This week in history: Fort Pillow's garrison is massacred

I am very dubious of newspaper reports during the war. An article published after the war may have more validity but it would depend on the source, etc.

That is one of the problems with viewing the events of Fort Pillow in that there were so many views and opinnions that were from so many different sources, some of whom were not evern present.

Like everyone in a 2016 discussion forum, for instance.
 
this sounds like both Forrest and Chalmers were there and inciting the troops, or at least could see what was going on and did not stop it.

Forrest wasn't "virtually illiterate" either. He had a creative attitude towards spelling, but apart from that was reasonably literate for a man of that era.

As for Forrest not being with the men when the massacre occurred, he was busy messing with guns trying to get a shot at the gunboat.

When I was first doing research in an attempt to discover if Forrest was related to us (as the incorrect family legend claimed), I began digging more into Forrest's life. This was back in 1976. I had access to physical copies of the New York papers (I think it was the 'Times') and read everything I could find on him, especially the investigations that took place after the war (A lot of those investigations stemmed from him possibly running for office). I came across numerous books with stories about him, such as Lacfadio Hearn's account of his funeral. Very interesting stuff. The biographies that had been written about him were far less interesting.

I mention the above, because I only took notes on genealogy and have no idea how I came across my understanding of what occurred at Fort Pillow, but nevertheless, I will state it. My understanding was that Forrests' men massacred the blacks within the fort and that Forrest was elsewhere, but aware of what was going on. The newspapers were intent on building a story that Forrest was there watching and inciting, as they were trying to build a case against him running for public office, but there was no evidence of what they claimed. I believe it turned out that simply being an officer in the Confederacy was enough to ban him, but the papers helped with public opinion.

I'm curious why no one has mentioned reasons for the massacre;e.g-if Forrest was NOT inciting, why was it happening and why did Forrest feel that he could not stop it? Sure, there is no excuse for murder, but Forrest's men didn't murder everyone they came across. I would give my opinion, which is based on the research I did in 1976, but I no longer have any of those sources to support what I would say, and I do not feel like dealing with that card being played. So someone else please do so - this is obvious stuff that you can find simply by googling. Or are we being politically correct?
 
I mention the above, because I only took notes on genealogy and have no idea how I came across my understanding of what occurred at Fort Pillow, but nevertheless, I will state it. My understanding was that Forrests' men massacred the blacks within the fort and that Forrest was elsewhere, but aware of what was going on. The newspapers were intent on building a story that Forrest was there watching and inciting, as they were trying to build a case against him running for public office, but there was no evidence of what they claimed. I believe it turned out that simply being an officer in the Confederacy was enough to ban him, but the papers helped with public opinion.

I'm curious why no one has mentioned reasons for the massacre;e.g-if Forrest was NOT inciting, why was it happening and why did Forrest feel that he could not stop it? Sure, there is no excuse for murder, but Forrest's men didn't murder everyone they came across. I would give my opinion, which is based on the research I did in 1976, but I no longer have any of those sources to support what I would say, and I do not feel like dealing with that card being played. So someone else please do so - this is obvious stuff that you can find simply by googling. Or are we being politically correct?

Cpl Forrest.... There are several forums on Forrest and Fort Pillow. One thread that I started tried to keep the discussion strictly on the battle details and the casualties.
Now this forum was posted just as a reminder of the anniversary. I don't think anyone intended this to go into the discussion again. So don't read the lack of response to this forum as the Moderators trying to squealch any conversation about the accusations and such.
Everything you said is pretty accurate. Forrest was there at the battle but some accounts place him further back during the final assault and/or pre-occupied with turing the Union field pieces to fire on the gunboat.
If you want to read the most recent book that asks who is to blame for the events, I would recommend the book
"The River Was Dyed with Blood" by Brian Steel Wills.

