The River Was Dyed with Blood: Nathan Bedford Forrest and Fort Pillow

This is relevant to events at Fort Pillow and elsewhere. In the spring of 1863 the Confederate Congress approved a joint resolution that (1) identified the Emancipation Proclamation and subsequent actions of the of the U.S. government regarding emancipation and the arming of African Americans as being beyond the bounds of civilized warfare; (2) deemed the organization, support or encouragement of emancipation or military action against the Confederacy an act of servile insurrection (think Nat Turner); (3) provided for trial of white officers by military tribunal, with execution as the standard punishment; and (4) that African Americans caught bearing arms against the Confederacy were to be turned over to state governments for civilian trial as insurrectionists. This is the stated policy of the Confederate government, adopted almost a year before Fort Pillow.

_________

May 1, 1863

[No. 5.] – Joint Resolution on the Subject of Retaliation.

Resolved by the Congress of the Confederate States of America, in response to a message of the President, transmitted to Congress at the commencement of the present session, that, in the opinion of Congress, the commissioned officers of the enemy ought not to be delivered to the authorities of the respective States as suggested in the said message, but all captives taken by Confederate forces ought to be dealt with and disposed of by the Confederate Government.

Sec. 2. That, in the judgment of Congress, the proclamations of the President of the United States dated respectively September twenty-second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and January first, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, and other measures of the Government of the United States and of its authorities, commanders and forces, designed or intending to emancipate slaves in the Confederate States, or to abduct such slaves, or to incite them to insurrection, or to employ negroes [sic.] in war against the Confederate States, or to overthrow the institution of African slavery, and bring on a servile war in these States, would, if successful, produced atrocious consequences, and they are inconsistent with the spirit of those usage which in modern warfare prevail among civilized nations; they may, therefore, be properly and lawfully repressed by retaliation.

Sec. 3. That in every case, wherein, during the present war, any violation of the laws or usages of war among civilized nations shall be, or has been, done and perpetrated by those acting under the authority of the Government of the United States, on the persons or property of citizens of the Confederate States, or of those under the protection or in the land or naval service of the Confederate States, or of any State of the Confederacy, the President of the Confederate States is hereby authorized to cause full and ample retaliation to be made for every such violation, in such manner and to such extent as he may think proper.

Sec. 4. That every white person, being a commissioned officer, or acting as such, who, during the present war, shall command nergroes or mulattoes in arms against the Confederate States, or who shall arm, train, organize or prepare negroes or mulattoes for military service against the Confederate States, or who shall voluntarily aid negroes or mulattoes in any military enterprize, attack or conflict in such service, shall be deemed as inciting servile insurrection, and shall, if captured, by put to death, or be otherwise punished at the discretion of the court.

Sec. 5. Every person, being a commissioned officer, or acting as such in the service of the enemy, who shall, during the present war, excite, attempt to excite, or cause to be excited, a servile insurrection, or who shall incite, or cause to be incited, a slave to rebel, shall, if captured, be put to death, or be otherwise punished at the discretion of the court.

Sec. 6. Every person charged with an office punishable under the preceding resolutions shall, during the present war, br tried before the military court attached to the army or corps by the troops of which he shall have been captured, or by such other military court as the President may direct, and in such manner and under such regulations as the President shall prescribe, and, after conviction, the President may commutate the punishment in such manner and on such terms as he may deem proper.

Sec. 7. All negroes and mulattoes who shall be engaged in war, or be taken in arms against the Confederate States, or shall give aid or comfort to the enemies of the Confederate States, shall, when captured in the Confederate States, be delivered to the authorities of the State or States in which they shall be captured, and dealt with according to the present or future laws of such State or States.

Approved May 1, 1863.
 
Weren't a lot of the Union Tennesseans at Fort Pillow Ex-Confederates who had changed sides - so there were scores to be settled.
 
Ward says,
"... the demand's wording would echo in Forrest's subsequent demands at Paducah and Fort Pillow, and as such provide some of the most dam[n]ing evidence of premeditation in the carnage at Fort Pillow three weeks later. Treatment according to the rules of "civilized warfare" is not a negotiating point but should obtain whether or not a garrison puts up resistance. But unless the note was intended merely as a bluff, it betrayed the belief of Forrest and his officers..." pg 111​
Is Ward suggesting that carrying out the "no quarter" threat was against the standards of "civilized warfare" at that time? I thought I had read that it still happened back then. There were examples given IIRC.

