Talk:Battle of Fort Pillow

Re-organize for Neutrality?

"Not all of the prisoners who were shot were black —Major Bradford was apparently among those shot after he surrendered[11]— but Confederate anger at the thought of blacks fighting them and their initial reluctance to surrender (because many of the black troops believed they would only be killed if they surrendered in Federal uniform) resulted in a tragedy."

Since this refers to the actual events of the battle, rather than the aftermath, it should be moved to the previous section. It also seems too certain in its description of events that are disputed. I propose it should be re-written as follows:

The Union defenders were initially reluctant to surrender. It is unclear if they held out to the end, or if they did surrender and were then massacred. The black troops may have believed they would be killed if they surrendered in Federal uniform. Major Bradford was alleged to be among those shot to death after surrender[11].

I also notice that there are different numbers in this section than in the Bedford Forrest entry. If the proportion of blacks who died is the same as the proportion of whites who died (as per the Forrest entry) that suggests no massacre took place targeting blacks. On the other hand, the numbers in this article suggest that a much smaller proportion of black soldiers survived than white soldiers, which suggests that they held out much longer and/or were massacred. Perhaps some of the content from the Forrest article should be brought here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dherb (talk • contribs) 23:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

My Comment: Major Wm Bradford was indeed killed after the battle but it was the next day after he escaped. (I am not sure I am using this Talk feature correctly, so excuse me.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GearDown

Evidence

There is no evidence that Forrest participated in, authorized or allowed a massacre of union soldiers at Fort Pillow. From union reports immediately following the battle and from interviews after the war, the following facts have come out. 1) The garrison was made up of relatively inexperienced militia, a few regulars and black troops. Neither the commanding officer nor his second in command were experienced officers. 2) The commanding officer was killed fairly early in the battle. 3) The commanding officer (before his death) and/or the second in command either allowed or provided the men with whiskey from the stores in the fort. Many of the survivors state that a general state of drunkeness prevailed among the white soldiers and some of the blacks. 4) A charge was leveled that Forrest used a temporary truce t manuver his men in to better positions (a violation of the laws of war). In fact, as the union officers themselves testified, Forrest's men had achieved the position in question BEFORE the truce was declared. 5) When Forrest's men finally stormed the fort, there was no general surrender. There was, without a doubt, great animosity felt by the confederate soldiers for the black troops and it is certainly true that some atrocities occurred; but there is no evidence that it was widespread or ordered by Forrest or any of his officers. 5) While some of the union soldiers (both black and white) did surrender, many others retreated from the fort and fell back the the small beach under the bluff. They expected to be taken off by the gunboats in the river, (as previously arranged between the gunboats captain and the officers in the fort) but these were driven off by the fort's own guns, now manned by the confederates. At any rate, they continued to fight and were shot down where they stood. 6) The allegation that the confederates buried alive many of the wounded union soldiers (both black and white) is easily refuted. The burial parties were made up of union prisoners. If union soldiers were buried alive, it was done by their own troops.

I intend at some point to visit this page and add additional information and do some work here. You are correct in many of your points. This is of course a very controversial subject and great care will have to be taken in keeping it NPOV. Part of the problem is that some of the investigation of this incident took place during the war while emotions were high and investigators had obvious reason to use the investigation to inflame public opinion. I believe the evidence points to a huge chaotic mess of a battle. Both commands lost complete control of the battlefield and it deteriorated into scattered bands of men running around in the woods killing each other with no control. Forrest ended up cutting down the US flag to signal and end to the battle since no Union commanders were actually able to call a halt to it. Forrest would be the first to tell you that losing control of the battlefield and his men was his responsibility, but that it is different from promoting a massacre. Hopefully in the future, if it hasn't been done already by someone else, I can make an attempt at this page while keeping it objective.Ark30inf 04:35, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If this is not in itself an exoneration and rationalization, I don't know what is.--Reedmalloy (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

---

The above is clearly wrong. The quotation from the Confederate trooper who was there on the day shows (1) that more blacks than whites were killed after surrender and (2) that Forrest actively participated. As well, how can the above writer tell that "atrocities" were committed, yet argue (as extenuation) that they were not widespread. Surely the point is that there should have been none at all, if the troops were well conducted. As well, the sobriety and experience, or lack of said qualities on the part of the Union troops has really very little to do with the behaviour of the confederate troops, unless one thinks it is an extenuation to blame the victims. As for the difference between losing control of hte battlefield and promoting a massacre, I would suggest that in this case, that might be a distinction without a difference. Finally, while it may seem credible to the writer that scattered, disorganized bands were running around in the woods, some proof of that would be nice. No report of the battle which I have seen has any such action.

