SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,631
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 68:
Line 68: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Added to page
After departing Fort Pillow, Forrest and his cavalrymen remained in West Tennessee for some days. Eventually, Union forces in the region were able to coordinate and use their superior numbers to drive him back into Mississippi during the last week of April and the beginning of May, as a prelude to further actions in that region during the summer of 1864.
After departing Fort Pillow, Forrest and his cavalrymen remained in West Tennessee for some days. Eventually, Union forces in the region were able to coordinate and use their superior numbers to drive him back into Mississippi during the last week of April and the beginning of May, as a prelude to further actions in that region during the summer of 1864.
==Controversy==
The attack on and capture of Fort Pillow, though it had no large-scale effects on the progress of the war in general, was regarded as a significant event in multiple ways. It was a well-publicized incident of a cavalry unit seizing a fortified position backed by artillery and naval support, a relatively uncommon event that added to Forrest's reputation as a brilliant and innovative tactician. It was also one of the first pitched battles largely fought between Confederate soldiers and former slaves. However, it was the question of Confederate conduct during and after the battle, especially towards those ex-slaves, which made Fort Pillow controversial in many quarters.
One minor point concerned the question of whether Forrest and his soldiers had properly respected the flag of truce during the unsuccessful negotiations for the fort's surrender. Survivors among the garrison later reported seeing movement in and out of the ravine around the fort's northern face while the white flags flew, and alleged that Forrest had used the truce and negotiations to seize this close-up position, which the Confederates had not previously possessed, as a preliminary for assaulting the fort--a violation of the acknowledged rules of war. Forrest's senior officers, however, countered that the Union garrison had itself violated the truce by not signaling the approaching ships that negotiations were under way (in which case they should have halted their progress), and that, regardless, they had in fact gained control of the ravine before a truce was called; the movements seen by the garrison were those of detachments sent to observe the ships' progress. Other testimony, including after-action reports on both the Union and the Confederate side, tend to confirm the view that no violations of the truce were made by the attackers.<ref>''Official Records'', Vol. xxxii, Part I, p. 559.</ref>
The main point of contention, however, was the Confederate treatment of the garrison's survivors after the fort was taken. The high number of fatalities--221 out of 557, or approximately 40%, an uncommonly-high death rate--drew attention almost at once, as did the disparity in the fates of white and black Union troops. Of the 295 soldiers in the (white) Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, 127 had been killed or too seriously wounded to be escorted south as prisoners, compared to 204 of the 262 in the black artillery units (including their white officers). Given the much lower survival rate among the black soldiers, and the well-known fury of the Confederates at the arming of former slaves, many in the Union military and political leadership swiftly concluded that they had been deliberately murdered while trying to surrender. The battle was soon popularly dubbed "The Fort Pillow Massacre," and representatives from the [[United States Congress|U.S. Congress]]'s Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War had arrived in Tennessee by April 21 to gather testimony. Their official report subsequently alleged that "an indiscriminate slaughter" of white and black soldiers as well as women and children had followed the fort's capture, and that the Union wounded had been "intentionally burned to death" and even buried alive. "Many other instances of equally atrocious cruelty might be enumerated," their report concluded, but they felt "compelled to refrain from giving here more of the heart-sickening details."<ref>Shelby Foote, ''The Civil War: Volume 3'' (1974), p. 111.</ref>
Though most of the specific charges made by the Congressional report have since been refuted, debate continues today on the extent to which deliberate atrocities did occur at Fort Pillow, with pro-Confederate sources expressing far more skepticism than pro-Union sources. Most have agreed that, on the one hand, at least some soldiers, of both races, had been shot down while genuinely attempting to surrender; on the other hand, neither Forrest himself (despite the implied threat in his demand for surrender that a massacre might occur) nor any other Confederate officer gave any order to conduct a general slaughter. Confederate historians have further argued that a breakdown of military discipline had occurred on the Union side following Major Booth's death, and that some of the soldiers, especially the blacks, had become intoxicated by the time of the final assault, and had acted too wildly to be taken prisoner (though they also acknowledge that some of Forrest's troops had themselves been drinking before the attack).<ref>Wyeth, ''Life of Forrest'', p. 367.</ref>
Given all the evidence on hand, it would appear that multiple factors played a role in the high death count. Antagonism toward the Union troops (white "Tennessee Tories" as well as black) was certainly running high among the Confederates, and the bellicose tone of Forrest's demand for surrender may have been taken by some as permission to commit unnecessary killings--though it is worth remembering that Forrest had ordered a cease-fire almost immediately after his soldiers entered the fort. Additionally, the garrison at no time made a formal surrender, first retreating towards the riverbank and then breaking apart once its escape routes were closed, with some continuing to resist while others tried to give themselves up: a state of confusion that would have encouraged the Confederates to continue firing on them. A possible aggravating factor (apart from the allegations of drunkenness) was the black soldiers' fear of what would happen to them if taken prisoner, whether death, ill-treatment, or return to their former masters; they may have fought more desperately and suffered higher casualties for this reason.
Taking these factors into account, most historians have concluded that while the Confederates' behavior at Fort Pillow was hardly above reproach, it did not meet the standard of a deliberate massacre, nor was it entirely racially motivated, and can be attributed more to the heat of battle than to a premeditated decision to kill unarmed prisoners.<ref>Jay Winik, ''April 1865: The Month That Saved America'' (2001), p. 280-81, 433.</ref> Historian Shelby Foote noted that Union general [[William Tecumseh Sherman]], ordered by [[Ulysses S. Grant]] to conduct his own investigation of Fort Pillow and conclude whether Confederate conduct had been such as to demand retaliation, ultimately did not recommend any harsh counter-measures: "proof in itself that none was justified, since no one doubted that otherwise, with Sherman in charge, retaliation would have been as prompt as even Grant could have desired."<ref>Foote, ''The Civil War'', p. 112.</ref>
==References==
==References==