Another thing ....... didn't Congress start investigating within a week or so? I can't help but wonder whether the goal was the truth or to make hay out of the situation.
 
Is Ward suggesting that carrying out the "no quarter" threat was against the standards of "civilized warfare" at that time? I thought I had read that it still happened back then. There were examples given IIRC.

Another thing ....... didn't Congress start investigating within a week or so? I can't help but wonder whether the goal was the truth or to make hay out of the situation.
Ward was comparing Forrest's threat of "no quarter" to Duckworth's threat (when he pretended to be Forrest) that said, "I have your garrison completely surrounded, and demand an unconditional surrender of your forces. If you comply with the demand, you are promised the treatment due to prisoners of war, according to the usages in civilized warfare. If you persist in the defense, you must take the consequences."

Ward said what I quoted above. From Andy's post it sounds like Forrest and Duckworth felt they did not have to abide by the laws of civilized warfare for the reasons quoted.

This is relevant to events at Fort Pillow and elsewhere. In the spring of 1863 the Confederate Congress approved a joint resolution that (1) identified the Emancipation Proclamation and subsequent actions of the of the U.S. government regarding emancipation and the arming of African Americans as being beyond the bounds of civilized warfare; (2) deemed the organization, support or encouragement of emancipation or military action against the Confederacy an act of servile insurrection (think Nat Turner); (3) provided for trial of white officers by military tribunal, with execution as the standard punishment; and (4) that African Americans caught bearing arms against the Confederacy were to be turned over to state governments for civilian trial as insurrectionists. This is the stated policy of the Confederate government, adopted almost a year before Fort Pillow.

_________

May 1, 1863

[No. 5.] – Joint Resolution on the Subject of Retaliation.

Resolved by the Congress of the Confederate States of America, in response to a message of the President, transmitted to Congress at the commencement of the present session, that, in the opinion of Congress, the commissioned officers of the enemy ought not to be delivered to the authorities of the respective States as suggested in the said message, but all captives taken by Confederate forces ought to be dealt with and disposed of by the Confederate Government.

Sec. 2. That, in the judgment of Congress, the proclamations of the President of the United States dated respectively September twenty-second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and January first, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, and other measures of the Government of the United States and of its authorities, commanders and forces, designed or intending to emancipate slaves in the Confederate States, or to abduct such slaves, or to incite them to insurrection, or to employ negroes [sic.] in war against the Confederate States, or to overthrow the institution of African slavery, and bring on a servile war in these States, would, if successful, produced atrocious consequences, and they are inconsistent with the spirit of those usage which in modern warfare prevail among civilized nations; they may, therefore, be properly and lawfully repressed by retaliation.

Sec. 3. That in every case, wherein, during the present war, any violation of the laws or usages of war among civilized nations shall be, or has been, done and perpetrated by those acting under the authority of the Government of the United States, on the persons or property of citizens of the Confederate States, or of those under the protection or in the land or naval service of the Confederate States, or of any State of the Confederacy, the President of the Confederate States is hereby authorized to cause full and ample retaliation to be made for every such violation, in such manner and to such extent as he may think proper.

Sec. 4. That every white person, being a commissioned officer, or acting as such, who, during the present war, shall command nergroes or mulattoes in arms against the Confederate States, or who shall arm, train, organize or prepare negroes or mulattoes for military service against the Confederate States, or who shall voluntarily aid negroes or mulattoes in any military enterprize, attack or conflict in such service, shall be deemed as inciting servile insurrection, and shall, if captured, by put to death, or be otherwise punished at the discretion of the court.

Sec. 5. Every person, being a commissioned officer, or acting as such in the service of the enemy, who shall, during the present war, excite, attempt to excite, or cause to be excited, a servile insurrection, or who shall incite, or cause to be incited, a slave to rebel, shall, if captured, be put to death, or be otherwise punished at the discretion of the court.

Sec. 6. Every person charged with an office punishable under the preceding resolutions shall, during the present war, br tried before the military court attached to the army or corps by the troops of which he shall have been captured, or by such other military court as the President may direct, and in such manner and under such regulations as the President shall prescribe, and, after conviction, the President may commutate the punishment in such manner and on such terms as he may deem proper.

Sec. 7. All negroes and mulattoes who shall be engaged in war, or be taken in arms against the Confederate States, or shall give aid or comfort to the enemies of the Confederate States, shall, when captured in the Confederate States, be delivered to the authorities of the State or States in which they shall be captured, and dealt with according to the present or future laws of such State or States.