Theonemacduff (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

---

--greenFyre 13:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC) I removed one of the three occurances of this sentence "Many accused the Confederates of perpetrating a massacre of the black troops, and that controversy continues today." One of the other two should prbably also be removed, but as one is embedded in a quote I leave it to someone else to decide which should go.

---

Akafish77 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)If you are talking about evidence, you should look at this page. Its one of the links, but doesn't appear to be used in the article. http://www.civilwarhome.com/ftpillow.htm I think that it is interesting that out of the 11 Union references, only 1 talks about the massacre. I would have thought that the majority of them would have. It is also interesting to note that the one that makes this claim also states that the Confederacy had 7500 men,there were 2500, and that the Union troops tried to surrender immediately. According to the rest of the accounts the Union troops were very reluctant to surrender.

---

Some believe the so-called "Fort Pillow massacre" is an indisputable fact. Others believe it is pure fiction. Personally, I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Let us consider a few facts:

1. The Congressional Joint Committee on Conduct of the War originally leveled the accusations. The men who served on this committee were notoriously vindictive, and not prone to letting facts get in their way. People still decry the tactics of the McCarthy Era, but McCarthy was a piker compared to the Joint Committee.

2. Forrest was accused of attacking while a truce was in effect. This charge has been thoroughly debunked by historians in both the North and the South. Forrest had absolutely no motive to violate the truce, since the fort was already at his mercy. Northern and Southern historians both agree that the truce had expired by the time Forrest launched his attack, and that his demand for surrender was refused.

3. Union soldiers supposedly threw down their arms and tried to surrender when the attack commenced. When the Confederates kept coming, they panicked and ran to the river. After the battle, however, a large number of Federal rifles were found along the bluffs of the river. This means the Federals were still armed when they retreated.

4. Forrest's men were accused of burying Union soldiers alive. Since the dead were buried by Union prisoners, though, this charge seems unlikely. If such things did happen, they were perpetrated by Union soldiers, not Confederate.

5. The Confederates supposedly burned black soldiers alive in their tents. However, the evidence for this is sketchy, and the few testimonies that support it are both melodramatic and inconsistent.

6. According to some accounts, black soldiers tried to surrender, but were shot down or bayoneted in cold blood. Confederate soldiers supposedly yelled, "No quarter! Kill the damned niggers!" Alas, even though I'm a proud Southerner, I believe this charge probably has something to it. The eyewitness evidence is abundant and consistent. However, many of the testimonies do not square with official records, so I think they're somewhat exaggerated.

In short, I believe some excesses were committed at Fort Pillow, and I believe some of them were racially motivated. Whether it was a "massacre" depends on how you define the term. Certainly a disproportionate number of black soldiers were killed. In fairness, though, the Union commander had refused a demand for surrender, and Forrest had warned that he would not be responsible for the consequences if his demand was refused. Thus, I think the blame can be shared by both sides.97.73.64.155 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

1. No signature, which says a lot.

No attempt at rebuttal, which says a lot more.97.73.64.144 (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

2. Blaming a commander not surrendering in combat for atrocities committed on his forces--however "few" or "many"--is atrocious logic.--Reedmalloy (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You offer no rebuttal, either. I repeat, the "atrocities" at Fort Pillow were greatly exaggerated by the Select Committee on Conduct of the War. Any respectable historian knows this committee was not known for letting the truth get in its way. Alas, my past experiences have shown me that Wikipedia has a similar attitude.97.73.64.155 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Mergefrom Fort Pillow

Cleraly the details of the battle should be moved to this article. The only question is whether to leave what is left of the Fort Pillow article as a short article that covers Fort Pillow beyond this battle, or to merge that portion into this article as well and leave only a redirect. Caerwine 02:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Partial Union Casualty list {from Official reports}

