April, 1864–“Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, But Words Can Never Hurt Me”

The Fort Pillow Massacre Proves the lie of this childish notion

By Gary Far­row, Danville His­tor­i­cal Society

Danville North Star April 23, 1864

The Fort Pillow Massacre

Wash­ing­ton, April 16 — Yes­ter­day after­noon dis­patch­es were received from Gen­er­al Sher­man regard­ing the sur­ren­der of Fort Pil­low and the bru­tal con­duct of the rebels imme­di­ate­ly after­wards which bids fair to be amply retal­i­at­ed in that quar­ter in due time.

The Star says accord­ing to Gen­er­al Sher­man [that there were] fifty — three white troops killed and one hun­dred wound­ed, and three hun­dred blacks mur­dered in cold blood after the surrender…..

…It is now believed that For­rest will next appear in the vicin­i­ty of Mem­phis where they can inflict no more than at Colum­bus and stand a very fair chance of being sur­round­ed by over­whelm­ing forces.

The lat­est news from Fort Pil­low is that the ene­my, after burn­ing the fort, and destroy­ing every­thing that was not move­able left the place.

****

How events actu­al­ly unfold­ed on April 12 at a Union for­ti­fi­ca­tion nes­tled beside the Mis­sis­sip­pi Riv­er in Hen­ning, Ten­nessee, is a mat­ter of debate and dis­pute.  But the polit­i­cal and mil­i­tary events that led up to the mas­sacre are crys­tal clear.

Soon after the war broke out in 1861, three slaves fled their own­ers and made their way to the Union’s Fortress Mon­roe in Hamp­ton, Vir­ginia. Gen­er­al Ben­jamin But­ler declared them “con­tra­bands” and refused to return them to the slave own­ers, because the state had declared itself a for­eign pow­er. There­fore, he rea­soned he was under no oblig­a­tion to return them to their owners.

By the late spring of 1862, But­ler had moved on to cap­ture New Orleans and over­see the Union army’s admin­is­tra­tion of the city and sur­round­ing envi­rons.  The Gen­er­al effec­tive­ly con­fis­cat­ed sur­round­ing plan­ta­tions and slaves and put them into pro­duc­tion on behalf of the US gov­ern­ment and quite like­ly his own pockets.

As spring turned into sum­mer, Sen­a­tor Gar­rett Davis from Ken­tucky, a bor­der state that remained in the Union, respond­ed to a pro­pos­al on the floor made by Rad­i­cal Repub­li­cans that blacks be recruit­ed into the army. An active slave­hold­er and weath­er­vane of South­ern sen­ti­ment, he lashed out, ““No! No! We would regard the authors of such a pro­pos­al as our worst enemies…before we would sub­mit to any such con­di­tion of things…we would meet you in a death strug­gle to over­throw togeth­er such oppression…If this Union can­not be pre­served by the white man … there are no con­di­tions upon which it can be saved.”

Then Gar­rett Davis said what was real­ly on his mind, “If you put arms in the hands of the Negroes and make them feel their pow­er and impress them with their for­mer slav­ery, wrongs and injustice….you will whet their fiendish pas­sions, make them the destroy­ing scourge on our cot­ton States, and you will bring upon the coun­try a con­di­tion of things that will ren­der restora­tion hope­less.”  The tox­ic tem­per­a­ture of fear, hatred and des­per­a­tion over race was red hot and climb­ing. The Davis speech was but a sin­gle tem­per­a­ture read­ing as the mer­cury made its fate­ful climb towards Fort Pillow.

Although the pro­pos­al by abo­li­tion­ist Rad­i­cal Repub­li­cans to recruit blacks into arms was not imme­di­ate­ly suc­cess­ful, they con­tin­ued to push for the imme­di­ate end of slav­ery and equal oppor­tu­ni­ties for blacks. Soon after Gar­rett Davis’ dia­tribe on the Sen­ate floor, new con­fis­ca­tion leg­is­la­tion was passed that stat­ed any slave in rebel ter­ri­to­ry occu­pied the Union army would be freed through crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings against Con­fed­er­ate offi­cials, mil­i­tary or civilians.

By the end of 1862, Jef­fer­son Davis, hav­ing had quite enough of both Gen­er­al But­ler and Union con­fis­ca­tion pol­i­cy, issued Gen­er­al Order 111: “The African slaves have not only been excit­ed to insur­rec­tion by every license and encour­age­ment but num­bers of them have actu­al­ly been armed for a servile war.” Specif­i­cal­ly call­ing out But­ler and his offi­cers, Davis declared that “as rob­bers and crim­i­nals deserv­ing death,” they would be exe­cut­ed upon cap­ture. Davis also direct­ed that all non­com­mis­sioned offi­cers in the Union army found serv­ing in the com­pa­ny of “armed slaves” be exe­cut­ed. As for the “servile” blacks, they were deemed to be sent back to the states where they belonged to be tried for insur­rec­tion. The penal­ty for this crime was death.

