Fort Pillow Attack
 
 
THE GRAND FABRICATION 
 
 It is almost as difficult to find consistent information about 
the incident at Fort Pillow as it is to determine the moral 
significance of its outcome.  Scholars disagree about exactly 
what transpired on April 12, 1864  at Fort Pillow, when General 
Nathan Bedford Forrest captured the fort with his 1,500 troops 
and claimed numerous Union lives in the process (Wyeth 250). It 
became an issue of propaganda for the Union, and as a result the 
facts were grossly distorted. After close examination it is clear 
that the Fort Pillow Massacre_ (as it became known by 
abolitionists)  was nothing of the sort. The 1,500 troops under 
the command of General Nathan Bedford Forrest acted as men and as 
soldiers in their capture of Fort Pillow.   
 
It is first necessary to understand what happened in the battle 
before any judgment can be made. A careful study performed by Dr. 
John Wyeth revealed the following information:  from April 9-11, 
1864, troops under the command of Ben McCulloch, Tyree Harris 
Bell, and Brig. General James Chalmers marched non-stop to Fort 
Pillow to begin their assault under the command of General Nathan 
Bedford Forrest. Confederate sharpshooters claimed the lives of 
several key Union officers during the morning assault on the 
fort. The losses included the commanding officer Major Loinel F. 
Booth, and his second in command shortly after that.  These 
losses created a complete breakdown of order and leadership among 
the Union troops within the fort. (251)  During the morning 
engagement, the gun boat the New Era  was continually attempting 
to shell the Confederate forces from the Mississippi, but with 
minimal success. The Union forces fought back heartily until 
around one oclock in the afternoon, when both sides slowed down.  
Around that time the New Era  steamed out of range to cool its 
weapons. It had fired a total of 282 rounds, and its supplies 
were almost totally exhausted. During this hiatus in the firing, 
while Confederate troops waited for supplies that would arrive 
around three oclock, Forrestwas injured when his horse fell on 
him after being mortaily wounded (252). When the supplies 
arrived, Confederate troops under a flag of truce delivered a 
message from Forrest that said, My men have received a fresh 
supply of ammunition, and from their present position can easily 
assault and capture the fort,_ (253). Forrest demanded the 
unconditional surrender of the garrison,_ promising that you 
shall be treated as prisoners of war_ ( 253).  This agreement was 
refused by Major William F. Bradford using the name of Major 
Booth, and Forrest was left with no option but to attack (Long & 
Long 484).  Without a word, Forrest rode to his post, and a bugle 
call began the charge. The soldiers stormed the fort under the 
cover of sharpshooter fire.  The Union spent their rounds on the 
charging mass, and the second wave was to all intents and 
purposes a turkey shoot._ As hordes of soldiers came over the 
wall, a considerable number of Union lives were lost to point 
blank fire, an action that was deemed murder by the northern 
press. (255) However, it must not be forgotten that those Union 
troops who died were in the process of reloading their rifles. 
Even knowing that they were severely outnumbered, they had 
demanded the fight  (Henry 255). 
 
By this point most of the Union officers in the fort had been 
killed, and the remaining troops fled the fort toward the river 
where they had provisions waiting . There was also a plan for the 
New Era   to shell the Confederate troops in the fort with 
canister, but the shelling never happened(.  Confederate troops 
were waiting at the bottom of the fort to prevent access to the 
supplies by the Union forces. With the Union flag still flying 
upon the fort and Union forces still firing on the run, 
Confederate troops claimed many more lives on the river bank. It 
was reported by Colonel FIRST NAME Barteau that they made a wild, 
crazy, scattering fight. They acted like  a crowd of drunken men. 
They would at one moment  yield and throw down their guns, and 
then would rush  again to arms, seize their guns and renew  
the fire. If  one squad was left as prisoners ... it would soon  
discover that they could not be trusted as  having surrendered, 
for taking the first opportunity they would break lose again and 
engage in the contest. Some of our men were killed by Negroes who 
had once surrendered (256). 
 
With this type of activity, it is understandable how a superior 
force could claim so many casualties. However, the issue is not 
so clear to Civil War historians. The first and biggest problem 
has to do with the information that different historians base 
their opinions on. For example, in a historical account written 
by Carl Sandburg it is reported that Forrests troops stood 6,000 
strong. This is slightly inflated from the actual 1,500 that were 
present. In this same account Sandburg claims that the battle 
ended as a mob scene with wholesale lynching_(Sandburg 247). It 
was distorted information such as this that was used by the Union 
as propaganda against the South.  After the incident General 
FIRST NAME Kilpatrick was quoted saying Forrest had nailed 
Negroes to the fences, set fire to the fences, and burned the 
Negroes to death_(Hurst 321).  With reports like this, it is 
understandable why abolitionist were outraged.  
 
The Congressional Committee released a summary after the event. 
It stated that the rebels took advantage of a flag of truce to 
place  themselves in position from which the more readily to 
charge the upon the fort that after the fall of the fort the 
rebels commenced in an indiscriminate slaughter sparing neither  
age nor sex, white or black, soldier or civilian; that this was 
not the results passions  excited by the heat of conflict,  
but of a policy deliberation decided upon and  unhesitatingly 
announced; that several of the wounded were intentionally burned 
to death in huts and tents  about the fort; and the the rebels 
buried some of  the living the dead._(Henry 260) 
 
In the intensive studies performed by Dr. John Wyeth there were 
more than fifty soldiers that were present at this battle who 
gave sworn testimonies contradicting these findings.(260) This 
suggests that the  Union fabricated the truth to aid in its own 
cause. 
 
The fact is that most of what was said about Forrests unethical 
actions were false accusations. Testimonies from several 
different sources (both Union and Confederate) claim that there 
were no movements under the flag of truce, but that they had 
their positions hours before. (Henry 260) It is true that the 
losses were huge in this battle, but that is typical of many 
significantly unbalanced battles. According to Wyeth there was 
only one incident of force against the Union after the  Union 
flag came down,  and that resulted in an on the spot arrest . 
 
This entire incident was blown totally of proportion. It is 
tragic to lose even one life, but on a battle field, death is 
inevitable.  This event became  a monumental point in the war 
because of exaggeration and lies told by Union supporters. These 
lies strengthened the Union cause and further blemished the 
reputation of Confederate forces. Morally, there is no fault in 
Forrests actions.  
 
 
Works Cited 
 
 Henry, Robert Selph. First  the Most_-Forrest. . New York: The 
Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1944. 
 
 Hurst, Jack. Nathan Bedford Forrest-A Biography. New York:  
Alfred Knoph, 1993. 
 
 Lee, Guy Carleton. The True History of the Civil War. 
Philadelphia: I.B. Lippincott, 1903. 
 
 Long, E. B. and Barbara Long. The Civil War Day by Day-An 
Almanac. New York: Doubleday, 1971. 
 
 Sandburg, Carl. Storm over the Land--A Profile of the Civil War. 
New York:  Harcourt Brace: 1939. 
 
 Wyeth, John Allan. That Devil Forrest -The Life of Gen. Nathan 
Bedford Forrest. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1959. 
 
 Word Count: 1575 