Fort Pillow: "They Just Called Them Out Like Dogs, and Shot Them Down"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- The April 12, 1864, attack on Fort Pillow along the Mississippi River by Nathan Bedford Forrest's Confederate cavalry ended with a rout of U.S. forces. When the Union soldiers tried to surrender, Forrest's troops reportedly continued to shoot the men down. The Northern press labeled it the Fort Pillow Massacre. The Confederates denied that they murdered the enemy soldiers, many of whom were Black. The U.S. Joint Committee On the Conduct of the War investigated, conducting 50 eyewitness interviews that confirmed the brutal killings. Over the last 160 years, studies have largely supported the findings. Here is testimony of one man who was shot and left for dead.
Read the report: archive.org/de...
"Life on the Civil War Research Trail" is hosted by Ronald S. Coddington, Editor and Publisher of Military Images magazine. Learn more about our mission to showcase, interpret and preserve Civil War portrait photography at militaryimagesmagazine.com and shopmilitaryimages.com.
This episode is brought to you in part by Gettysburg Publishing, specializing in the American Civil War and the Battle of Gettysburg. Pick up a great read today at gettysburgpublishing.com.
Image: Illustration from the cover of the May 7, 1864, of Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspapers, Library of Congress
It always start at Ft Pillow, what happened at Ft Pillow. Nothing told of the atrocities committed on southerners in Jackson or Memphis by Union prior to the assault on Pillow, search Colonel Hurst.
This man's description of Nathan Bedford Forrest as a 'little bit of a man' was obviously inaccurate as Forrest was a rather large person for his time standing at six feet two or three and weighing around 200 lbs. One would have to wonder about the veracity of the rest of his story. Men definitely died at the Battle of Ft. Pillow, but the details around it remain unclear until today.
Really... Unclear to who? Primary source accounts on both sides agree
Besides we know that eye witnesses often get a few details wrong and height depends on a point of view or even how relatively tall one is themselves.
But Fort Pillow was a massacre perpetuated by a vengeful racist bunch. You hate the details because it shows what the some of the Confederates were really about. You don't like what it says about that terrible cause.
Forrest was a giant compared to the average soldier in height and weight
@@kingofmphs Hence 'a little bit of a man'.... Not a little man
Sounds like someone has been peeking....
I wish I could find documentation as to which units were with Forrest at this time. My relative, Col. Francis Marion Windes, was either in command or was second in command of the 4th Alabama Cavalry, a regiment that often rode with Forrest in 1864 and 1865. I'd be thrilled to find documentation that showed they weren't at Ft. Pillow, but I fear the worst.
So what? No one can ever prove what role your ancestor played. He may have been one of the cool heads trying to calm things. Collective guilt is a fools game. There is no need for you to "fear".
They were under Chalmers brigade late in the war. They were most likely there.
@@richiephillips1541 well it is collective. The fear instilled by Forrest to his men is undeniable. If he said no quarter, he meant no quarter.
@@richiephillips1541 It's more of a personal thing. Col. Windes died shortly after the end of the war of consumption/tuberculosis, and is buried at Lynchburg, Maryland. I have a short biography of the man written by his younger brother, and generally speaking, he seems like a good guy. His life's ambition was to be a teacher. I know he was a good leader and officer and while I won't fret about it, I'd just as soon find out that he was not at Ft. Pillow.
They NAILED them to logs and then set the logs on fire? That story sounds very suspect and reads like fantasy. Doesn’t sound realistic in any way
Forrest was a founder of the Klan. It sounds like an M.O.
And isn't corroborated at all. The Union was having a hard time with NBF and Chalmers and used Fort Pillow to spur public outcry. Basic propaganda tactic.
In cases such as these, it is hard to say thanks for conducting the research and presenting it to the public. However, it is important work that should be done and I am grateful that you are willing and able to do it. I am equally grateful that people and organizations remain that collect and preserve the information. It will be a somber day as I mull over this story and gather up enough grit to visit the online archive and read the report.
Thanks to Ron such atrocities are not forgotten.
Great research here.