- 2nd US Light Colored Artillery: - Killed: - Lt Hunter; - Sgt Mills-killed while calling for mercy; - Pvt. Louis Ingraham-killed while calling for mercy; - Pvt. Peter Lake-killed while calling for mercy; - Pvt. Anserson Smith-killed while calling for mercy; - A. ALexander-sutler to "D" Battery {civilian who fought as part of the Fort Garrison};
- Wounded: - Pvt. John Kennedy-escaped.
- POW: - 1st Sgt Joseph D. Fox
- Missing: - 1st Lt. A. M Hunter-seen in river
- Force and casualties-1 officer and 34 men. 6 enlisted men killed; 4 enlisted men wounded; 1 escaped; 5 POWS; 1 officer/18 men missing. - - 6th US Heavy Colored Artillery: - Killed: - Major Lionel F. Booth; - Captain Delos Carson-Company D; - Lt. Peter Bischoff-Company A; - Lt. John D. Hill-Company C; - Lt. John D. Smith; - Sgt Major Hennessey-killed under flag of Truce; - 1st Sgt Weaver-Company C; - Sgt Melville Jenks;
- Wounded: - Captain Charles F. Epeneter-Company A-wounded and captured; - Lt. Henry Lipperet-Company B-wounded and escaped;
- Lt. Thomas W. McCLure-Company C-wounded and captured; - Lt. Daniel Van Horn-Company D-slightly wounded and escaped;
- Survivors: About 15 men-all but 2 wounded-escaped
- - 13th Tennessee Cavalry: - Killed: - Major William F. Bradford-reportedly killed after being captured; - Captain Theodore F. Bradford; - Lt. J. Ackerstrom-Company E-{acting Regimental Quartermaster}-reportedly wounded and burned to death; - Lt. Barr of Company D; - 1st Lt. Nicholas D. Logan-Company C -died POW, Macon, Ga, 9 June 1864; - Lt. John H. Porter-died of wounds after being exchanged; - Lt. Cord Revelle of Company E-killed after being captured; - Lt. Wilson of Company A-wounded and killed after surrendered;
- Wounded: - Lt. Mack J. Leaming-wounded and exchanged
- Survived: - 1st Lt. F.A. Smith-Company D - 2nd Lt. William Cleary-Company B
- - 24th Missouri Volunteers: - Captured: - Captain John T. Young -

Comment by GearDown: If you want to see a complete list of all the Union Officers who were Killed, wounded or captured, see my website in the External Links. A new reference source is Brian Steel Wills book "The River Was Dyed With Blood" which was published about 2 years ago. It has a partial list of Union officer in the appendix but it also includes names of officers who were absent from the Battle. This book is also a good review of the discussion about whether General Forrest knew or gave the order for the massacre. I am also in agreement that the truth was somewhere in the middle: some men were massacred but it was not a full-scale massacre. Cimprich even concluded in his appendix the casualty rate was ~39%. The truly sad part is the casualty rate of the White Tennesseans cavalry men who were sent to Andersonville was 77%. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GearDown

Why is This Even Here?

Why is this within the categories of "Naval Battles during the American Civil War?" No Naval forces on other sides were involved in any kind of military action. The Union side had ships, yes, but they did not participate in the battle at all. The Confederates had only the Cavalry under Forrest, The Unions had Atillery and various others, but even the page itself admits no naval forces were involved. So why is it in this category? PRhyu (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My Comment (excuse me if I am not using this Talk feature correctly): The gunboats played a major role in this battle. Myron J. Smith's book "Tinclads in the Civil War" uses about 10 pages to discuss the role of the US Navy in the Battle of Fort Pillow. There was a total of 11 ships--- tin clad gunboats, civilian steamboats, hospital boats--- that were involved around Fort Pillow during the April 12th and 13th. The "New Era" was stationed in the river and was armed with six 24-lb howitzers. The Captain's report, found in the Naval OR's, stated he fired 385 shells of various types and 280 rifle cartridges and 96 pistol cartridges. That is about one large cannon ball for every 10 Confederate soldiers (there were less than 2000 Confederates at this battle). Steaming up the river was the civilian steamboat the "Olive Branch". It was a 590-ton boat and was carrying 500 troops and 2 complete artillery batteries which would be 8 or more guns. They were too tightly packed on the ship to unload without cranes. It stopped just below the fort while the battle raged. The day after the battle, the tinclad "Silver Cloud" arrived and fired some shots at individual Confederate cavalrymen before it signaled to initiate the truce to bury the dead. The "Silver Cloud" was armed with six 24-lb smoothbore cannon. Also coming downstream were the gunboats "Moose", "Lady Pike" and "Hastings". These arrived too late but it shows how quickly the Navy could respond to support the fort and it shows the threat that the General Forrest faced from this major transportation artery. This should be added to the article along with Naval OR's and Smith's book. I hope to do that later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GearDown

