• This community needs YOUR help today. With being blacklisted from all ad networks like Adsense or should I say AdNOSense due to our pro 2nd Amendment stance and topic of this commmunity we rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

Fort Pillow and more.....

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
20,091
Reaction score
998
Artificer said:
Maybe that was from the time BEFORE he authorized the treacherous first act of War?

Gus

Lincoln did not declare war on the seceded states. As far as Lincoln was concerned, the Confederate States of America was not a separate nation at war but a section of the indivisible United States of America in rebellion.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
24,497
Reaction score
25,625
Location
Republic mo
Colorado Clyde said:
The people own....


The people of the South were not given the opportunity to decide if they wanted to secede.
as a result there were many anti-secessionists.

I'll call them hostages. Held hostage by those who already held people in chains.

Had everyone in the south been informed and afforded the chance to decide their fate, the war probably wouldn't have happened.


The people had voted for their state governments. All the states were organized in democratic principles. No,there was not universal manhood suffrage and no female adulthood suffrage. However the democratic principles were normal for all the states at that time.
We could make the same argument for the colonies in 1776, or Texas in 1836, and infact for France in1789,or all of Latin America, Cuba in 59(?), ect. A greater proportion of the population was represented in direct and indirect then in any other democratic society of its size in the world at the time.
And the war would have never happened if Lincoln had not called out state regiments to march on other states.
 
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
16,040
Reaction score
12,281
Never wrote or meant Lincoln did declare War and part of that was also for other reasons, one of the main ones was so the South could not be officially recognized internationally.

One thing I do give Lincoln credit for, even though his treacherous act started the War, was I do believe he would have kept the worst of the Reconstruction Era policies off the South, had he not been assassinated.

Gus
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
24,497
Reaction score
25,625
Location
Republic mo
Nor did any one vote in the north to make war on the south, but in both cases people showed their support. Neither side had much of a recruiting problem at the onset of the war. The south hit close to the maximum force it could muster. Drafts were used on both sides but that was after the massive death tolls.
However there was also no election to withdraw from GB, nor was there a popular vote to enter First World War. Infact Wilson ran on “kept us out of War”. On dec 6th 1941 the majority of Americans wanted to stay out of the war, those people didn’t vote to go to war either...except in how fast the military filled up.
Wars that are not popular are reflected in empty recruiting center.... witness Vietnam, or “Hessions”.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
20,091
Reaction score
998
tenngun said:
Nor did any one vote in the north to make war on the south,”.

That choice was negated because the Union was attacked by the Rebels. We had to defend the Union.....After all we were Americans....We could not let a bunch of rebels undo what our forefathers fought for and died for.... America could not fall back into a monarchy or something far more perverse.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
24,497
Reaction score
25,625
Location
Republic mo
Lincoln forced the war. The south had no desire to invade the north or effect the north in any way. They only wanted to be left alone. The south represented zero threat to the north. The southern war cry at First Manasess ( Bull Run) was ”˜Go Home!’ The south represented no more threat to the north then the colonies did to Britain.
The ”˜bunch of rebels’ was a third of the population, who only wished self determination.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
24,497
Reaction score
25,625
Location
Republic mo
Do you ever get the feeling we should attack an easier problem to resolve like unified field theory or warp field development or harnessing dark energy?.... you know something easier :wink:
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
20,091
Reaction score
998
tenngun said:
Do you ever get the feeling we should attack an easier problem to resolve like unified field theory or warp field development or harnessing dark energy?.... you know something easier :wink:

Sure, I like the Alcubierre warp drive....and dark energy. :grin:
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
24,497
Reaction score
25,625
Location
Republic mo
Seen that before was very good. It is neat because books can only concentrate on one theater at a time. That same group of animators have done several wars.
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
1,487
Reaction score
2,566
Let us assume that a decision is made to give states all rights, reducing the federal government to a housekeeping role. 1. Which states will buy into that? Keep in mind that there are no states that are entirely populated by State's Right's advocates. There are no states that are entirely populated by federal superiority advocates. 2. To where do you force/ship those who disagree? Shall we just execute them? Shall we require a binding pledge of allegiance to the prevailing sentiment? No? What then? 3. If deliveries must cross a state that objects to the delivery to another state, will there be excessive tolls to do so? 4.Will citizens of those states who advocate state's rights be required to pay federal income tax? Who will enforce it either way? Will the federal government feel any obligation to share whatever financial resources it may have with states that do not pay taxes to the feds? 5. Will state's right advocate governments allow residents of fed supporting states to purchase goods in their states without paying either state or federal tax? 6. Who then will interact with other nations, friend or foe? 7. From where will federal troops be resourced? Will a state that advocates state's rights be able to ask for federal help in time of disaster?