Approved May 1, 1863.
This quote of yours shows how brave the fellow in
TerryB's post a day or so ago was to admit to being an officer in a African American regiment.
 
From Andy's post it sounds like Forrest and Duckworth felt they did not have to abide by the laws of civilized warfare for the reasons quoted.
I think that's exactly right. We cannot read Forrest's mind, of course, but it was formal policy of the Confederate government that putting black troops under arms was beyond the limits of "civilized" warfare, and amounted to slave insurrection, something that was invariably put down with the most brutal reprisals possible. The legislation itself called for "full and ample retaliation to be made for every such violation."

This is not a new idea -- my own state's constitution from that time explicitly exempted acts of insurrection from the due process of law:

SEC. 4. In the prosecution of slaves for crimes of a higher grade than petit larceny, the Legislature shall have no power to deprive them of a trial by jury, except in cases arising under the laws concerning insurrection of slaves.

SEC. 5. Any person who shall maliciously dismember, or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offence had been committed upon a free white person, and on the like proof; except when such slave has committed, or attempted to commit, a rape on a white female, or in case of insurrection of such slave.
 
I have reports (hafta go and look at the source) where civillians complained of "atrocities" commited by troops garrisoned at Ft Pillow.....Such atrocities vary from stealing chickens, etc.....I have an account where a barrel of whiskey was "confiscated", then rolled down a hill by the Yanks, in order to destroy it, but, instead, the Yanks filled their canteens with the whiskey!!.......Imagine, a daily patrol is sent out from the fort.....What do those troopers do??......Do they ride down the road, ride back and report??....Or do they "capture" food stuffs, etc??......
I'm not finding a story of a whiskey barrel so far in Ward, did just come across this though,
"The charges against the black troops were almost certainly false. After the war not a single one of the many claims against the garrison made by the local citizens for compensation involved any of the black regiments. ... The very presence of black troops at Fort Pillow, however and the attitude of the freedmen towards their former owners, were enough to outrage local whites. It is possible, though unlikely, that the contraband from Fort Pillow committed depredations, but any rapes would almost certainly have been reported to the Union authorities by local Unionist slaveholders eager to prove that blacks were unworthy of freedom. It is far likelier that this charge was invented either beforehand by local secessionists to whip up Forrest and his men, or afterward by soldiers seeking to explain and excuse the slaughter of black troops that was to follow, for it was a reflex in that time and place to counter allegations of white barbarity with perfervid accusations of black men assaulting white woman." Ward pg 152.​
 
I had some teachers that had eyes in the back of their head ... at least I thought they did. They always knew what I was up to even when they were facing the other way. :whistling:

That reminds me of a viewing I attended for a much loved, highly respected, elementary school teacher. There were maybe a half dozen of us men and women standing before our teacher's casket sharing precious thoughts and memories. One of us said "I have to admit I harbored a strong urge to ask the mortician if she really did have eyes in the back of her head or tiny amplifiers implanted in her ears." We all enjoyed a controlled polite respectful muffled chuckle and warm smiles then one of the women said "I swear she just smiled after you said that."
 
Reading a lot of these articles tend to make you wonder why they did not accept the surrender terms if Forrest was promising to actually follow the rules of "civilized warfare." This is why I'm glad the River Run Red book told the story of Fort Union first. Fort Union appeared to be the same situation, but the guns surrounding the fort turned out to be Quaker guns, the commander turned out to be Duckworth pretending to be Forrest and they ended up not being treated very well when they surrendered, more soldiers ended up dying in prison than possibly would have died had they stayed and fought. So with that in mind it's understandable that Paducah and Pillow did not want to accept the terms. It worked out somewhat better for Paducah than it did for Pillow though.
 
Ward was comparing Forrest's threat of "no quarter" to Duckworth's threat (when he pretended to be Forrest) that said, "I have your garrison completely surrounded, and demand an unconditional surrender of your forces. If you comply with the demand, you are promised the treatment due to prisoners of war, according to the usages in civilized warfare. If you persist in the defense, you must take the consequences."

Ward said what I quoted above. From Andy's post it sounds like Forrest and Duckworth felt they did not have to abide by the laws of civilized warfare for the reasons quoted.

Stating that you will treat "prisoners of war, according to the usages in civilized warfare" if you surrender your force doesn't rule out the possibility that the "no quarter" concept under those specific circumstances was acceptable in those days.

