Talk:Battle of Fort Pillow

Re-organize for Neutrality?

"Not all of the prisoners who were shot were black —Major Bradford was apparently among those shot after he surrendered[11]— but Confederate anger at the thought of blacks fighting them and their initial reluctance to surrender (because many of the black troops believed they would only be killed if they surrendered in Federal uniform) resulted in a tragedy."

Since this refers to the actual events of the battle, rather than the aftermath, it should be moved to the previous section. It also seems too certain in its description of events that are disputed. I propose it should be re-written as follows:

The Union defenders were initially reluctant to surrender. It is unclear if they held out to the end, or if they did surrender and were then massacred. The black troops may have believed they would be killed if they surrendered in Federal uniform. Major Bradford was alleged to be among those shot to death after surrender[11].

I also notice that there are different numbers in this section than in the Bedford Forrest entry. If the proportion of blacks who died is the same as the proportion of whites who died (as per the Forrest entry) that suggests no massacre took place targeting blacks. On the other hand, the numbers in this article suggest that a much smaller proportion of black soldiers survived than white soldiers, which suggests that they held out much longer and/or were massacred. Perhaps some of the content from the Forrest article should be brought here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dherb (talk • contribs) 23:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Evidence

There is no evidence that Forrest participated in, authorized or allowed a massacre of union soldiers at Fort Pillow. From union reports immediately following the battle and from interviews after the war, the following facts have come out. 1) The garrison was made up of relatively inexperienced militia, a few regulars and black troops. Neither the commanding officer nor his second in command were experienced officers. 2) The commanding officer was killed fairly early in the battle. 3) The commanding officer (before his death) and/or the second in command either allowed or provided the men with whiskey from the stores in the fort. Many of the survivors state that a general state of drunkeness prevailed among the white soldiers and some of the blacks. 4) A charge was leveled that Forrest used a temporary truce t manuver his men in to better positions (a violation of the laws of war). In fact, as the union officers themselves testified, Forrest's men had achieved the position in question BEFORE the truce was declared. 5) When Forrest's men finally stormed the fort, there was no general surrender. There was, without a doubt, great animosity felt by the confederate soldiers for the black troops and it is certainly true that some atrocities occurred; but there is no evidence that it was widespread or ordered by Forrest or any of his officers. 5) While some of the union soldiers (both black and white) did surrender, many others retreated from the fort and fell back the the small beach under the bluff. They expected to be taken off by the gunboats in the river, (as previously arranged between the gunboats captain and the officers in the fort) but these were driven off by the fort's own guns, now manned by the confederates. At any rate, they continued to fight and were shot down where they stood. 6) The allegation that the confederates buried alive many of the wounded union soldiers (both black and white) is easily refuted. The burial parties were made up of union prisoners. If union soldiers were buried alive, it was done by their own troops.

I intend at some point to visit this page and add additional information and do some work here. You are correct in many of your points. This is of course a very controversial subject and great care will have to be taken in keeping it NPOV. Part of the problem is that some of the investigation of this incident took place during the war while emotions were high and investigators had obvious reason to use the investigation to inflame public opinion. I believe the evidence points to a huge chaotic mess of a battle. Both commands lost complete control of the battlefield and it deteriorated into scattered bands of men running around in the woods killing each other with no control. Forrest ended up cutting down the US flag to signal and end to the battle since no Union commanders were actually able to call a halt to it. Forrest would be the first to tell you that losing control of the battlefield and his men was his responsibility, but that it is different from promoting a massacre. Hopefully in the future, if it hasn't been done already by someone else, I can make an attempt at this page while keeping it objective.Ark30inf 04:35, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

The above is clearly wrong. The quotation from the Confederate trooper who was there on the day shows (1) that more blacks than whites were killed after surrender and (2) that Forrest actively participated. As well, how can the above writer tell that "atrocities" were committed, yet argue (as extenuation) that they were not widespread. Surely the point is that there should have been none at all, if the troops were well conducted. As well, the sobriety and experience, or lack of said qualities on the part of the Union troops has really very little to do with the behaviour of the confederate troops, unless one thinks it is an extenuation to blame the victims. As for the difference between losing control of hte battlefield and promoting a massacre, I would suggest that in this case, that might be a distinction without a difference. Finally, while it may seem credible to the writer that scattered, disorganized bands were running around in the woods, some proof of that would be nice. No report of the battle which I have seen has any such action.

