My Fort Pillow Theory!

Artemis Barca

Private
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Location
Memphis
Since this is a civil war specific forum. I'm gonna assume that I can skip some of the normal backstory and go into actual analysis and of course, spectulation lol.


Well I think everyone can agree for better or worse, Nathan Bedford Forrest was hands down the most captivating figure of the war. Part man part and arguably the best pure fighter the Western Hemisphere ever produced.


Please don't take that as me praising ANYTHING resembling the mans moral compass... I don't think most of the best warriors in history were people you would want to move in next door lol..

Well the most controversial act , perpetrated by the wars most controversial figure was the battle of/massacare of Fort Pillow.

In a nutshell...

There is a small fort called fort pillow. That has changed hands multiple times. With soldiers on both sides losing comrades in arms as the fort changed hands. It was also garrisoned by an "integrated " US army as the fort had become a semi safe haven for escaped slaves. So you had a few hundred white and a few hundred black troops.

Nathan Bedford Forrest would led a raid to take back the fort and end up charged as a war criminal.

The actual events at fort pillow are hotels debated.

But basically everyone agrees on this...

Forrest had the fort TOTALLY out numbered, surrounded and out gunned. He offered the fort terms and promised if they surrenedered they would be treated as POW's but if he was forced to charge the battlements, no quarter would be given. The Union negotiator asked if the POW status would include the black troops?

The confederacy had a VERY HARDLINE policy tward black union soldiers. They were to be considered escape slaves and either hung or returned into bondage.

Well Forrest goes out on a limb and against the wishes of his subordinates, promises the black soldiers POW status as well.

Well the union troops holding the fort don't buy it. They all assume the black troops will be executed.

(Personally I doubt forrests ruling would have stood anyway. I assume that sets a precedent far above forrests pay grade and would have been swiftly over turned, but that's kinda irrelevant to the topic.)

So the union troops reject forrests offer. The raid is carried out as planned.

Forrest loses about 12 men taking the fort and the union troops fight until the fort is completely overwhelmed and then attempt to surrender. Only to be chased down and slaughtered by the confederate troops.

Which is an obvious breach of the articles of war.. even if an offer of surrender is rejected. A killing surrendering soldiers is still a war crime.

Appearently "no take backsies" is not a get out of jail free card for the articles of war lol.

So pretty much everyone agrees on those things. The controversy stems from the actions of Forrest himself.

The traditional union story goes..

Forrest personally ordered that no quarter was to be given and led the charge executing countless surrendering prisoners by his own hand.

The traditional confederate side is that Forrest was at the rear of the military action and in fact was forced to draw saber and pistol and put his own body in between his men and any survivors to stop the slaughter once he arrived.

(My theory..)

I think it all happened....


I think Forrest was ****** about his terms being rejected... the fight was already over. There was no need for his men to risk their lives taking a fort so thoroughly out gunned.

Breach of the articles of war or not. For basically all of human history you had until the seize equipment touched the walls to surrender and get quarter. Once the attacking force touches your walls. All bets are off and the commanding officer will usually allow the soldiers to rape and pillage whatever city or fort.

Forrest had gone out on a very long, very thin limb when he offered POW status to the black troops and from his own mouth said the consequences of that rejection would be "no quarter given."

I completely reject the notion that the closest thing to an Alexander the civil War produced chose to remain at the rear.. Forrest was as much of a frontline commander as they come.

I think Forrest was mad they rejected his "very good" (from his pov) terms . Which turned into a righteous fury after losing the dozen or so men as his unit charged the fort.


So imho the union story is likely true. Yes he probably did sanction and participate in the slaughter..

BUT WAIT!

However, I think after the initial clash of battle was over and the executions of the surrendering soldiers began in earnest. It got gratuitous really fast.

I think "no quarter given" seemed like a good idea in theory, but after Forrests adrenaline and blood lust began to subside the reality of the horror he was witnessing began to set in... and along with that came the realization that he was the commanding officer and thus every inch of it was 100% his responsibility.

I think Forrest then commanded his men to stop, but for his men the bloodlust was still in full swing.

They ignored his commands and the situation required Forrest to pull his saber and pistol and threaten his own men to end the carnage.


Which imho makes almost everyone's account work.

Thoughts.
 
My take would be its one of those unfortunate incidents of war, however if one wants to assign responsibility I'd think it should go to Booth and Bradford, they chose to not surrender, then failed to maintain command and control.

IMO were people shot while trying to flee or surrender, I'd say yes.....However if at the same time there's groups of union soldiers returning fire and groups trying to flee into the river to fight another a day.....both are still legitimate targets and the fight is still on. Trying to surrender DURING a firefight is never going to be safe.

I was actually surprised when I visited Fort Pillow years ago on the way to Shiloh and Corinth and the rangers there downplayed the whole massacre angle, and said archeological evidence supported there was a stand being made at the river
 
My take would be its one of those unfortunate incidents of war, however if one wants to assign responsibility I'd think it should go to Booth and Bradford, they chose to not surrender, then failed to maintain command and control.

IMO were people shot while trying to flee or surrender, I'd say yes.....However if at the same time there's groups of union soldiers returning fire and groups trying to flee into the river to fight another a day.....both are still legitimate targets and the fight is still on. Trying to surrender DURING a firefight is never going to be safe.

I was actually surprised when I visited Fort Pillow years ago on the way to Shiloh and Corinth and the rangers there downplayed the whole massacre angle, and said archeological evidence supported there was a stand being made at the river

I've heard exactly the opposite..

That the people in the fort was a fairly shady affair, but those on the riverbank were obviously slaughtered.

Also by his own account Forrest said no quarter would be given. Which even the threat of is likely a war crime anyway.

Also I think it is fair to assume that Forrests men would have heard of the rejected terms and the consequences offered.

The union troops were crazy out numbered. So I don't think it is fair to assume that the majority were willing to fight to the death.
 
Well obviously from my experience visiting there, the people who work there and I would assume have fairly well researched it, seemed to disagree, you however are entitled to your opinion, I'm not going to argue, just shared the experience I had.
Which is fair..

But I'm going from the accounts of Shelby foote and other big wig historians who have based their life around the historical record surrounding the civil war.
 
I've heard exactly the opposite..

That the people in the fort was a fairly shady affair, but those on the riverbank were obviously slaughtered.

Also by his own account Forrest said no quarter would be given. Which even the threat of is likely a war crime anyway.

Also I think it is fair to assume that Forrests men would have heard of the rejected terms and the consequences offered.

The union troops were crazy out numbered. So I don't think it is fair to assume that the majority were willing to fight to the death.

Forrest regularly threatened no quarter and because of his fierce reputation, it often led to surrender without bloodshed. Had the Federal troops in Ft. Pillow lived up to their surrender and didn't start to again shoot at Forrest's troops, we would not be having this discussion. I believe your theory to be in error.
 
I've heard exactly the opposite..

That the people in the fort was a fairly shady affair, but those on the riverbank were obviously slaughtered.

Also by his own account Forrest said no quarter would be given. Which even the threat of is likely a war crime anyway.

Also I think it is fair to assume that Forrests men would have heard of the rejected terms and the consequences offered.

The union troops were crazy out numbered. So I don't think it is fair to assume that the majority were willing to fight to the death.
I would add the rangers never implied the majority were fighting to the death, didn't think it would be taken otherwise......just however it would go to booth/bradfords failure to maintain command and control.....it doesn't matter if the ones making a stand are a decided minority, if your trying to surrender you need to be able to get all of your troops to cease fire, not just some majority %
 
Last edited:
A good number of the Yankee Soldiers, including most of the Black Soldiers were thoroughly intoxicated !
The U.S Black Soldiers taunted,jeered,shouted Obsenities, made Obsene gestures at Forrest's Men, daring them to attack- they refused to obey Forrest's command to "Surrender or die".
Forrest's Men were unaware that the Yankees were drunk, Forrest's order was to "Shoot at everything Blue betwixt wind & water until yonder flag comes down". Hence his Soldiers let loose a murderous fire upon them, cutting a huge number down.
Finally, a lot of the Union defenders were Confederate Deserters, & fellow Tennesseeans who were known to have captured, tortured & murdered individuals from Forrest's Cavalry.
 
Which is fair..

But I'm going from the accounts of Shelby foote and other big wig historians who have based their life around the historical record surrounding the civil war.

Ummmm. Shelby Foote, however much I loved hearing his voice and love his books as a way to start investigating history....is problematical simply due to lack of footnotes (no pun intended) and documentation. I suspect our member @diane will be here later to visit about this....Dixie Rifles has done a painstaking study which you can find elsewhere in this forum, and we have gathered every single bit of info we can find on the topic...my own theory is that if Forrest had wanted them dead, they would have been. All of them. Might take a look on the Fort Pillow threads and find out what happened to him during the battle. :smile: And quotes/evidence to back up your theory is always welcome (and expected) from new members.

Welcome to Civilwartalk!
 
Forrest regularly threatened no quarter and because of his fierce reputation, it often led to surrender without bloodshed. Had the Federal troops in Ft. Pillow lived up to their surrender and didn't start to again shoot at Forrest's troops, we would not be having this discussion. I believe your theory to be in error.


You haven't refuted my theory.. only claimed it was justified.

I made no claims tward right or wrong. Only laid out a scenerio where the conflicting accounts might all have happened.
 
Hmm... The premise of your theory starts with the battle itself and the commander of the Confederate forces. You need to know the background of this battle - why was Forrest there? Yes, it was a useful post on the Mississippi but its usefulness was lessened considerably with the fall of Vicksburg. William Bradford and Lionel Booth need to be considered into this. Who were they? In the case of Lionel Booth, he was one George Lanning - family squabble, it appears, caused him to enlist in the army under another name. He was in command of the two colored artillery units that showed up in response to Confederate activity in the area - Forrest was on a month-long raiding expedition to close down garrisons and raid Union depots and railways. Ft Pillow, though, was more than just another stop on this road. It was one of the bases of Fielding Hurst's operations and the main base of Bradford's. Now - who is William Bradford? He was a lawyer before the war, a homegrown Yankee - a Tory, as Forrest termed it - and commander of the 13th TN USA. He was not a soldier and his men were well known for pillaging the villages and killing everyone - and that was when they were feeling generous. Many of the men in Forrest's command had issues with this officer and his barbarians - there had been talk of court-martials and other prospective punishments about the activities of these troops. These troops were all under the command of Hurlbut. Some time after Ft Pillow, Hurlbut was replaced with Washburn but Hurlbut was the one who ordered his troops to 'grub up West Tennessee'. There were large and looming reasons for Forrest to be at Ft Pillow besides he didn't like black folk joining up with the enemy.

Skipping to the very, very end of this unsavory affair, we have to ask why there were two Congressional inquiries without dam-ing evidence of war crimes by anyone - Forrest wasn't the only commander at Ft Pillow accused of bad behavior - but there was never a trial. Forrest demanded one - loud and long he asked for charges to be made and a court to be convened to 'clear my name of charges as black as the hearts of the men who made them'. Never got his day in court...because, perhaps, it would bring out questions about what the heck was Hurlbut up to! Apologies to Grosse Point Blanc but: "If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there."
 
Absolutely will
Ummmm. Shelby Foote, however much I loved hearing his voice and love his books as a way to start investigating history....is problematical simply due to lack of footnotes (no pun intended) and documentation. I suspect our member @diane will be here later to visit about this....Dixie Rifles has done a painstaking study which you can find elsewhere in this forum, and we have gathered every single bit of info we can find on the topic...my own theory is that if Forrest had wanted them dead, they would have been. All of them. Might take a look on the Fort Pillow threads and find out what happened to him during the battle. :smile: And quotes/evidence to back up your theory is always welcome (and expected) from new members.

Welcome to Civilwartalk!

Absolutely will look at the old threads. I'm new to this site and just throwing out all the weird ideas I've had that a "layman" would never begine to understand.

If you didn't read my post, its long..My theory was that Forrest did want them dead..

His very generous terms had been rejected and then he loses men in taking a fort that had no chance of holding out.

However, once he watched the first few executions , it got gratuitous fast.

Then countermanding his original order of "no quarter given . Required him actually pulling sword and pistol and threatening his own men to establish order.

Kinda making all the accounts work and no one really lying from their pov.

I was not assigning blame.
 
I had he
Hmm... The premise of your theory starts with the battle itself and the commander of the Confederate forces. You need to know the background of this battle - why was Forrest there? Yes, it was a useful post on the Mississippi but its usefulness was lessened considerably with the fall of Vicksburg. William Bradford and Lionel Booth need to be considered into this. Who were they? In the case of Lionel Booth, he was one George Lanning - family squabble, it appears, caused him to enlist in the army under another name. He was in command of the two colored artillery units that showed up in response to Confederate activity in the area - Forrest was on a month-long raiding expedition to close down garrisons and raid Union depots and railways. Ft Pillow, though, was more than just another stop on this road. It was one of the bases of Fielding Hurst's operations and the main base of Bradford's. Now - who is William Bradford? He was a lawyer before the war, a homegrown Yankee - a Tory, as Forrest termed it - and commander of the 13th TN USA. He was not a soldier and his men were well known for pillaging the villages and killing everyone - and that was when they were feeling generous. Many of the men in Forrest's command had issues with this officer and his barbarians - there had been talk of court-martials and other prospective punishments about the activities of these troops. These troops were all under the command of Hurlbut. Some time after Ft Pillow, Hurlbut was replaced with Washburn but Hurlbut was the one who ordered his troops to 'grub up West Tennessee'. There were large and looming reasons for Forrest to be at Ft Pillow besides he didn't like black folk joining up with the enemy.

Skipping to the very, very end of this unsavory affair, we have to ask why there were two Congressional inquiries without dam-ing evidence of war crimes by anyone - Forrest wasn't the only commander at Ft Pillow accused of bad behavior - but there was never a trial. Forrest demanded one - loud and long he asked for charges to be made and a court to be convened to 'clear my name of charges as black as the hearts of the men who made them'. Never got his day in court...because, perhaps, it would bring out questions about what the heck was Hurlbut up to! Apologies to Grosse Point Blanc but: "If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there."
Absolutely will


Absolutely will look at the old threads. I'm new to this site and just throwing out all the weird ideas I've had that a "layman" would never begine to understand.

If you didn't read my post, its long..My theory was that Forrest did want them dead..

His very generous terms had been rejected and then he loses men in taking a fort that had no chance of holding out.

However, once he watched the first few executions , it got gratuitous fast.

Then countermanding his original order of "no quarter given . Required him actually pulling sword and pistol and threatening his own men to establish order.

Kinda making all the accounts work and no one really lying from their pov.

I was not assigning blame.
i was under the assumption that Forrest was attacking the fort to replenish his dwindling supplies.

I am not placing blame. In fact I think my theory is kinda based on "would a real life human being react that way?"


Just after hearing the many conflicting stories it donned on me that they could all really work.

The men go in angry thinking "no quarter". I assume even if Forrest didn't specifically order it. Word of the rejected terms and their consequences would have filtered down.

So once the killing started. It required Forrest to put his own body between him and those surivors as he struggled to regain order.

Something that could have happened on any battle field, in any era, to any commander.
 
You haven't refuted my theory.. only claimed it was justified.

I wasn't trying to refute it nor am I compelled to do so. It is wrong, but I'll let others use their efforts to try to convince you.

I made no claims tward right or wrong. Only laid out a scenerio where the conflicting accounts might all have happened.

I made no claim that you did.
 
I had he


i was under the assumption that Forrest was attacking the fort to replenish his dwindling supplies.

I am not placing blame. In fact I think my theory is kinda based on "would a real life human being react that way?"


Just after hearing the many conflicting stories it donned on me that they could all really work.

The men go in angry thinking "no quarter". I assume even if Forrest didn't specifically order it. Word of the rejected terms and their consequences would have filtered down.

So once the killing started. It required Forrest to put his own body between him and those surivors as he struggled to regain order.

Something that could have happened on any battle field, in any era, to any commander.

Forrest stated for the record that his official purpose in attacking the fort was to get his troops the supplies that were stored at the fort. This he accomplished. He always included a threat in his surrender demands - which frequently had the desired effect of obtaining a fairly bloodless surrender. However, if the opposition decided to fight and lost, that threat was never carried out. (Sherman noted this, too.) In the case of Ft Pillow, Forrest was well aware of the ugly situation and the fact that it would be an ugly battle. Therefore his surrender demand included an unusual statement - if you do not surrender I cannot be responsible for what happens to your command. He also agreed to something he never agreed to and that was the promise he would treat the colored troops the same as the white troops - as POWs and as legitimate soldiers, not as property to be returned to its owners or re-sold. Bradford chose to play games. He had reason for this - his life wasn't worth a plugged nickle as a prisoner of Forrest's because of the hatred for him among a goodly portion of those troops. As it turned out, he was justified in this fear - he didn't make it to Duckworth's command and Forrest simply said he had no idea what happened to Bradford. True - he didn't. He certainly could add two and two, though, but truthfully he didn't know. Bradford simply put his own skin ahead of those of his troops. If any of the commanders there could be accused of racism it was Bradford. That is another thing one has to understand about Ft Pillow - race relations at that time. Nothing made a white Southern man angrier than an armed Southern black man. Many of the black troops had been recruited in the area and were literally shooting at their former masters. Forrest recognized several of the dead as men who had passed through his slave market.

In their memoirs, both Grant and Sherman expressed their conclusions about this battle/massacre. Grant was furious and held Forrest responsible; Sherman did not and wondered what the fort was doing in operation since he had ordered it closed. Lincoln used it as leverage to force Davis to treat USCTs the same as whites, and it did lead to Grant's stopping the exchange of prisoners. There's no doubt there was a massacre primarily of USCTs. Chalmers, the commander on the ground at the height of the battle, was the guy who lost control of the troops. Forrest had three or four broken ribs and was in the rear being tended to by medics - Sherman noted that he was too far in the rear to hear or see what was going on in the fort. When he did know of it, he risked his life riding with broken ribs to go into the fort and stop the killing. (His ribs were broken when a cannon ball hit his horse - it reared and he couldn't kick clear fast enough so it rolled over him.)

The worst atrocities that occurred, and they were horrific, were likely done by civilians in the area who had hatred toward the people in the fort, whether they were military or civilian. Forrest had no control over the civilians or what they did. Booth and his men shouldn't have even been there, which made the tragedy even worse. However, one good thing came of this mess. Booth's widow came to Ft Pillow after the battle to identify and claim her husband, apply for his pension and rebury him at home. She discovered that the widows of the black troops could do none of this, not even claim their husbands, because their marriages were not recognized. She went to bat for these women and took it up with Lincoln. Presently, the widows of the USCTs were able to claim their loved ones' bodies and their pensions just like the white widows.
 
Forrest stated for the record that his official purpose in attacking the fort was to get his troops the supplies that were stored at the fort. This he accomplished. He always included a threat in his surrender demands - which frequently had the desired effect of obtaining a fairly bloodless surrender. However, if the opposition decided to fight and lost, that threat was never carried out. (Sherman noted this, too.) In the case of Ft Pillow, Forrest was well aware of the ugly situation and the fact that it would be an ugly battle. Therefore his surrender demand included an unusual statement - if you do not surrender I cannot be responsible for what happens to your command. He also agreed to something he never agreed to and that was the promise he would treat the colored troops the same as the white troops - as POWs and as legitimate soldiers, not as property to be returned to its owners or re-sold. Bradford chose to play games. He had reason for this - his life wasn't worth a plugged nickle as a prisoner of Forrest's because of the hatred for him among a goodly portion of those troops. As it turned out, he was justified in this fear - he didn't make it to Duckworth's command and Forrest simply said he had no idea what happened to Bradford. True - he didn't. He certainly could add two and two, though, but truthfully he didn't know. Bradford simply put his own skin ahead of those of his troops. If any of the commanders there could be accused of racism it was Bradford. That is another thing one has to understand about Ft Pillow - race relations at that time. Nothing made a white Southern man angrier than an armed Southern black man. Many of the black troops had been recruited in the area and were literally shooting at their former masters. Forrest recognized several of the dead as men who had passed through his slave market.

In their memoirs, both Grant and Sherman expressed their conclusions about this battle/massacre. Grant was furious and held Forrest responsible; Sherman did not and wondered what the fort was doing in operation since he had ordered it closed. Lincoln used it as leverage to force Davis to treat USCTs the same as whites, and it did lead to Grant's stopping the exchange of prisoners. There's no doubt there was a massacre primarily of USCTs. Chalmers, the commander on the ground at the height of the battle, was the guy who lost control of the troops. Forrest had three or four broken ribs and was in the rear being tended to by medics - Sherman noted that he was too far in the rear to hear or see what was going on in the fort. When he did know of it, he risked his life riding with broken ribs to go into the fort and stop the killing. (His ribs were broken when a cannon ball hit his horse - it reared and he couldn't kick clear fast enough so it rolled over him.)

The worst atrocities that occurred, and they were horrific, were likely done by civilians in the area who had hatred toward the people in the fort, whether they were military or civilian. Forrest had no control over the civilians or what they did. Booth and his men shouldn't have even been there, which made the tragedy even worse. However, one good thing came of this mess. Booth's widow came to Ft Pillow after the battle to identify and claim her husband, apply for his pension and rebury him at home. She discovered that the widows of the black troops could do none of this, not even claim their husbands, because their marriages were not recognized. She went to bat for these women and took it up with Lincoln. Presently, the widows of the USCTs were able to claim their loved ones' bodies and their pensions just like the white widows.



I'm still reading your post, but while I have someone so knowledgeable about the situation's attention.

How big was Forrest offering POW status to the black troops??

What later ramifications would that have set??

Would it set a precedent??

Would it have been over turned??

Was he risking himself politically or career wise??
 
Back
Top