Massacre at Fort Pillow

[Hannibal]

Well, according to the report by the US Congress. It said that as many as 400 were killed at Fort Pillow. That was part of their reasoning to call it a 'massacre'
. Because 'massacre' usually indicates few survivors if any.

Thats under a 50% casualty rate, or a 50+% survival rate.

 

[Tom]

Thats under a 50% casualty rate, or a 50+% survival rate.

?

400 of 570 is 70%. That was their claim.

 

[Tom]

"RESOLUTION in relation to the occupation of Forts Sumter and Pickens.

Resolved by the Confederate States of America in Congress assembled, That it is the sense of this Congress that immediate steps should be taken to obtain possession of Forts Sumter and Pickens, by the authority of this Government, either by negotiations or force, as early as practicable, and that the President is hereby authorized to make all necessary military preparations for carrying this resolution into effect." Passed February 15, 1861.

Source: Official Records, Vol. 1, p. 258.

 

[Hannibal]

From AI: "On February 15, 1861, the Provisional Confederate Congress in Montgomery, Alabama, adopted a resolution advising President Jefferson Davis to take possession of Fort Sumter. They authorized him to acquire the fort either through peaceful negotiation or by military force as early as practicable, and to make all necessary military preparations to carry this out."

Thats not a declaration of war. CSA recognised it was at war after Sumpter, May 6th
"An act recognizing the existence of war between the United States and the Confederate States"



SC was requested to to refrain from use of force unless the fort was reinforced, which was why when lincoln had secret order issued to do just that, c 4k troops and Art hidden the victual fleet, the CSA acted.

"That the State of South Carolina be requested to abstain from any hostile attack upon Fort Sumter until the Provisional President of the Confederate States shall be inaugurated, unless an attempt should be made to reinforee the fort by the Government
of the -United States, in which event the authorities of South Carolina are hereby requested to take the necessary steps to prevent it and to attack the fort if necessary to secure that end.


Resolved, That the power to declare and engage in war is expressly and exclusively
delegated to this Congress, subject to the exceptions contained in the second clause
of the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution.
(2) Resolved, That the foregoing resolution be telegraphed to the governors of
each of the States of the Confederacy.

CS Congress never issued a dow, it passed a resolution after sumpter that recognised it had been invaded and that as a rseult a state of war existed.

So it, the CSA never used a war power.

 

[Hannibal]

?

400 of 570 is 70%. That was their claim.

No that is your claim, its not their claim at all. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/41787/41787-h/41787-h.htm


"It was at Fort Pillow, however, that the brutality and cruelty of the rebels were most fearfully exhibited. The garrison there, according to the last returns received at headquarters, amounted to 19 officers and 538 enlisted men, of whom 262 were colored troops, comprising one battalion of the 6th United States heavy artillery, (formerly called the 1st Alabama artillery,) of colored troops, under command of Major L. F. Booth; one section of the 2d United States light artillery, colored, and one battalion of the 13th Tennessee cavalry, white, commanded by Major W. F. Bradford. Major Booth was the ranking officer, and was in command of the post. "

Of the men, from 300 to 400 are known to have been killed at Fort Pillow, of whom, at least, 300 were murdered in cold blood after the post was in possession of the rebels, and our men had thrown down their arms and ceased to offer resistance.

One problem with this report is that it was recruiting at the camp, so is an undercount, while also over counting casulaties.

 

[Hannibal]

"RESOLUTION in relation to the occupation of Forts Sumter and Pickens.

Resolved by the Confederate States of America in Congress assembled, That it is the sense of this Congress that immediate steps should be taken to obtain possession of Forts Sumter and Pickens, by the authority of this Government, either by negotiations or force, as early as practicable, and that the President is hereby authorized to make all necessary military preparations for carrying this resolution into effect." Passed February 15, 1861.

Source: Official Records, Vol. 1, p. 258.

Whats wrong with using the full account, instead of asking AI etc ?, ttps://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llscd/llcc001/llcc001.pdf The CSA congress never issued a dow, so was never using a war power arising from sovereignty in reducing sumter.

 

[Tom]

Thats not a declaration of war. CSA recognised it was at war after Sumpter, May 6th

What authorizes a declaration of war? A Constitution?

They didn't have one at the time.

 

[Hannibal]

What authorizes a declaration of war? A Constitution?

They didn't have one at the time.

CSA congress, and no not a Constitution, it tells POTUS that right is not his but is with congress, and yes they did have it.

 

[Tom]

No that is your claim, its not their claim at all. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/41787/41787-h/41787-h.htm
.....
Of the men, from 300 to 400 are known to have been killed at Fort Pillow, of whom, at least, 300 were murdered in cold blood after the post was in possession of the rebels, and our men had thrown down their arms and ceased to offer resistance.