Grant Memoirs?

General Grant has a specific reference to Fort Pillow in his Memoirs (I don't have the original Ed., but its on p. 391 of the Penguin Classics 1 volume version):

Forrest, however, fell back rapidly, and attacked the troops at Fort Pillow, a station for the protection of the navigation of the Mississippi River. The garrison consisted of a regiment of colored troops, infantry, and a detachment of Tennessee cavalry. These troops fought bravely, but were overpowered. I will leave Forrest in his dispatches to tell what he did with them.

"The river was dyed," he says, "with the blood of the slaughtered for two hundred yards. The approximate loss was upward of five hundred killed, but few of the officers escaping. My loss was about twenty killed. It is hoped that these facts will demonstrate to the Northern people that negro soldiers cannot cope with Southerners." Subsequently Forrest made a report in which he left out the part which shocks humanity to read.

Is there any particular reason why this quote isn't used in the article? I'm a bit nervous about putting it in, because people seem to get worked up about civil war stuff... Windsagio (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's irrelevant hearsay? Grant was not even present during the battle.97.73.64.150 (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

             Actually, I'll 'be bold' and put it in! Windsagio (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

RESPONSE: The battle of Fort Pillow was fought in 1864. By that time Grant had moved east to command the Army of the Potomac. He wasn't within six hundred miles of Fort Pillow when the alleged "massacre" took place, so I fail to see what his memoirs add to the debate.

How is Grant's estimation of what happened not noteworthy? If this was a topic about Iraq War I, would Stormin' Norman's description of a battle be totally discounted because he was at HQ? He's the Theatre level commander in the age of Telegraph, he's going to get reports about people under his command being butchered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.110.158 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 April 2013

Because Grant was not anywhere near Fort Pillow at the time it happened. I thought I made that clear.184.5.156.221 (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Grant was not the "theatre level commander" at Fort Pillow. He was in Virginia at the time, which was over six hundred miles away, and in an entirely different theatre.71.48.145.252 (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Petitjean1: Several of the cavalry in Forrest's command were his personal slaves and stayed with him throughout the war. This can be confirmed from the Memphis papers of the era as well as the acceptance of Black Confederates at reunions. Many such veterans were awarded old age military pensions by their states after the war. The records are fragmentary as many state records have been lost but many are available at the Ft. Smith Public Library in Ft. Smith, AR as well as the Tennessee State Archives at Nashville. It may surprise some that Blacks were often Confederate front line soldiers and did a creditable job. Estimates of Blacks in actual combat duty on the Confederate side range from 75,000 to over 200,000.

I watched a movie a couple of years ago about Black Union units at Petersburg, Virginia. What was not shown was that over half of the defenders of the Confederate works at Petersburg were also Black. There is no doubt about the heroism shown by the Black soldiers on both sides. It should be recognized that they did serve on both sides though. People have many reasons for what they do and in my study of history, I have found that little is simple. Petitjean1 (talk)Petitjean1 —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC).

Grant's Memoirs -- Part 2

I reverted an IP edit that pointed out that Grant was not an eyewitness. In fact, the first paragraph of the quote is simply common knowledge that would not have required an eyewitness. The second paragraph is Grant quoting an ACTUAL eyewitness -- Forrest himself. I clarified that the quote in the second paragraph was quoting Forrest if that is what created the confusion. There is no need to explain that Grant was in Virginia when the massacre occurred. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In an effort to end the IP edit warring I have clarified in the text that Grant was not an eyewitness, but eliminated the POV language that was presented with it. I have also included in a footnote info. from another source that describes the specific documents Grant was referring to. I also made it clear that the exaggerated numbers on Union deaths was Forrest's claim, not Grant's. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"In fact, the first paragraph of the quote is simply common knowledge that would not have required an eyewitness." That's circular reasoning.97.73.64.155 (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Grant's comments add absolutely nothing to this article, since he was hundreds of miles away during the battle.71.48.145.252 (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Women too?