Great videos! I look forward to them. Not that this lessens the absolute atrocities in any way but my understanding is that there is still controversy as to whether Forrest and some confederate officers tried to stop the carnage; indeed, Forrest claimed in reports he did not order it.
Of course he denied it. He feared for his life as Brownlow (a warrior himself) vowed to bring him to justice.
The description of Forrest seems off. The interviewee says Forrest was a little bitty man! I thought he was a large powerful man. No?
Yes, he was a big dude.
An interesting topic for one of your videos would be the sham trial of Henry Wirz.
lol right
Pure evil is all I can say…….
Which side? Both sides were guilty of terrible atrocities.
@@hw260
To be perfectly clear. It doesn’t matter what side. I can’t believe you even wrote that. It’s a crime against humanity regardless of the side. What is wrong with this world. Atrocities go without saying.
School’s out, no class….
@@levassuer1 I can't believe you commented on it. You are easily triggered.
@@hw260
Believe it. People are ignorant!!!
What side????
Strikes home!
@@hw260 you know who massacred at Ft. Pillow...
It did not go down as you say.
There was so much propagandizing of the battle that it is hard to know the truth of it. It is also heavily omitted that many of the black troops that died drowned in the river. Multiple Union troopers as well as a Union surgeon all claimed that the executions were not done by officers but by individuals or bands of troopers and such executions were stopped by NBF and his officers.
Sorry, you can't elect to receive a bayonet charge, then try to surrender during the middle of it. Forrest repeatably called for the commander to surrender the garrison, as he was in no position to do otherwise, but instead the Union Commander chose to cower in his office until he soiled himself. He did manage to partially redeem his honor by later escaping from the hell hole where Union officers were imprisoned in the South.
Nathan Bedford Forest apologist. Don't apologize for his ruthlessness. He was no hero or patriot. He was a traitor, like all confederates.
This side of the story isn’t popular so it seldom gets any coverage.
No that's not quite the gist of it. You can throw your hands up at any time. Prisoners were taken all the time this way. At Ft. Pillow the exception was those promising no quarter gave no quarter.
In all, 57 depositions were taken by the House Sub-committee on the Conduct of the War. The committee verified that “more than 300 blacks, including women and children, had been slain after the fort surrendered. Do want to defend all 57 depositions? Everyone of them is damning. If you read them all the general consensus is the battle abated and the rebels called the remaining blacks back up the hill where they summarily executed them.
Parts of the South that had significant Unionist sentiment such as that in parts of Tennessee took things to another level. The troops at Ft. Pillow I understand where a combination of white native Unionist and the colored units. The troops inside Ft. Pillow were given the chance to surrender earlier and did not do so. I also understand that when the first refusal of Union forces to surrender was made they were told quarter would not be granted when hostilities commenced. They decided to fight it out were getting whipped and then decided to surrender .
Those Unionist Tennesseans whipped Forrest in skirmishes using Forrest's same tactics against him. Beatty, Brownlow, and Bradford are just a few names of Tennesseans that increased the stakes at reprisal. Bradford himself was executed by Jack Jenkins. Forrest easily hated those unionists as much as the blacks... no quarter was easy for him. After all, fear was always a great motivation a bully learns early in life.
@@scottgoens7575 Some good points about the hatred felt by both sides of these conflicts and it would not be hard to cite examples of Unionist atrocities. One thing that made Forrest the great commander he was is the fact to know when to withdraw to fight another day when odds are more in your favor. That is nothing less than being smart and not squandering away resources. I could not say Forrest never lost a fight but I can say he was a great Calvary officer. I would also venture to guess that the presence of those white Unionist inside Ft. Pillow was an incendiary fact that is often overlooked.
@@williamdemay9446 The main story teller of Forrest was Forrest. He fed everything we know about him to the newspapers. Exaggerated and overrated is his military prowess. (Moseby ran circles around him.)
Examples of Unionist atrocities are not hard to cite? I bet I can cite more about Forrest than you can Unionist...
@scottgoens7575 Um no. Forrest defeated each of the men you listed. Some of them multiple times. He hated then because they operated as raiders but went beyond targeting only military units. They were all known to attack civilians and execute prisoners.