Huh?

I said the report had "as many as 400" killed at Fort Pillow.

Can you not read your own post that says 400?

 

[Hannibal]

Huh?

I said the report had "as many as 400".

Can you not read your own post that says 400?

I did, which was why used the correct % of the math for 400, while you made up some other numbers, you will note that the report shows 100 of them occurred before then during combat and refers to 300 as being the number who were the victims of a massacre, why you can you not read or use math is the question you should be thinking about.

 

[Hannibal]

Only 47 of the 337 were know to have died after the surrender, a far cry from the JCCoTw found, https://www.custermen.com/DixieBoys/FtPillowUSA.htm#KilledRoster

Summary of Prisoners

Total Number of Prisoners: 226
The following summary of Casualties and Prisoners is taken from “Hancock’s Diary”, which uses “The Campaigns of General Nathan Forrest” as a resource:
Wounded transferred to Platte Valley: ~70 Officers and Men
Prisoners (unwounded) 7 Offices & 219 Enlisted Men (or 56 Blacks and 163 Whites = 226)
Escaped in a skiff : ~ 25 unknown
Total Survivors accounted for: 296 or about half the garrison.

 

[Tom]

Only 47 of the 337 were know to have died after the surrender, a far cry from the JCCoTw found, https://www.custermen.com/DixieBoys/FtPillowUSA.htm#KilledRoster

Summary of Prisoners

Here are the number of survivors (395) that I found just by looking through the Official Records and a few other sources:

226
Prisoners (Life of Forrest by Wyeth, pp.359-60)

30 at Memphis unwounded
"Of the 221 officers and men [6th US Heavy Artillery] who went from here, there are thirty here who escaped, and some twenty or more above at Mound City and Cairo." -Lt. Col. Thomas H. Harris, Memphis, TN, April 26, 1865 (US Congress Report No. 65, p.97)

89 wounded taken aboard the Platte Valley (April 13)
"The wounded I placed on board the Platte Valley for transportation to the New Madrid [Missouri] Hospital."
"We removed 69 wounded from the battlefield, besides 20 I took on board before the flag of truce was sent in by the enemy."
-Acting Master W. Ferguson, USN (OR Navies, Series 1, Volume 26, p.222)

20 wounded taken aboard the Red Rover (April 13)
"After the Platte Valley stood up the river with all the wounded found in the fort and around on the contested ground some 20 more came in from the rebel lines badly wounded. These were received by Fleet Surgeon Pinkney on board the Red Rover, which vessel fortunately came down the river at this time." -Acting Master W. Ferguson, USN (OR Navies, Series 1, Volume 26, p.222)

10 wounded taken aboard the Moose (April 14)
"...when Captain Fitch [USS Moose] returned from Fort Pillow he brought away with him refugees, women and children, who had been left there, and ten wounded soldiers who had been there for two days."
-Capt. A. M. Pennock, USN (US Congress Report No. 65, p.60)

20 deserted on the night of April 11
"...there were some twenty of the Tenn. Cav. deserted during the night of the 11th."
-Surgeon Charles Fitch, 13th Tennessee Cavalry (Personal Papers of Physicians, Record Group 94, National Archives)

.

 

[5fish]

Well, according to the report by the US Congress. It said that as many as 400 were killed at Fort Pillow. That was part of their reasoning to call it a 'massacre'

Here, does ft Pillow meet the definition... yes...

A massacre is the violent, cruel, and indiscriminate killing of a large number of people or animals, especially those who are defenseless or unable to resist. The term often emphasizes the brutality or lack of necessity of the killings.

 

[Hannibal]

Here are the number of survivors (395) that I found just by looking through the Official Records and a few other sources:

226

Prisoners (Life of Forrest by Wyeth, pp.359-60)

The use of the OR on disc so you can word search is certainly a good way to conduct research, much better than a certain forum member ( pun intended) to copy paste wikki as your own work, without citation, and not know its bollocks.

Wyeth has much to say, including the demands for surrender or Forrest cannot be accountable for what may then happen, for several other forts he took/failed to take in the campaign. The relevant point here is that once you decline to surrender, you survive at discretion of the other side as you have absolved them their obligation from taking you as a pow. Wyeth aslo gives examples of Union Officers negotiating in bad faith, perfidy, during such negotiations, under the law this allows at the tactical level, summary execution as they are no longer a legal combatant with any rights.

CSA fought the war under the existing US Articles of war, in that there is nothing about not giving quarter to a soldier, ie its not an illegal act, those who surrender only to then fight in the same engagement are outside the protection of the law, Mil law only applies to members of the military, slaves in arms were subject to the states laws on slave insurrection, which basically meant summary execution, be it by burning at the stake as in NY or beheading etc.

Mil law does not define a massacre, it uses unlawful killing of 3 or more as a mass killing. Politicians and media use the descriptive term for dramatic effect. The intent to commit unlawful killing is not present at Pillow as the offer to surrender and be treated as pows was declined, and Forrest makes clear that absolves him from what may then occure, ( page 319 Wyeth) the blame rests with the Officer who made that choice, as it was a vote by all the officers they all share the responsibility.

30 at Memphis unwounded

"Of the 221 officers and men [6th US Heavy Artillery] who went from here, there are thirty here who escaped, and some twenty or more above at Mound City and Cairo." -Lt. Col. Thomas H. Harris, Memphis, TN, April 26, 1865 (US Congress Report No. 65, p.97)



89 wounded taken aboard the Platte Valley (April 13)

"The wounded I placed on board the Platte Valley for transportation to the New Madrid [Missouri] Hospital."

"We removed 69 wounded from the battlefield, besides 20 I took on board before the flag of truce was sent in by the enemy."

-Acting Master W. Ferguson, USN (OR Navies, Series 1, Volume 26, p.222)



20 wounded taken aboard the Red Rover (April 13)

"After the Platte Valley stood up the river with all the wounded found in the fort and around on the contested ground some 20 more came in from the rebel lines badly wounded. These were received by Fleet Surgeon Pinkney on board the Red Rover, which vessel fortunately came down the river at this time." -Acting Master W. Ferguson, USN (OR Navies, Series 1, Volume 26, p.222)



10 wounded taken aboard the Moose (April 14)

"...when Captain Fitch [USS Moose] returned from Fort Pillow he brought away with him refugees, women and children, who had been left there, and ten wounded soldiers who had been there for two days."

-Capt. A. M. Pennock, USN (US Congress Report No. 65, p.60)



20 deserted on the night of April 11

"...there were some twenty of the Tenn. Cav. deserted during the night of the 11th."

-Surgeon Charles Fitch, 13th Tennessee Cavalry (Personal Papers of Physicians, Record Group 94, National Archives)

Fitch is one of the more interesting ones in the OR, the full account is here and has a lot of relevant information example he has 69 as not yet mustered in, so they are not soldiers with any protection of the law, but are slaves in insurrection out of 700 total, ( compare to Wyeth page 31 total of 557) still a 50% casualty rate, so nothing oit of the ordinary in terms of casualties for an engagement. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/environment/archaeology/documents/staffpubs/arch_Cimprich and Mianfort 1985.pdf



February, 1862, Major General Curtis issued a general order against CS guerrillas, US later Liber code exempted them from pow status, ie the could be summarily executed.
"persons guilty of such acts, when captured,
will not be treated as ordinary prisoners of war; they will not be shot but will suffer the ignominious punishment of being hung as felons."

1864 Custer executes by firing squad 4 of Mosbys men, and hangs 2 more, Mosby asks lee permission, which he gives to likewise execute 6 of custers officer held as pows. This tit for tat forced Lincoln to abandon his General Order No. 252 that CS pows would be executed in retaliation, as he found the CS was just as capable of meeting his bluff with more dead pows.

Several Union commanders, B Butler were termed "outlaw and common enemy of mankind" by the CSA, no protection of the law if taken, just execution for their war crimes.

This, excessive actions, is what happens when the government makes all the people the objectives of war.

 

[Hannibal]

Loading…

dn720608.ca.archive.org

So, was Forrest command the victim of a massacre here?, or was it just another mil engagement with dis proportionate losses..

On the 25th of March, the enemy, under the rebel Generals Forrest, Buford, Harris, and Thompson, estimated at over 6,000 men, made an attack on Paducah,. Kentucky, which post was occupied by Colonel S. G. Hicks, 40th Illinois regiment, with 655 men. Our forces retired into Fort Anderson, and there made their stand—assisted by some gunboats belonging to the command of Captain Shirk of the navy—successfully repelling the attacks of the enemy. Failing to make any impression upon our forces, Forrest then demanded an unconditional surrender, closing his communication to Colonel Hicks in these words : " If you. surrender you shall be treated as prisoners of war, but if I have to storm your works you may expect no quarter." This demand and threat was met by a refusal on the part of Colonel Hicks to surrender, he stating that he had been placed there by his government to defend that post, and he should do so. Therebels made three other assaults that same day, but were repulsed with heavy loss each time, the rebel General Thompson being killed in the last assault. The enemy retired the next day, having suffered a loss estimated at three hundred killed, and from 1,000 to 1,200 wounded. The loss on our side was 14 killed and 46 wounded.