The drawing shows quite a few black women fighting, so has there ever been any mention of females in this fight? Catlover98 (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

All official reports state the women and some children were removed from the Fort early in the morning to a coal barge. This coal barge was moved out to a sand bar in the Mississippi River. There is a report of one woman who was in the fort during the battle. I believe the source is the Congressional Investigation but I'm sure Ward's book also mentions this. The sketches and the stories of Confederates killing women and children are from the newspapers, such as Harpers Weekly. The sketches also show the Confederates using bayonets but these were cavalrymen and did not carry bayonets. The Confederate cavalry of the Western Theater fought as mounted infantry and did not even carry swords, except for officers and Forrest's Escort Company. Now there were civilians armed combatants (CAC's) in the fort. These were shop owners, farmers and others working in the fort's town. They took up weapons and fought with the military. Some were killed but many survived. It is difficult to know how many CAC's there were as they did not have a roster. This was also the problem when it comes to accounting for the 13 Tennessee Cavalry(US). This regiment moved to Fort Pillow so they could recruit more men. When the fort was captured, the regiment's records were destroyed along with any records of the recent enlistments. There is a personal letter from Charles Robinson, who was a civilian photographer. Written only days after the battle, he tells how he was given a rifle and a coat and he fired as rapidly as he could. After the fort was captured he simply took off their Union tunic and walked out of the fort. I will add that reference later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GearDown

Too one-sided

This article seems too one-sided in the sources it chooses to use, and the way it depicts events. I found a source that seems pretty neutral to me, and I hope it helps in fixing this problem.

"In the swirling confusion inside the fort the situation rapidly degenerated. Before Forrest could mount up and ride into the fort to restore order, an unknown number of Union troops reportedly were shot down while attempting to surrender. Meanwhile, the fort's American flag still flew above the ramparts, and Confederates below the bluff had no way of knowing what was going on inside the fort. As DeWitt Clinton Fort noted in his diary after the battle: 'The wildest confusion prevailed among those who had run down the bluff. Many of them had thrown down their arms while running and seemed desirous to surrender while many others had carried their guns with them and were loading and firing back up the bluff at us with a desperation which seemed worse than senseless. We could only stand there and fire until the last man of them was ready to surrender.'

Forrest himself, in a little-known postwar interview with fellow Confederate general Dabney H. Maury, supported Fort's contention. 'When we got into the fort the white flag was shown at once,' Forrest said in an article published in the Philadelphia Weekly Times. 'The negroes ran out down to the river; and although the [white] flag was flying, they kept on turning back and shooting at my men, who consequently continued to fire into them crowded on the brink of the river, and they killed a good many of them in spite of my efforts and those of their officers to stop them. But there was no deliberate intention nor effort to massacre the garrison as has been so generally reported by the Northern papers.'

Within half an hour the battle was over. Of the fort's total garrison of 580 men, some 354 apparently were killed or wounded (final figures are still hotly disputed). Of these, a large number drowned while attempting to swim to the Union vessels that were steaming away without them. Another 226 were taken prisoner, including Bradford, who was shot and killed a few days later while attempting to escape.