Actually they didn't intend to fight. There was a barge just along the river that was supposed to come and get them when they retreated. Thing is, NBF found it and they cut it off. The Union forces fled to the river and the boat wasn't there. Many of them drowned trying to swim across the river, especially the black troops who couldn't swim at all.
War.
Southern Chivalry.
@@owensomers8572 The heritage types act like they didn't use barbarity, but the western theatre was full of it.
Not the confederates best day.
When did they ever have a “best day”
@@Mago369 Chancellorsville, Cold Harbor, Chickamauga, Brice's Station, etc.
@@michaeldalton3456 I wouldn’t really consider chancellorsville a big victory, let alone their “best day.” If you look at the casualties from the battle, you'll also see Lee lost a much larger percentage of his force than Hooker did. Plus losing Jackson. So although it was a tactical victory that prevented further Union advancement on Richmond, Lee really could not afford to keep losing the man power. I think the battle was still a great victory for Lee. It pretty much represents the high tide of Lee's career. I do however think it led to him believing his men were invincible in impossible frontal assaults, and would come back to bite him at Gettysburg.
South technically won more battles but lost the war.
@@_Abjuranax_ That is a wrong assumption. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_battles
It’s hard to know the full truth of what took place. I suspect that the massacre happened much like the witness said, but given from what I have heard of Forrest, being a very large and powerful man , I believe that he has misidentified some other man as Forrest. That is, unless the witness was even larger than Forrest and thus was able to say therefore that he (Forrest) was small (in comparison to himself). I doubt that such was the case and he has misidentified some other officer as Forrest. Even so, I do believe that some Confederate troops did massacre Union prisoners after they had surrendered or tried to surrender. Because it would have been a human reaction to want to take revenge on those who had just killed your comrades in the heat of the battle just ended. Forrest was known to have a terrible temper, but he was not small by any means. The injury suffered by the prisoner could account for his confusion, and I don’t attribute any malice to what he said. This long after the battle, it is impossible to say with any certainty anything, anyway. Great video as always, Ron. Thanks.
Read some of the other testimonies. Notably the one by Doctor Charles Fitch who was there. Also Ellis Falls, Private Major Williams, and Samuel H Caldwell. They all go against what was said by Jacob Thompson who many believe was basically reading a script.
My impression why this soldier failed to properly identify Forrest as a big man and instead said he was a small man could be that in the heat of battle and the trauma he suffered, he might have become confused! He might have misidentified Forrest! He might have made a mistake and thought that another smaller officer who looked similar to Forrest, but was not Forrest, he mistakenly identified as Forrest! I personally feel that what this soldier described shook him to the core and due to his being shot in the head might have caused him to become very confused! This is just a possible theory and there is no way to really know if what this soldier described was accurate! However, the mistakes he made in certain details could be attributed to his wounds and witnessing the executions that horrified him! In addition, all of this happened so quickly, that it could have caused this soldier to make critical mistakes in describing the details of what happened!
A big man 6' 5" calling a 6 foot 180 lb man small is reasonable.
I like this site. I look forward to seeing it each day. My people were in this war. So, I am ambivalent with stories like this. Who would like hearing that their grandfathers were Nazis? My father knew our ancestor that was captured at Vicksburg, was paroled, and later captured at Longview, Ark. and spent the rest of the war at Rock Island, Ill.
Gen. Forrest was tall and not described elsewhere as this account states. Sad that such distortions occur. This gives the "bad guys" like me cover to deny that any of this happened. I'd rather face reality head on, but just like the "News" today it is hard to sort out the actual truth.
War is Hell to borrow from another famous (notorious?) Civil War General Sherman, I think. Of course this is terrible!
Lies, although not violent, perhaps are worse.
A little bit of a man is not the same as a little man. It could in fact suggest the opposite... As in, I knew it was Bedford Forest because he was 'a bit of a man' i.e someone not to be forgotten once you say him.. Say a tall brawn fellow.
Again how big of a man was the witness?
@@ozzyphil74 Again how big of a man was the witness?