Lets not forget, the laws of custom and usage allowed no quarter when taking place under siege that refused to surrender. Fort Mercer (1777) is an example., or that US Grants use of unconditional surrender meant you could be summarily executed if he so chose to do so.

 

[5fish]

Lets not forget, the laws of custom and usage allowed no quarter when taking place under siege that refused to surrender. Fort Mercer (1777) is an example., or that US Grants use of unconditional surrender meant you could be summarily executed if he so chose to do so.

"No quarter" is an escalation many times more evil than the assumption that you may be summarily executed... No confederate soldier ever feared Grant executing them...

General Ulysses S. Grant never ordered the mass execution of captured Confederate soldiers. Instead, he was widely known for his pragmatic and remarkably lenient approach to surrender, famously paroling thousands of captured Confederates and sending them home

 

[5fish]

I like to point out that on his raid, he threatened three times to show "no quarter" to Union forts... One fort surrendered, another fort successfully fought off Forrest, and the third fort fought and fell to Forrest, and then was massacred... We could be talking about other massacres if things had turned out otherwise...


Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest made threats of "no quarter" to secure surrenders at least three documented times during the Civil War. [1]
His notable ultimatums include:

1. Paducah, Kentucky (March 25, 1864): Forrest sent a demand to Colonel Stephen G. Hicks stating: "If you surrender you shall be treated as prisoners of war, but if I have to storm your works you may expect no quarter." [1]
2. Union City, Tennessee (March 24, 1864): Forrest used a similar tactic, warning the Union garrison that they would receive no quarter if they forced him to storm the fortifications. [1, 2, 3]
3. Fort Pillow, Tennessee (April 12, 1864): Prior to the infamous battle, Forrest sent a truce flag to Major Lionel F. Booth, warning: "The Federal army has defended the fort... If you surrender, you shall be treated as prisoners of war. But if I have to storm your works, you may expect no quarter." [1, 2, 3]

In addition to these specific tactical ultimatums, it was well-known among both Union and Confederate troops that Forrest used the threat of no quarter as psychological warfare throughout his campaigns. While Forrest's surrender demands were often used as bluffs to force capitulation, the situation at Fort Pillow famously devolved into a horrific slaughter, which was heavily investigated by the United States Congress. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

 

[diane]

Pardon me, gentlemen, but I'd just like to make a comment. There is a lot of new information and recent research done about Ft Pillow. Very excellent, too.

 

[Hannibal]

Pardon me, gentlemen, but I'd just like to make a comment. There is a lot of new information and recent research done about Ft Pillow. Very excellent, too.

Why is new information needed?, what is that changes the facts already know and distorted, example some of those claimed to be dead were still alve and drawing pay and waiting to give testimony, why are those who died of wounds now killed on the day of combat, you know what doing that means?, it means over 5k US died at Gettysburg if you count as the committee counted kia. The old info is enough. https://www.acwscots.co.uk/Shotguns/vanhornftpillowor.htm

There never was a surrender of the fort, both officers and men declaring they never would surrender or ask for quarter."

The last legal order, (having already refused twice to surrender and be taken unconditionally and conditional as pows) for the command was to refuse to surrender and be taken as pows, and fight on, not asking for quarter.

 

[diane]

New information is always needed unless one doesn't want to possibly have their mind changed. In the case of Ft Pillow, one might be worried about political slants I suppose. (Nothing new about that with this battle.) If new information confirms old information, fine - if it contradicts, then that's fine too. Let's see where the facts go. The old information about the Battle of the Little Bighorn was the standard for over a century, then new information was discovered. Still a massacre took place within a battle, but the story was much more complete. (That's another battle with huge political ramifications.) The more research is done in regards to Ft Pillow, the clearer it becomes as to what really happened there. This doesn't mean we toss out all the 'old' information - it is supplemented, confirmed or shown to be in error.

No, the fort was never surrendered and it wasn't for lack of Forrest offering. Bradford had plenty of self-interest (like staying alive) to keep from doing that. Booth was the one who knew how to soldier - he and his men shouldn't have even been there. I don't think the battle would have been what it was had he not been killed immediately.

And, there has never been enough focus on why the fort was still in operation after it had been ordered closed, nor enough investigation of just what Hurlbut was really doing. Forrest was there to alleviate pressure on the civilian population in that area - it was a rough neighborhood. Neither Confederate or Union was doing (or able to do) much about it - Forrest was the only one who actually could make at least a breather for people living around there. He demanded a trial about it after the war and that was not going to happen. He definitely wanted his name cleared but his target was Sherman.

PS
I'm responding to Hannibal's post 119 but it won't let me quote!