River Run Red

RebProf

Cadet
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Ward, Andrew. Rifer Run Red. The Fort Pillow Massacre in the American Civil War. New York: Viking Press, 2005.

Andrew Ward has written several books including novels, an account of the 1857 Indian revolt against the British, and a history of the Fisk Jubilee Singers of Fisk University in Nashville. This is his first attempt at civil war history and it shows. Ward's status as a tyro historian leads him into numerous mistakes which destroy his credibility even as his novelist's instince for story leads him to confuse folklore with history. For example:
Did you know Bedford Forrest has a female officer in his command? Ward says so.
Have you heard that "numerous" cavalrymen were courtmatrialed for having sex with their horses? Ward gives us this information.
Were you aware that the fast moving raider, Forrest, was always accompanied by a buggy carrying an iron cook-stove? Ward sys so.
Have you been introduced to Forrest's black mistress and his two biracial sons? Ward insists they are real.
Of course, the evidence for this folklore soon turns to smoke and mirrors when pursued by an historian, but Ward presents it allas fact.

Substantial erroes are equally prevalent in this work. Ward often cites material from primary sources but his end-notes refer the reader to a secondary work for the primary quote. This is a sloppy habit often practiced by amaetur historians and frequently leads the amateur to misquote the material.
Ward contends that two-thirds of Forrest's men came from families which held 18 or more slaves. This statement is based on a post-war survey to which about a dozen of Forrest's former command responded, most of the respondents being officers. The census of 1860 points out that only 2.5% of all white Southern families held as many as ten slaves, but Ward is so anxious to connect the South and Forrest with slavery that he twists the facts he presents.
On page 92 we are told that "while in Vicksburg, Forrest's men fed their horses on mulberry leaves." Forrest and his command were never in Vicksburg. This statement is pure fiction.
Ward asserts that at Fort Pillow many Union soldiers were wounded by a "murderous" load consisting of "buckshot and minie balls." Buck and Ball, as any competent civil war historian knows, was fired from smooth-bore weapons and utilized a round ball. Buckshot ruins the rifling in the barrel. Forrest's men did not carry smooth-bores on April 12, 1864. Ward does not know civil war history or he is making up facts.
In discussing the report of Captain Charles Anderson of Forrest's Staff, Ward says "six cartride boxes were fouind under the bluff." Ward dismisses this as evidence of continued Union resistance after evacuating the fort and claims the cartridge boxes were left behind by wounded men. However, Anderson did not say "six cartridge boxes;" he found SIX BOXES OF CARTRIDGES. Six cartridge boxes would have held 240 rounds maximum but six boxes of cartridges would have held 3,000 rounds. Why does Ward deliberately twist Anderson's statement? Is it ignorance, not knowing the difference between cartridge boxes and boxes of cartridges, or is it lying?
Ward accepts at face value all the evidence given before the Senate Investigating Committee on Fort Pillow although modern historians see this evidence as fatally tainted by war-time propaganda. All Confederate evidence is summarily dismissed by Ward. In his introduction Ward says he is fascinated with massacres and this personal bias has affected his treatment of the evidence.
Incidentally, Waed quotes testimony from the Senate Committee which contradicts his thesis. Although Ward contends that all Union soldiers had surrendered by the time they ran down the bluff at the rear of the fort many of those giving the testimony stated they retained their weapons as they ran down the bluff.

This book will soon be on the "remaindered" shelf at your bookstore. If you want to read it, wait for that. The work will never take its place among the standard works on the topic.

RebProf
 
Reb Prof- Thanks for this review and critique. The last thing we need is to read this sort of tripe when there are so many more worthy works on our to-read lists. This one shall 'remainder' untouched by me. ed
 
Back
Top