On Jan­u­ary 1, Lincoln’s Eman­ci­pa­tion Procla­ma­tion became law. This raised the stakes even high­er. Under the pre­vi­ous Con­fis­ca­tion Act, slaves in rebel held ter­ri­to­ry occu­pied by Union troops could become free through the pros­e­cu­tion of south­ern­ers in crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings. Now Lincoln’s decree freed all slaves in all rebel ter­ri­to­ry. There would be no turn­ing back. It was vic­to­ry or death. Both sides were now engaged in an all or noth­ing propo­si­tion. The new law also kicked the door wide open for the recruit­ment of black soldiers.

In May of 1863, the Con­fed­er­ate Con­gress qui­et­ly passed the apt­ly named Retal­ia­to­ry Act, which main­tained that the Union’s actions brought a “Servile War” into rebel states that vio­lat­ed the rules of “mod­ern war­fare [pre­vail­ing in] civ­i­lized nations” and that those actions may “be prop­er­ly and law­ful­ly repressed by retal­i­a­tion.” The law autho­rized Jef­fer­son Davis to take any retal­ia­to­ry mea­sures that he thought prop­er and affirmed the President’s pri­or exec­u­tive order that Union offi­cers asso­ci­at­ed with black troops be put to death. It also declared that all “negroes and mulattoes…engaged in war…against the Con­fed­er­ate States” be sub­ject to the insur­rec­tion laws in the state where they were cap­tured. This overt lan­guage effec­tive­ly said that blacks, from North or South, were not legal­ly mil­i­tary com­bat­ants. The race war was on.

The heat had been turned up; the pot at Fort Pil­low would boil over.

Enter the Confederacy’s self-taught mil­i­tary genius Nathan Bed­ford For­rest.  A pros­per­ous slave-trad­er and busi­ness entre­pre­neur, he joined the Con­fed­er­ate army as a pri­vate. Moved by the woe­ful straits his com­rades in arms were in, he pur­chased hors­es and equip­ment for his Ten­nessee reg­i­ment. This brought him to the atten­tion of Gov­er­nor Isham Har­ris, who prompt­ly com­mis­sioned him a Lieu­tenant General.

For­rest, the cav­al­ry offi­cer, dis­tin­guished him­self ear­ly in the war by orches­trat­ing the escape of Con­fed­er­ate troops from Fort Donel­son, which was sur­round­ed by Gen­er­al Grant’s forces and ulti­mate­ly tak­en by the Union. Soon, he com­mand­ed the rear­guard as the rebels retreat­ed from the Bat­tle of Shiloh, which at the time was the largest clash between armies ever seen on the Amer­i­can con­ti­nent. Pro­mot­ed to Brigadier Gen­er­al, he took his cav­al­ry as far north as the banks of the Ohio Riv­er in south­west Ken­tucky before return­ing to his base in Mis­sis­sip­pi. Once again, he become a thorn in Gen­er­al Grant’s side, forc­ing to him revise his strat­e­gy and tac­tics in his quest to take Vicks­burg, the linch­pin to con­trol­ling the Mis­sis­sip­pi Riv­er and split­ting the Con­fed­er­a­cy in half.

The man was fear­less and con­tin­u­al­ly bur­nished his leg­end with hero­ic and crazed acts of per­son­al courage. In 1863, often under­manned and out­gunned, he suc­cess­ful­ly led a guer­ril­la cam­paign in north­ern Alaba­ma. For­rest also played a key role in the Con­fed­er­ates’ suc­cess at the Bat­tle of Chicka­mau­ga, as vic­to­ry that briefly stemmed the Union tide in Ten­nessee. After Gen­er­al Brax­ton Bragg, his supe­ri­or offi­cer, failed to fol­low-up the vic­to­ry and attempt to take back Chat­tanooga, For­rest con­front­ed Bragg and threat­ened to kill him. Bragg ban­ished his Cav­al­ry com­man­der to the Mis­sis­sip­pi back­wa­ter, but by the spring of 1864, all had been for­giv­en. Bragg pro­mot­ed him to the rank of Major Gen­er­al and brought him back to the Ken­tucky-Ten­nessee theatre.