After the battle, a congressional committee chaired by radical Republican Senator Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio issued a highly charged report accusing Forrest and his men of 'an indiscriminate slaughter, sparing neither age nor sex, white or black, soldier or civilian.' The fact that no women or children were killed at the fort, and only one civilian (who had taken up arms at the time of the attack), did not deter Wade's committee, whose chief aim was not to determine the truth but to deliver a piece of wartime propaganda intended to incite the restive Northern public on the eve of Ulysses S. Grant's long-awaited spring offensive. The report, virtually useless as an evidentiary document, did succeed in tarring Forrest and his men with the label of murderers, and the capture of Fort Pillow quickly became known as a 'massacre.' It remains so identified today, an explosive and imprecise term that sheds much heat–but little light–on one of the murkiest and most controversial episodes of the Civil War." http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-fort-pillow.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.80.44.146 (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The above quote was from an article by Roy Morris, Jr., which was first published in America's Civil War magazine, apparently without footnotes. The article was posted on the History Net website on 12 June 2006, crediting the magazine, but not providing a date for its first publication. For such a controversial topic, it would be better to have a source that cites documentation for the facts and conclusions. This would included citing the interview published in the Philadelphia Weekly Times (likely based in Philadelphia, MS.)Parkwells (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is the quote from Grant's memoirs still in this article?

Grant was hundreds of miles away from Fort Pillow when this incident took place. What does the quote from his memoirs add to the controversy other than more hearsay?71.48.148.40 (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Battle of Fort Pillow. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.civil-war-tribute.com/us-grant-letter-to-lincoln-08231863.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://deadconfederates.com/2014/04/15/understanding-fort-pillow-full-and-ample-retaliation/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://books.google.com/books?id=AMg4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA168&dq=confederate+laws+%22full+and+ample+retaliation%E2%80%9D&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Hxi1Uru2Kqby2QXDm4C4CQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=confederate%20laws%20%22full%20and%20ample%20retaliation%E2%80%9D&f=false

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed renaming

I think this would better be named Fort Pillow Massacre. That's what the article is about, the battle itself is unimportant. Then someone finding it in a list or category would know better what it is. Any objection? deisenbe (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It's not called "massacre" because of the conflicting reports, exaggerations and deception from the Union side. Key example- the (US) Congressional Report claimed there was a surrender of the fort and after that surrender 300 to 400 Union soldiers were killed (murdered). Reports by Union officers who were present at the battle don't support that story. -Topcat777 12:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topcat777 (talk • contribs)

Using John L. Jordan's article as a source

Should not be used as a source for yesterday's weather report. I replaced his "suggested" number of Federal casualties and losses in the infobox with those given by Foote, but his – uh – conclusions are still cited a couple of times in the body. Jordan sets out to prove that the "alleged massacre" did not take place and – wouldn't you know – he does. The article was written in 1947 and is based largely on biographies written by former Confederate officers/soldiers and/or proponents of the Lost Cause; I haven't read them but kinda assume they may not be entirely unbiased. I probably shouldn't cite the article so extensively, but Jordan writes such biased, racist, upper-class elitist drivel that I don't have the words to describe it. Some of Jordan's "findings" are pure conjecture:

(p. 122) This section of Tennessee was known to have been infested with guerrillas and robbers, and it is believed that if any excesses were committed at Fort Pillow during the night of April 12-13, it was the work of men of this class who followed in the wake of both armies and menaced the defenceless. Most of Chalmer’s men had had only one hour of sleep within the preceding sixty; Forrest’s men had marched seventy-two miles within sixteen hours when they arrived at the fort. The men fought all day and were exhausted to the limit of endurance. It is most improbable that they roamed through the camp at night.

And here are some prime examples of the aforementioned drivel:

(p. 108) While the truce was in effect some of the Negro troops discharged their pieces and used language that was offensive to the attackers and also made offensive gestures with their hands. Forrest’s men now seethed with anger. A bountiful supply of liquor had been provided for the garrison and there were buckets of whiskey, with dippers attached, in the fort as well as plenty of beer. The sworn testimony of a large number of honorable and trustworty men established this fact. (Where did Jordan find this testimony? He doesn't say.) … It was also part of the plan for the gunboat

(p. 109) to sweep the bluff with canister shells. This was not done, however, for the gunboat had been firing away its shells, ineffectively, at Forrest’s men since daylight, and had nearly exhausted its ammunition. …. The drunken garrison, without the promised aid from the gunboat, scattered in their effort to escape. Some jumped into the river, others hid behind bushes and logs and kept up their futile resistance, while other groups and individuals indicated their desire to surrender but continued to discharge their pieces. These acts were such as might be expected of men heavily under the influence of liquor.