Theonemacduff (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

---

--greenFyre 13:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC) I removed one of the three occurances of this sentence "Many accused the Confederates of perpetrating a massacre of the black troops, and that controversy continues today." One of the other two should prbably also be removed, but as one is embedded in a quote I leave it to someone else to decide which should go.

---

Akafish77 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)If you are talking about evidence, you should look at this page. Its one of the links, but doesn't appear to be used in the article. http://www.civilwarhome.com/ftpillow.htm I think that it is interesting that out of the 11 Union references, only 1 talks about the massacre. I would have thought that the majority of them would have. It is also interesting to note that the one that makes this claim also states that the Confederacy had 7500 men,there were 2500, and that the Union troops tried to surrender immediately. According to the rest of the accounts the Union troops were very reluctant to surrender.

---

Some believe the so-called "Fort Pillow massacre" is an indisputable fact. Others believe it is pure fiction. Personally, I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Let us consider a few facts:

1. The Congressional Joint Committee on Conduct of the War originally leveled the accusations. The men who served on this committee were notoriously vindictive, and not prone to letting facts get in their way. People still decry the tactics of the McCarthy Era, but McCarthy was a piker compared to the Joint Committee.

2. Forrest was accused of attacking while a truce was in effect. This charge has been thoroughly debunked by historians in both the North and the South. Forrest had absolutely no motive to violate the truce, since the fort was already at his mercy. Northern and Southern historians both agree that the truce had expired by the time Forrest launched his attack, and that his demand for surrender was refused.

3. Union soldiers supposedly threw down their arms and tried to surrender when the attack commenced. When the Confederates kept coming, they panicked and ran to the river. After the battle, however, a large number of Federal rifles were found along the bluffs of the river. This means the Federals were still armed when they retreated.

4. Forrest's men were accused of burying Union soldiers alive. Since the dead were buried by Union prisoners, though, this charge seems unlikely. If such things did happen, they were perpetrated by Union soldiers, not Confederate.

5. The Confederates supposedly burned black soldiers alive in their tents. However, the evidence for this is sketchy, and the few testimonies that support it are both melodramatic and inconsistent.

6. According to some accounts, black soldiers tried to surrender, but were shot down or bayoneted in cold blood. Confederate soldiers supposedly yelled, "No quarter! Kill the damned niggers!" Alas, even though I'm a proud Southerner, I believe this charge probably has something to it. The eyewitness evidence is abundant and consistent. However, many of the testimonies do not square with official records, so I think they're somewhat exaggerated.

In short, I believe some excesses were committed at Fort Pillow, and I believe some of them were racially motivated. Whether it was a "massacre" depends on how you define the term. Certainly a disproportionate number of black soldiers were killed. In fairness, though, the Union commander had refused a demand for surrender, and Forrest had warned that he would not be responsible for the consequences if his demand was refused. Thus, I think the blame can be shared by both sides.

Mergefrom Fort Pillow

Cleraly the details of the battle should be moved to this article. The only question is whether to leave what is left of the Fort Pillow article as a short article that covers Fort Pillow beyond this battle, or to merge that portion into this article as well and leave only a redirect. Caerwine 02:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Partical Union Casualty list {from Offical reports}