I could go on, but I hope you get the picture. State's rights superseding federal government superiority would result in chaotic law. Corporations could never be successful because they would have to abide by laws differing in fifty individual nations. Citizens of each nation state would be unable to abide by other state laws affecting travel, firearm possession, or driving rules on interstate highways. BTW: Who would build and maintain highways, dams and airports? You might also consider: from which states does most federal funding come? Which states require most federal support? Who regulates ports and shipping regulations? Who regulates international flights? Which states regulate immigration, when, where and whom? Who interacts with foreign governments; treaties, extradition, visas, passports, tourism and protection???? Shall we then have fifty state constitutions and terminate/alter the U. S. Constitution?

We are [or should be] a mutually supportive population, especially supporting each other even as we disagree. I read here, sometime ago, a suggestion that we chop off the hands of those who advocate a difference. That sort of rhetoric stirs passions but does absolutely nothing to help the United States of America remain the most blessed nation on the face of God's earth. We could easily become a fifth world continent with multiple dying kingdoms. I pray that will not occur. Polecat 🦨
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
328
Reaction score
220
Location
Carmichael California
We learn nothing from history if all the facts are left out by ignorance, deliberate intention, and/or period or modern Propaganda/Hyperbole. Further when speaking of Military History; civilian historians who have no combat experience or worse, no military experience at all, can easily make mistakes and assumptions, even if they are doing their best to attempt to be impartial.

So in this light and since the Battle of Fort Pillow (almost always erroneously referred to as a massacre) has been brought up in another thread with MOST of the relevant facts omitted; I offer a synopsis of the battle by a U.S. Military Historian of note, whose Career has demanded accurate historical accounts to be taught at the U.S. Army War College.

NOTE: The emboldening, italicizing and underlining in the article below was almost all done by me and not in the original article.

“Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Battle of Fort Pillow, 1864
By Ed Kennedy (Lt. Col. USA. retired)

Although just a minor tactical action in the greater scheme of the Civil War, the April 12, 1864 battle at Fort Pillow became a strategic issue. The effects of the battle unintentionally rose to the very highest levels of both the Union and Confederate governments. There were a number of issues that caused this seemingly minor battle to rise to national prominence.

Fort Pillow was built in 1861 on the eastern bank of the Mississippi River about forty miles north of Memphis, Tennessee. Abandoned by the Confederates and occupied twice by Union forces, Fort Pillow became a target for Confederate forces commanded by Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest in April 1864. In March 1864 two Union artillery units and a cavalry unit (a total of 557 soldiers) occupied the fort under the command of Major Lionel F. Booth. Second-in-command was Major William F. Bradford, Forrest’s fellow Tennessean from the same home county but fighting on the Union side. Bradford commanded the 13th Tennessee Cavalry (U.S.), a unit that was already notorious for its war crimes against West Tennessee citizens. Compounding the issue of the unit’s abuses were the Confederate deserters that had been incorporated into the ranks of this Union-raised unit serving in a Southern state. Also in Fort Pillow before the battle began were approximately one hundred civilian family members and workers.

Although the Union Army officially opened its ranks to African-American soldiers in 1863, they were only allowed to serve in segregated units under the command of white officers ”“ at half the pay of white Union soldiers. The two artillery units in Fort Pillow were two such African-American units manned by, in the official term used during the Civil War, "U.S. Colored Troops." Roughly half of the Fort Pillow garrison’s strength was African-American Union soldiers.

After making a raid to Paducah, Kentucky in order to gain materiel and recruits, Forrest turned south towards Memphis. Fort Pillow immediately garnered Forrest’s attention due to the fact that it had been recently re-occupied by the Union. Confederate soldiers in Forrest’s ranks had family members in the area surrounding the fort and had complained of their abuse by the Union forces. Bradford’s "home grown Yankees" of the 13th Tennessee Cavalry were the named culprits. Local West Tennessee citizens requested that a unit from Forrest’s command be detailed to guard their homes and families from Bradford’s depredations. Forrest decided to do more. He ordered a demonstration towards Memphis and then launched the bulk of his forces against Fort Pillow.

On the early morning of April 12, 1864, almost 1,500 Confederate troops converged on Fort Pillow. The Confederates quickly drove in the outlying Union pickets and then occupied hillocks that allowed Confederate sharpshooters to begin engaging the fort’s defenders. Major Booth attempted to burn cabins and outbuildings near the perimeter of the fort to prevent the Confederates from using them as cover and concealment. It was here that some Union soldiers may have been shot down, then inadvertently burned in the very buildings they were torching to prevent Confederate use. However, this subsequently became a contentious issue when, after the battle, the Union claimed that the Confederates had burned wounded U.S. soldiers.


With Confederate Brigadier General James R. Chalmers commanding the initial assaults, the Confederates hemmed the Union defenders inside the fort and then began a concerted effort to close on the Union works. At about 9 a.m., Major Booth was killed by one of the 300 assaulting Confederate sharpshooters. At 10 a.m. Forrest arrived on the scene to take command. He immediately made troop dispositions to conduct a double envelopment as well as a frontal assault. About this time the Union naval gunboat, USS New Era, commanded by Captain James Marshall, began firing at the nearby Coal Creek ravine to prevent Confederate forces from enveloping Fort Pillow from the north. Forrest was injured when two horses were shot out from under him, but he remained to command the upcoming assault. At about 1 p.m. the New Era pulled away farther along the Mississippi River to allow its guns to cool. Almost 300 gunboat shells had been fired at the Confederates with virtually no effect.

At about 3 p.m. Confederate ammunition resupplies arrived and Forrest sent a demand for surrender to Major Booth not knowing Booth already had been killed. Forrest’s surrender demand read: "I now demand unconditional surrender of your forces, at the same time assuring you that you will be treated as prisoners of war. ”¦ I have received a new supply of ammunition and can take your works by assault, and if compelled to do so you must take the consequences."

Union naval gunboats, now including USS Olive Branch, began moving as if to reinforce the fort despite the truce. The Confederates reacted by moving troops towards the Mississippi River beach area to repulse any Union landings. This subsequently became another point of contention as the Union claimed a violation of the rules of war by citing the movement of the Confederates ”“ but never acknowledging the potential reinforcement by the gunboats.


Major Bradford in the meantime, with Booth’s death now in command of Fort Pillow, stalled for time by returning a note to Forrest requesting time to consult with his officers. Aware of his personal reputation with Forrest, Bradford signed the note as the now-deceased “Major Booth.” Union soldiers along the ramparts were feeling confident enough to heckle the attacking Confederates after holding them off for the better part of a day. This intentional heckling only served to inflame the passions on the Confederate side. Major Bradford was cognizant of Forrest’s command’s previous use of ruses to gain the surrender of Union defenders. Most recently, at Union City, Tennessee, the Union garrison there had surrendered to one of Forrest’s subordinates who had a numerically inferior force. Bradford sealed his own force’s fate by declaring that he would never surrender. He placed barrels of alcoholic beverages with dippers for the defenders to drink from, perhaps hoping to steel the resolve of his soldiers.

At about 5 p.m., Forrest ordered the bugler to sound the "Charge." Outnumbering the Union defenders by at least two-to-one, the Confederates surged over the fort’s parapets in a rush. Not only did the Confederates outnumber the defenders, they had the additional benefit of overwhelming close-range firepower provided by the six-shot pistols all of the Confederate cavalryman habitually carried ”“ but only half of Fort Pillow’s Union defenders were armed with revolvers. Assuming that the direct assaulting force consisted of about 800 Confederate soldiers armed largely with revolvers, the Confederates might have faced only about 260 Union troops with pistols, the remaining Union defenders being armed with either single-shot muskets or carbines. This alone would give the assaulting force the necessary 3:1 firepower ratio considered necessary for success by military doctrine for attackers since the muskets, once fired, were no good at such close-quarters combat except with bayonets or as clubs. The end result of this disparity in firepower meant that combat was necessarily close due to the short range of the pistols and the fact that the Confederates physically closed to within just a few yards of the defenders as they vaulted the walls of the fort. This produced hand-to-hand combat and point-blank shooting at extremely close range, creating another point of contention: based on powder burns found on some Union casualties, the Union accused Forrest’s Confederates of executing some of the fort’s defenders. However, such powder burns were to be expected at close-range engagements using black powder firing weapons.

At this point confusion reigned as the Confederates literally surged over the Union lines. Major Bradford shouted for the defenders to save themselves. The Union soldiers broke and ran to escape down the cliff to the beach area and the possible safety of the Union gunboats. No thought had been given to an organized surrender and Bradford’s hasty declaration to “Save yourselves!” panicked the Union defenders into a disorganized rout. Moreover, as the Union defenders fled to the beach, the U.S. flag still flew from Fort Pillow’s flagpole ”“ this is significant since in 19th century warfare “Striking (lowering) the Colors” was the universally accepted signal that a garrison had surrendered and an unmistakable signal to the victorious attackers to stop firing. Had Bradford sensibly lowered the U.S. flag, this would have been a clear indication to all attacking Confederates that the garrison had surrendered.

Forrest’s Confederate cavalrymen pursued the fleeing enemy to prevent any further Union organized defense from being reconstituted. Captain Marshall of New Era, who had previously struck an agreement with the fort’s commander to support-by-fire any attempt of the Confederates to pursue the Union troops to the beach area, planned to engage the Confederates with cannister (anti-personnel) cannon rounds. But Marshall’s fire support plans were thwarted because the Union and Confederate forces were intermingled and therefore he risked hitting his own side’s soldiers.

In the race for the beach and possible safety, units intermingled, leaders were shot down and the inevitable confusion of fierce combat caused a loss of control on both sides. Major Booth actually had planned for such a contingency (of his garrison being pushed back to the beach) by pre-positioning ammunition boxes for his defenders to use if forced back to the beach. However, Booth’s planning assumption was predicated on an orderly displacement, not a panic-stricken rout. Later, some of the pre-positioned ammunition boxes were found opened, showing that at least some of the Union defenders knew their purpose and used the ammunition.

In one of the most controversial actions during the short assault, the Confederates shot down a number of Union soldiers in the beach area while many defending survivors drowned while trying to escape by swimming the Mississippi River. The Union subsequently tried to claim it was a planned massacre. In reality, it was most likely the result of a number of unintentional consequences combined to cause a tragedy for the Union soldiers. First, no organized surrender was ever declared. Soldiers surrendering did so as individuals. Because some of the Union defenders subsequently rearmed themselves after surrendering, it is likely that the Confederates became enraged and indiscriminately shot other defenders who were "surrendering." There is no doubt that latent racism was likely a contributing factor. Although Forrest had African-American Confederate soldiers in his ranks, the Confederate attackers were incensed that the defending African-American Union soldiers had taunted them during the truce and were therefore “guilty by association” with Bradford’s troops who had previously abused the attackers’ families. Revenge and heated passions from a long day of fighting made a deadly combination.

Experienced combat arms soldiers know how confusion occurs when converging forces assault an objective from three directions. This is what happened at Fort Pillow. Malice aforethought cannot be assumed simply because the losing side incurred a large number of casualties. A one-sided rout and vigorous pursuit would naturally produce a large number of casualties suffered by the defeated unit since the routed unit’s soldiers would not be organized to defend themselves and could more easily be shot down as they ran away. The attribution of a deliberate racist intent by the attacking Confederates to intentionally execute defenders defies knowledge of the culture and customs of Forrest’s command throughout the war. To ascribe ex post facto what happened to a premeditated conspiracy to "massacre" is logically and ethically wrong. Post-war lithographs of the battle and Union propaganda and disinformation managed to inflame passions. The prints used distortions and “tried” Forrest and his Confederate soldiers in the public forum, then found them guilty, despite the results of official Union inquiries into the conduct of the battle. Interestingly, all the prints and lithographs showing women and children present at the battle are part of the disinformation as all but ten civilian men had been evacuated by the Union Navy shortly before the battle. The women and children depicted being killed and brutalized by “blood-thirsty Confederates” in the notorious lithographs were not even present when the fort was assaulted and overrun.

Casualty figures vary slightly, but approximately 230 Union soldiers (of the approximately 560 in the fort’s garrison during the battle) were killed. About 60 African-American Union soldiers were taken prisoner (168 white Union troops were captured), the remainder either killed or reported as “missing in action.” In the wake of the battle, Forrest released 14 of the most seriously wounded Union African-American captives to the U.S. Navy steamer, Silver Cloud. About 14 Confederate soldiers were killed and more than 80 were wounded.

Only two weeks after the battle, a U.S. Congressional inquiry could not conclusively determine exactly what happened. Both sides failed to control the action, and only Forrest’s direct, personal intervention to stop the shooting saved many of the Union defenders left standing on the beach. Not satisfied with the Congressional inquiry, Union General William T. Sherman convened a not-so-impartial inquiry. He openly stated that he would try and convict General Forrest. However, Sherman’s inquiry also ended without substantive evidence to find Forrest culpable.

The stain that his lopsided Fort Pillow victory was a premeditated “massacre” remained with Forrest for the rest of his life. Northern newspapers publishing obituaries after his October 29, 1877 death, while acknowledging Forrest’s genius as a cavalry commander, nonetheless resurrected the “Fort Pillow Massacre” charges. The New York Times’ obituary even claimed that, during Forrest’s post-Civil War life, “his principal occupation seems to have been to try to explain away the Fort Pillow affair.” Northern newspapers criticizing Forrest’s effort “to explain away the Fort Pillow affair,” however, seem especially disingenuous since the sensationalist accounts by the partisan Northern press bears a large share of the burden for creating and perpetuating the “massacre” claim in the first place. Forrest always disputed claims that his Fort Pillow victory was a “massacre.” Any fair-minded judgment as to whether it was truly the racism-inspired, premeditated massacre claimed by the Northern press and Union leaders at the time must also take into consideration the inevitable confusion of desperate, hand-to-hand combat and the many contributing factors that created and exacerbated the disastrous Union rout.”

Lt. Col. Edwin L. Kennedy Jr., USA Ret., retired as an infantry officer after 22 years of enlisted and commissioned service. He is an assistant professor in the Department of Command and Leadership at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. He is a former tactics and history instructor at the college.

Note: Lt. Col. Kennedy identified Major Bradford’s Cavalry as the 13th Tennessee Cavalry (U.S.), as that was the way they were identified/referred to in the Official Records. However, Bradford’s Battalion of Cavalry was officially known as the 14th Tennessee Cavalry (US).

Some, but not all of the important facts almost always left of other accounts of the Battle of Fort Pillow:

1. Local Innocent Civilians had asked General Forrest for protection from the depravities and War Crimes committed against them by Bradford’s U.S. Cavalry, including family members of some of the men in Forrest’s Command. When that happens, things would never bode well for the”¦ ahem”¦.soldiers”¦”¦who had committed those atrocities and would certainly earn them “special attention” by the Confederate Soldiers.


2. General Forrest decided to attack and take Fort Pillow to stop the War Crimes done by those ”¦. ahem”¦.soldiers”¦”¦who had committed those atrocities. (It should be noted the U.S. Black Soldiers at Fort Pillow were Artillery Soldiers stationed inside the Fort, so they almost certainly did not take part in the War Crimes.)

3. General Forrest had freely offered terms where (even considering the War Crimes done by some of the ”¦.soldiers”¦.. at Fort Pillow) they would be treated as Prisoners of War.

Of course in the period as is still true today; Prisoners of War who had committed War Crimes, would be tried by Military Courts and if found guilty, could/would be legally executed by the Laws of War. (Keep this in mind for the next point.)

4. When asked for proper surrender and considering he was by then the Senior Surviving Officer and in Command of Fort Pillow, Major Bradford at first used deception by forging Major Booth’s signature in his reply to ask for a Truce time to consider surrendering (and in fact was granted that Truce) . That forgery was to hide the fact Bradford was in command and because he knew what his reputation was with Forrest. (No doubt Bradford knew that even as a Prisoner of War, he would be tried for War Crimes that he and his men had committed.)

Ultimately Bradford refused to surrender and afford his men the PROTECTION of being held as Prisoners of War.

Not only that, but Bradford had opened Barrels of Booze with dippers laid out, so his men could be “fortified” in their defense. Though the practice of handing out a small ration of booze to each soldier in such situations was not unheard of, no Commander in his right mind would have laid out opened barrels of Booze with dippers - where his men fearing imminent death in battle or capture, had the opportunity to get DRUNK or IMPAIR their ability to fight. (Gee, do you suppose in the confusion of battle that a soldier who had been imbibing freely ”“ would not have been recognized as trying to properly surrender?)

5. Not having documentation otherwise, the movement of the Union Gun Boats moving up to support the Fort during the Truce was most likely due to an unfortunate lack of communication available between them and the Fort and thus was not an intentional act to break the Truce. Still it is easy to see how in the fog of war, the Confederates believed it was an act to break the Truce and thus a treacherous action.

6. The fact that Union Soldiers who had surrendered and then took up arms again to fight, was no doubt a significant factor causing unnecessary casualties/deaths for themselves and other U.S. Soldiers - who may have tried to surrender properly, with honor. Such treacherous acts, after mercy is granted to them as Prisoners of War, long before this battle and right up to today - will mean that Offers to Properly Surrender will be ignored by Opposing Forces.

7. General Forrest not only endangered himself to stop the killing, but allowed the evacuation of severely wounded U.S. Soldiers. Hardly the actions of one who ordered or condoned a “massacre.”

Will stop here with the facts of the battle and add more commentary in a follow on post.

Gus
An interesting post Gus, but (ahem, just the facts man). To mis quote Seargent Joe Friday.

Buzz
 
Top