Wiki says it was part of a 1907 Hague Conference .....which doesn't mean that it was totally acceptable up until that time either.
 
if Forrest was promising to actually follow the rules of "civilized warfare."

"Civilized warfare" is even more of an oxymoron than "military intelligence." It's always been far more of an ideal than a reality.

Not saying that's a good thing. But overall, the most civilized warfare is that war which is averted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lee
I don't want to resurrect all the previous discussions on the events but I had to reply to a few comments.

"River Run Red" is a great resource on the battle. Highly recommend it.

As I am working on a bio of Abe Buford, and as Abe Buford was one of Forrest's division commanders at Fort Pillow, this book is a must.
But Buford was NOT at the battle. Only General Chalmers and one of his brigade commanders McCulloch and one of Buford's brigade commanders, Tyree Bell.

What I keep circling back to, though, is Forrest's own initial report, in which he claims "upwards of 500" Federals killed, versus 20 of his own men. He also uses the word "slaughter" to describe the event. Really, you don't get a 25:1 kill ratio in any kind of a straight-up fight. Once you recognize that, what happened at Fort Pillow becomes largely a matter of the words one chooses to describe it.

I forgot that Forrest claimed 500 killed. There was a Union general(not present, of course) who also used the number of 500 and even stated ALL occupants were killed. The records just does NOT support that. Ward in RRR shows that isn't the case. Just last night, I picked up Cimprich's book "Fort Pillow, a Civil War Massacre and Public Memory" and reviewed his table in the back. Under the Categories of Wounded, Sick, Captured and Escaped he gave a total of 316. This is out of a total strength of 593-to-611 men. That is less than 49% Killed or Mortally Wounded.

As far as I know, based on "River Run Red" ....civilians, once the battle commenced, either ran off or boarded a skiff to row to the Arkansas side of the river......Some did hide, but were removed from harm's way......
That is true for most civilians, mainly women. So most of the illustrations that show several women in the fight are inaccurate. There were reports of one woman who was killed.
However RRR also points out several who were CAC's---Civilian Armed Combatants. One example is Charles Robinson, who left his story in an article in the Minnesota Historical Society print entitled: "Fort Pillow 'Massacre'; Observations of a Minnesotan". He was handed an Army tunic and a rifle and sent to the line. After the fort was over-run, he simply removed his tunic and the Confederates let him go. {Edited: So where does he fit in the Statistics?}

Edited: 'Tis the season to be jolly; so I really don't want to get into a thread warfare on this. I will be ANGRY if I don't see a receipt from Amazon for Wills' new book under the Tree.
 
Last edited:
Is Ward suggesting that carrying out the "no quarter" threat was against the standards of "civilized warfare" at that time? I thought I had read that it still happened back then. There were examples given IIRC.

Another thing ....... didn't Congress start investigating within a week or so? I can't help but wonder whether the goal was the truth or to make hay out of the situation.

I remembered where I had read of historical examples.....it was In Jordan and Prior's Campaigns of....NBF. I pulled it off the shelf and didn't recognize any of them....... they may have dated back hundreds of years.

Granted the book is very pro-Forrest so I wouldn't neccesarily rely on it any more than I would the Congressional "investigation".

River Runs Red is next on my reading list after I finish Bearrs Battle of Brices Crossroads. BTW are you all familiar with the Remember Fort Pillow badges that the Colored troops wore at that battle and the allegation that Union officer's incited them to avenge Fort Pillow?
 
In Jordan and Prior's Campaigns of....NBF. I . . . .
Granted the book is very pro-Forrest so I wouldn't neccesarily rely on it any more than I would the Congressional "investigation".

I also wonder about that book in the way it is written. However, in the Appendix you will find a roster of names of the 226 prisoners captured by Forrest. I've researched this list and I have found most of the names on the list in the Service Records. The OR's mention a list of prisoners but the list is omitted from the OR's. I guess this list in J&P is THE list.

There are a few names that I still cannot find: one is Pvt. Lewis van Eagle of the 6 USCHA. I've tried several alternate spellings. I wonder if some of the PW's submitted aliases in order to hide something.
 
Both the white troopers in the 13 Tenn Cav(US) and the black artillerists in the 6 USCHA had connections---and bad blood---with the Mississippians and Tennesseans serving under Chalmers and Forrest. Referring to another recent topic, some of the blacks had previously been slaves that Forrest traded before the war. Some of the Union cavalrymen had deserted from the same Confederate units that captured them.
 
Back
Top