Steve
 
Cpl Forrest.... There are several forums on Forrest and Fort Pillow. One thread that I started tried to keep the discussion strictly on the battle details and the casualties.
Now this forum was posted just as a reminder of the anniversary. I don't think anyone intended this to go into the discussion again. So don't read the lack of response to this forum as the Moderators trying to squealch any conversation about the accusations and such.
Everything you said is pretty accurate. Forrest was there at the battle but some accounts place him further back during the final assault and/or pre-occupied with turing the Union field pieces to fire on the gunboat.
If you want to read the most recent book that asks who is to blame for the events, I would recommend the book
"The River Was Dyed with Blood" by Brian Steel Wills.

Steve

Thanks Steve! After a few messy discussion attempts I have tried to avoid anything but photo discussions, and read no other CW forums, so I missed the intent here. Thanks for explaining.
 
Thanks for explaining.

Well, I may be the one who hi-jacked this thread. I began by posting a letter about General Chalmers from the Union Doctor who was present at the post-battle truce. I probably shouldn't have posted my slides from my PP talk, but I wanted to give some follow-up to those who were interested about it.

Feel free to search for the other threads and post any comments. Some are quite lengthy so it will keep you busy reading for a long time.
 
Well, I may be the one who hi-jacked this thread. I began by posting a letter about General Chalmers from the Union Doctor who was present at the post-battle truce. I probably shouldn't have posted my slides from my PP talk, but I wanted to give some follow-up to those who were interested about it.

Feel free to search for the other threads and post any comments. Some are quite lengthy so it will keep you busy reading for a long time.

Thanks, but that's unlikely - I try to avoid re-fighting the Civil War whenever possible.
 
I read "River Was Dyed Red With Blood." It was a good read. Fair and balanced IMHO. At the beginning of the book he sites the battle of Waxhaw, Battle of King's Mountain, Battle of San Jacinto, and goes all the way to Normandy and operation Market Garden all the way to the Ma Lai massacre in Viet Nam. All of these were massacres that American soldiers (British, Confederate and American) perpetrated. It really put Fort Pillow in perspective.
 
I read "River Was Dyed Red With Blood." It was a good read. Fair and balanced IMHO.
Brian Wills had published several books about Forrest and may have stated that Forrest and all the Confederates were innocent of any attrocity. I don't really know why he wrote the book, but it appears he had doubts about his previous conviction and was really trying to find the truth.

Interesting that the Congress Joint Committe on the Conduct of the War investigated the actions at Fort Pillow. This committee was formed in 1861 to investigate the Union defeat at Battle of Balls' Bluff. The scenerio was almost the same: Union forces were over-run and escaped down a steep bluff and swam across a river while under gunfire. But the difference was the Committee investigated this battle because of the failures of commanders and to find a general to blame----not to pass judgement on the Confederate commanders.
 
Please feel free to read the related threads in the Forrest forum and sub forums such as this one (Fort Pillow). The hosts of the forum have worked hard to provide all possible information....and Dixie Rifles' great research on casualties. If you have questions, please throw them out there and we'll try to help.

We do try to keep a rein on this forum...the rough and tumble isn't our game, but expressing your opinion is welcomed!
 
Indeed so, like my co-hosts said! There's a couple of things I want to take off on but haven't - as Dixie said, it was an anniversary marker. I'm a pirate - I've hijacked so many threads I can't count them! :x3:
 
Steve, what are your thoughts on the account of the battle provided by Andrew Ward in "River Run Red"?
(I seem to have over-looked your question.)

One of my main reference books for details one units and time-line and people. I may not agree with every detail of the assault on the fort as he presents different views. My copy has every soldier's name highlighted and a lot of notes in the margin. I found two errors he made about individual soldiers. He identified one prisoner as going to Andersonville and then being aboard the Sultana but he got the soldier's records incorrect.
I highly recommend it as there is no other book that focuses solely on this battle.
Cimprich's book covers much more of the history before and after the 1864 battle and in much less detail.
 
Back
Top