I am afraid that the Ft. Pillow discussion might generate more heat than
light, but let me try to make a few points.
The citations below are from Robert Selph Henry's biography of Forrest,
and from an article in __Civil War Times Illustrated__, Nov/Dec, 1993.
1) Forrest _did_ threaten the defenders with annihilation
in his demand that they surrender. More accurately, he said that
he would not be responsible for their fate if they refused to
surrender and he had to assault the fort. He had made essentially
equivalent demands several times prior to this, but no one had
ever called his bluff (so far as I know). [H, p. 253; CWTI, p.68]
(Technically, then, this is the citation/documentation that Jamie
Adams asked for in his original posting.)
2) The Federal casualties included an abnormally high
proportion of killed, especially among the blacks, and there
is substantial evidence that some of these men were shot while
trying to surrender. It is generally agreed, however, that
this was not an organized, pre-planned action, but rather the
result of the Rebel troops getting more than a little bit out
of control of their officers.
However, there does exist at least one letter from a member of
Forrest's command to the effect that Forrest himself said to
shoot down the men even if they surrendered. On this
point, the absence of a written order to "kill everyone"
is not very compelling to me; this is precisely the kind of
order that is _not_ going to be written down. [H, p. 256, p. 263-64;
CWTI, p. 83, p.85] (Henry discounts the accuracy of this letter
in comparison to an investigation by a prior Forrest biographer,
which produced massive documentation that nothing untoward
happened. The documentation in question was given after the war,
and is almost all from officers and men of Forrest's command.
Their testimony has to be seen as self-serving and so somewhat
in question. The letter attesting to Forrest's involvement was
written soon after the event.)
3) Federal command of the fort was indeed incompetant, at least
after the original commander was killed by a sniper. The defenders
were badly out-numbered and at a severe terrain disadvantage; high
ground overlooking the interior of the fort had been seized, and
the Union artillery neutralized. The plain fact is, the Yankees
should have surrendered. To some extent, then, the Federal
commander bears partial responsibility for what happened. [CWTI,
p. 87]
4) At least one modern, scholarly study has characterized
what happened as a "massacre." (See the entry on Fort Pillow
in Boatner's __Civil War Dictionary__ for a full citation.)
5) There was a lot more emotion involved in this fight than
in the average Civil War battle. Not only was there the issue
of the black soldiers, but the Union defenders were, in large part,
Tennessee Unionists, regarded as traitors by the Confederate
soldiers. [CWTI, p. 67]
OK, what do we make of all this? The fact that Forrest did, in at
least a vague way, threaten to put the defenders to the sword is no doubt
the basis for the charge that the massacre was a deliberate act.
Personally, I don't think it was, but I also don't think that Forrest lost
much sleep over the fact that his men did kill a lot of blacks as they
tried to surrender. It is very easy to say that he had made similar
threats before and never carried them out, but I don't think he ever had
to carry them out -- the bluff always worked, i.e., the enemy always
surrendered. (If there is a contrary case I have forgotten, please let me
know.) In any event, as overall commander, Forrest bears responsibility
for the conduct of his troops.
Finally, I must say that the habitual use of the phrase "political
correctness" is itself approaching a kind of political correctness. Just
because some folks may criticize various aspects of Confederate myth
doesn't mean they have or are subservient to any kind of 20th-century bias
in their studies. They may actually think the myth is inaccurate, and
sometimes they are right. Besides, they could just as easily say that
folks with opposing points of view are afflicted with a kind of 19th-
century political correctness.
Jim Epperson
epperson@math.uah.edu