- 2nd US Light Colored Artillery: - Killed: - Lt Hunter; - Sgt Mills-killed while calling for mercy; - Pvt. Louis Ingraham-killed while calling for mercy; - Pvt. Peter Lake-killed while calling for mercy; - Pvt. Anserson Smith-killed while calling for mercy; - A. ALexander-sutler to "D" Battery {Civilian who fought as part of the Fort Garrison};
- Wounded: - Pvt. John Kennedy-escaped.
- POW: - 1st Sgt Joseph D. Fox
- Missing: - 1st Lt. A. M Hunter-seen in river
- Force and casualites-1 officer and 34 men. 6 enlisted men killed; 4 enlisted men wounded; 1 escaped; 5 POWS; 1 officer/18 men missing. - - 6th US Heavy Colored Artillery: - Killed: - Major Lionel F. Booth; - Captain Delos Carson-Company D; - Lt. Peter Bischoff-Company A; - Lt. John D. Hill-Company C; - Lt. John D. Smith; - Sgt Major Hennessey-killed under flag of Truce; - 1st Sgt Weaver-Company C; - Sgt Melville Jenks;
- Wounded: - Captain Charles F. Epeneter-Company A-wounded and Captured; - Lt. Henry Lipperet-Company B-wounded and escaped;
- Lt. Thomas W. McCLure-Company C-wounded and captured; - Lt. Daniel Van Horn-Company D-slightly wouned and escaped;
- Survivors: About 15 men-all but 2 wounded-escaped
- - 13th Tennessee Cavalry: - Killed: - Major William F. Bradford-reportably killed after being captured; - Captain Theodore F. Bradford; - Lt. J. Ackerstrom-Company E-{acting Regimental Quartermaster}-reportably wounded and burned to death; - Lt. Barr of Company D; - 1st Lt. Nicholas D. Logan-Company C -died POW Macon Ga 9 June 1864; - Lt. John H. Porter-died of wounds after exchanged; - Lt. Cord Revelle of Company E-killed after being captured; - Lt. Wilson of Company A-wounded and killed after surrendered;
- Wounded: - Lt. Mack J. Leaming-wounded and exchanged
- Survived: - 1st Lt. F.A. Smith-Company D - 2nd Lt. William Cleary-Company B
- - 24th Missouri Volunteers: - Captured: - Captain John T. Young -

Why is This Even Here?

Why is this within the categories of "Naval Battles during the American Civil War?" No Naval forces on other sides were involved in any kind of military action. The Union side had ships, yes, but they did not participate in the battle at all. The Confederates had only the Cavalry under Forrest, The Unions had Atillery and various others, but even the page itself admits no naval forces were involved. So why is it in this category? PRhyu (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Grant Memoirs?

General Grant has a specific reference to Fort Pillow in his Memoirs (I don't have the original Ed., but its on p. 391 of the Penguin Classics 1 volume version):

Forrest, however, fell back rapidly, and attacked the troops at Fort Pillow, a station for the protection of the navigation of the Mississippi River. The garrison consisted of a regiment of colored troops, infantry, and a detachment of Tennessee cavalry. These troops fought bravely, but were overpowered. I will leave Forrest in his dispatches to tell what he did with them.

"The river was dyed," he says, "with the blood of the slaughtered for two hundred yards. The approximate loss was upward of five hundred killed, but few of the officers escaping. My loss was about twenty killed. It is hoped that these facts will demonstrate to the Northern people that negro soldiers cannot cope with Southerners." Subsequently Forrest made a report in which he left out the part which shocks humanity to read.

Is there any particular reason why this quote isn't used in the article? I'm a bit nervous about putting it in, because people seem to get worked up about civil war stuff... Windsagio (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

             Actually, I'll 'be bold' and put it in! Windsagio (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

RESPONSE: The battle of Fort Pillow was fought in 1864. By that time Grant had moved east to command the Army of the Potomac. He wasn't within six hundred miles of Fort Pillow when the alleged "massacre" took place, so I fail to see what his memoirs add to the debate.

Petitjean1: Several of the cavalry in Forrest's command were his personal slaves and stayed with him throughout the war. This can be confirmed from the Memphis papers of the era as well as the acceptance of Black Confederates at reunions. Many such veterans were awarded old age military pensions by their states after the war. The records are fragmentary as many state records have been lost but many are available at the Ft. Smith Public Library in Ft. Smith, AR as well as the Tennessee State Archives at Nashville. It may surprise some that Blacks were often Confederate front line soldiers and did a creditable job. Estimates of Blacks in actual combat duty on the Confederate side range from 75,000 to over 200,000.

I watched a movie a couple of years ago about Black Union units at Petersburg, Virginia. What was not shown was that over half of the defenders of the Confederate works at Petersburg were also Black. There is no doubt about the heroism shown by the Black soldiers on both sides. It should be recognized that they did serve on both sides though. People have many reasons for what they do and in my study of history, I have found that little is simple. Petitjean1 (talk)Petitjean1 —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC).