some, that the Union soldiers refused to surrender and most were killed fighting, others, that they did surrender but Forrest ordered the execution of all of the black soldiers.

Was curious if anyone could shed any light on just what happened here.
Instead of ordering that these blacks be executed ,why did he not have the provost take over these POWs and then return the to the slave handlers to be sold ?This is only a mark on Forrest just as the claim that he supported the actions of the Klan ,but no one knows that he left the Klan due to their actions which had become more radical .Did not the Confederacy have a military code as to the blacks soldiers who would be captured in combat? Was Forrest carrying this code out ?Was there an investigation after the war on what occurred here ? Slave merchant,butcher of blacks,and co founder of the KKK ,outside his military genius he seems not to have been good man to really have considered in the status of JEB,Morgan,Shelby,or even Mosby,character wise.
 
Instead of ordering that these blacks be executed ,why did he not have the provost take over these POWs and then return the to the slave handlers to be sold ?This is only a mark on Forrest just as the claim that he supported the actions of the Klan ,but no one knows that he left the Klan due to their actions which had become more radical .Did not the Confederacy have a military code as to the blacks soldiers who would be captured in combat? Was Forrest carrying this code out ?Was there an investigation after the war on what occurred here ? Slave merchant,butcher of blacks,and co founder of the KKK ,outside his military genius he seems not to have been good man to really have considered in the status of JEB,Morgan,Shelby,or even Mosby,character wise.

Whenever Forrest captured USCT he followed Confederate policy - he sent them to the proper authorities who then decided to return them to their owners or sell them or some other disposition. Forrest did not execute prisoners at any time. Your last sentence is completely in error except for the slave merchant - that he was.
 
Whenever Forrest captured USCT he followed Confederate policy - he sent them to the proper authorities who then decided to return them to their owners or sell them or some other disposition. Forrest did not execute prisoners at any time. Your last sentence is completely in error except for the slave merchant - that he was.
Then what happened at Ft.Pillow as to the black soldiers was more of what happens at the height of brutal combat ,that these soldiers took it upon themselves to take no prisoners ? What of the white Union soldiers who where captured did they receive the same hostile treatment? Do you know of a book which renders a honest account of Ft.Pillow? Was there a trial or at least an investigation after the war on this battle?
 
I don't think anyone actually knows. Furthermore, there is no one alive who witnessed it who can be asked. However, LOTS of people have their opinions of what happened there.
 
Then what happened at Ft.Pillow as to the black soldiers was more of what happens at the height of brutal combat ,that these soldiers took it upon themselves to take no prisoners ? What of the white Union soldiers who where captured did they receive the same hostile treatment? Do you know of a book which renders a honest account of Ft.Pillow? Was there a trial or at least an investigation after the war on this battle?
I believe the majority of the white yankee soldiers at fort pillow were unionists from tennessee and despised by Forrest's men in all likelihood they would probably not have been treated well
 
I have read Confederate accounts saying that retreating federals continued firing at Forrests men keeping the battle going but as others have said I don't think we will ever know some of Forrests occupations before and after the war may have contributed to some of the stories of what may or may not have happened at fort pillow
 
I think @diane may be able to confirm, but I do believe Forrest requested an investigation into this battle and was denied.

There were two Congressional investigations, and both were inconclusive as to whether or not Confederate forces had conducted a massacre or executed USCT after capture. They did conclude that Forrest was not responsible for the disaster. Both also had very serious flaws and missing information. This was why Forrest wanted to be charged with a crime and then tried for it. It would have enabled him to bring forth a defense - which would definitely have been quite enlightening - as well as enable the prosecution to do the same. Forrest was confident his name would be cleared. That trial did not happen.
 
There were two Congressional investigations, and both were inconclusive as to whether or not Confederate forces had conducted a massacre or executed USCT after capture. They did conclude that Forrest was not responsible for the disaster. Both also had very serious flaws and missing information. This was why Forrest wanted to be charged with a crime and then tried for it. It would have enabled him to bring forth a defense - which would definitely have been quite enlightening - as well as enable the prosecution to do the same. Forrest was confident his name would be cleared. That trial did not happen.
Thanks Diane. That was the clarification I was looking for. I think a lot of folks aren't aware of some of these things, like Forrest being open to a trial.
 
Apologies in advance for starting a thread on what may prove a highly controversial topic...

I've read conflicting reports on just what happened during/after Nathan Bedford Forrest's attack on Fort Pillow in 1863 - some, that the Union soldiers refused to surrender and most were killed fighting, others, that they did surrender but Forrest ordered the execution of all of the black soldiers.

Was curious if anyone could shed any light on just what happened here.

I've been mining the newspaper accounts. I found one eyewitness account and the New York Times.
 

Attachments

  • Ft__Pillow_eyewitness_.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 64
  • The_New_York_Times_Sat__Apr_16__1864_.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 58
If Forrest is Guilty So Is Sherman For burning up Atlanta ….
How do you make such a statement when Sherman's acts were acts of war and the actions at Ft Pillow were actions of individuals against unarmed soldiers? Understand that the burning of Southern properties was the method that armies have used for generations before Sherman to convince civilians to continue the that they would be visited by the horrors of wars,the HORSEMEN would ride though their fields and cities.
 
How do you make such a statement when Sherman's acts were acts of war and the actions at Ft Pillow were actions of individuals against unarmed soldiers? Understand that the burning of Southern properties was the method that armies have used for generations before Sherman to convince civilians to continue the that they would be visited by the horrors of wars,the HORSEMEN would ride though their fields and cities.
war is hell !!! I agree with nether
 
How do you make such a statement when Sherman's acts were acts of war and the actions at Ft Pillow were actions of individuals against unarmed soldiers? Understand that the burning of Southern properties was the method that armies have used for generations before Sherman to convince civilians to continue the that they would be visited by the horrors of wars,the HORSEMEN would ride though their fields and cities.
war is hell !!! I agree with nether
I believe it was Sherman who ordered the execution of 10 civilians during the Atlanta Campaign.
That is not within the rules of war.
 
Lieber Code

60. It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter. No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give, and therefore will not expect, quarter; but a commander is permitted to direct his troops to give no quarter, in great straits, when his own salvation makes it impossible to cumber himself with prisoners.

62. All troops of the enemy known or discovered to give no quarter in general, or to any portion of the army, receive none.

During a truce at Fort Pillow, Union troops threatened Confederates with "no quarter." So how does the Lieber Code apply in this situation? The "no quarter" threat has several sources - both Confederate and Union.
 
Last edited:
I believe it was Sherman who ordered the execution of 10 civilians during the Atlanta Campaign.
That is not within the rules of war.

Sherman didn't execute them, he expelled them. When in Tennessee, he had a set rule that for every pot shot somebody took at his men, ten civilians would be deported from the area. That makes refugees...who aren't happy... and that's one of the many reasons I think Sherman bears some considerable responsibility for Ft Pillow. Everybody focuses on Forrest - not surprising since he was the commander - but there was a strong case to be made against Sherman himself. Because of guerrilla activities around Randolph, Tennessee, he expelled the civilians and literally razed the town leaving one house to mark the place. This was not uncalled for - there were two forts in the vicinity, one of which Forrest trained at when he first enlisted, but it's sure tough luck for the civilians displaced. Grant knew of Sherman's operations in West Tennessee. So...a serious investigation of Ft Pillow would have included some interesting individuals.
 
Back
Top