(p. 116) All private soldiers of the colored troops and of the Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry (white) whose testimony was published in the Official Records were illiterates, and signed sworn statements with their marks. Yet their statements were couched in perfect language, grammatically, and contained many words that were beyond the comprehension of men of this class.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow. You edited out his casualty estimate then addressed everything he wrote except - except - how he came to that estimate. Jordan's numbers were based on reports from the Official Records - those reported to be in the fort at the start of the battle, survivors found after the battle and prisoners taken by the Confederates. -Topcat777 12:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

My edit summary says that I "removed number of casualties cited from unreliable, biased source" and then explained in Talk why I consider the source to be unreliable and biased and disqualified in its entirety. I replaced Jordan’s suggestion with the casualty numbers cited by Foote who cannot be accused of anti-Confederate bias. Jordan’s numbers are the result of his calculations, based on statements, as preserved in the Official Records, made by presumably traumatized survivors of a bloody and chaotic battle followed by a bloody and chaotic night (so you’ll have conflicting statements and general confusion). Too much if-then, only to arrive at a "suggested" number.

(p. 100) As the Official Records do not show the losses of the Federal troops in the engagement at Fort Pillow, it appears that the only alternative in arriving at the truth is to show how many survivors there were.

(pg. 100) In making the present calculation as to the number of survivors, the strength of the garrison has been found to have been 580 instead of 557, as will be demonstrated hereinafter.

(pg. 101) Since, however, there is no authorative [sic] statement of Federal losses at Fort Pillow, it has been necessary first to determine the number of known survivors, to deduct this from the garrison’s strength, and to consider the remaining number to represent the losses.

BTW, Jordan also helped himself to liberal chunks of text from his sources without marking them as quotes, but I haven’t had the time or energy to catalogue these as the next step to remove him from the references altogether. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The elusive "Smith"

It appears the Clark quote was inserted by User:Deisenbe on April 4th of 2018. That user might tell us to whom it refers. I suspect it's a mistype, meaning Forrest. No Smiths in the Confederate chain of command that I can find, but it would be nice if there were an "opposing forces" section or "order of battle" page for this event. Clark's regiment commander appears to be Russell. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Given the inserter’s standards of accuracy, perhaps just removing it is best. Qwirkle (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of asking that user to look at this. For now, I've replaced Smith with Forrest, which makes the statement true. Sorry to everyone if I was flippant in my reversion last night. BusterD (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Dunno that Clarke should be described as “Forrest’s” particularly, though. Qwirkle (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The Smith in question is Capt. C. T. Smith, "who led the charge as we moved from the first to the second fort". From https://civilwarhome.com/chalmersftpillowor.html deisenbe (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Who has what to do with the sergeant in question? Qwirkle (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Katyn or My Lai was a “deliberate” massacre. This may have been a failure of command and control.

No. This has nothing to with fringe, but with historians who see the killings as a failure of command or control. You can (tacitly) say “all”, or you can say “deliberate”, but not both. Qwirkle (talk)

What is your point? Ckruschke (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke

See the recent edit history. Qwirkle (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead section is not consistent with the discussion in the article

The lead seems to represent only the one side and not mention that there was no overall surrender. Much evidence in the article suggests that the Union resistance continued for some time, and that the commander played games to delay while help might arrive. The article seems balanced, but the lead is sensational POV --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I see your point. Official Union sources, historians, and even Bedford's men claim - in the page text - that this was a massacre. I think the lede does a pretty decent summation and closes by saying its anyone's guess what Bedford's role in the action was. Ckruschke (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Massacre section deleted for six months

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Fort_Pillow&diff=986829792&oldid=986829675

I suspect this escaped Cluebot because it was twice deleted within 60 seconds, or something like that. I spotted it just from my memory of what the article was, and then I went through the history looking for unrestored blankings, found it, and restored it. deisenbe (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Page protection requested

In view of the above, I have requested indefinite protection from IP editing. deisenbe (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This was responded to negatively (I found out just now) but I would like to appeal that and present this at greater length. We shouldn't have to rely on our memories to find 11,000 character vandalism. It changed the whole focus of the article. Please tell me how to proceed. deisenbe (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles are only protected to stop persistent, ongoing vandalism or other disruption. This article has barely been edited since you requested protection in June; I don't know of any admin who would protect this article at this time; I wouldn't. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)