On March 26, 1864, Gen­er­al For­rest attacked  Gen­er­al S.G. Hicks’ Union post of 6,000 troops at Pad­u­c­ah, Ken­tucky. The ini­tial attacked was repelled. The rebel com­man­der then sent a mes­sage to Hicks demand­ing “uncon­di­tion­al sur­ren­der.” The mis­sive closed with, “If you sur­ren­der you will be treat­ed as pris­on­ers of war, but if I have to storm your works, you may expect no quar­ter.” Three oth­er assaults by For­rest and oth­ers were to no avail, and they left Pad­u­c­ah, lick­ing their wounds with over 1,000 men dead and look­ing for revenge.

About two weeks lat­er, the bat­tle of Fort Pil­low took place. A sub­se­quent Con­gres­sion­al inves­tiga­tive report by the Joint Com­mit­tee on the Con­duct of the War pro­vides a “no quar­ter giv­en” nar­ra­tive of rebel atroc­i­ties. Dom­i­nat­ed by Rad­i­cal Abo­li­tion­ists, the Committee’s report, whether accu­rate or not, served to beat the war drums to will­ing lis­ten­ers in the North.

What tran­spired on that April 12 day is some­what cloud­ed by the fog of war. What were Gen­er­al Forrest’s orders to his men? Was Gen­er­al For­rest on the imme­di­ate scene? Did black and white Union troops refuse to sur­ren­der? Did rebel troops act on Forrest’s orders? Did Con­fed­er­ate offi­cers lose con­trol of their men and a spon­ta­neous mas­sacre ensue?

Here is one account by Samuel H. Cad­well, a sur­geon in the Con­fed­er­ate Six­teenth Cav­al­ry Ten­nessee Cav­al­ry, that he shared in a let­ter to his wife.“ It was gar­risoned by 400 white men and 400 negroes & out of the 800 only 168 are now liv­ing. So you can guess how ter­ri­ble was the slaugh­ter. It was decid­ed­ly the most hor­ri­ble sight that I have ever witnessed.

They refused to surrender—which incensed our men & if Gen­er­al For­rest had not run between our men & the Yanks with his pis­tol and sabre drawn not a man would have been spared—We took about a hun­dred & 25 white men & about 45 negroes the rest of the 800 are num­bered with the dead—They sure [lay] heaped upon each oth­er 3 days—….”

Cer­tain­ly this account con­tra­dicts the over­ar­ch­ing theme of the Con­gres­sion­al Committee’s report.

What­ev­er the facts, Robert S. Critchell, Acting-Master’s Mate USN, wit­nessed the after­math. His account in the form of a let­ter was pub­lished in the New York Times, “Our boat arrived at the fort about 7 ½ A.M., on Wednes­day, the 13th, the day after the rebels cap­tured the fort…I was sent out with a bur­ial par­ty to bury the dead….

“I found many of the dead lying close along by the water’s edge, where they had evi­dent­ly sought safe­ty; they could not offer any resis­tance from the places where they were, in holes … along the banks; most of them had two wounds. I saw sev­er­al col­ored sol­diers of the Sixth Unit­ed States Artillery, with their eyes punched out with bay­o­nets; many of them were shot twice and bay­o­net­ed also. All those along the bank of the riv­er were col­ored. The num­ber of the col­ored near the riv­er was about sev­en­ty. Going up into the fort, I saw there bod­ies par­tial­ly con­sumed by fire. Whether burned before or after death I can­not say, any way there were sev­er­al com­pa­nies of rebels in the fort while these bod­ies were burn­ing, and they could have pulled them out of the fire had they cho­sen to do so.…

“I had some con­ver­sa­tion with rebel offi­cers, and they claim that our men would not sur­ren­der, and in some few cas­es they could not con­trol their men, who seemed deter­mined to shoot down every negro sol­dier, whether he sur­ren­dered or not. This is a flim­sy excuse, for after our col­ored troops had been dri­ven from the fort, and they were sur­round­ed by the rebels on all sides, it is appar­ent that they would do what all say they did, throw down their arms and beg for mercy.…”

What­ev­er Nathan Bed­ford For­rest acts of com­mis­sion or omis­sion were, the weight of com­mand respon­si­bil­i­ty falls upon his shoul­ders. The seeds of the race war at Fort Pil­low were cul­ti­vat­ed months and years before. By Con­fed­er­ate think­ing, Union offi­cers and black troops were engaged a servile insur­rec­tion against the social fab­ric of the South. Exe­cu­tion was the solution.

Along with the men who were there, the esca­lat­ing words of fear, hatred and des­per­a­tion through the years and the ideas they rep­re­sent­ed pulled the trig­ger and stuck the bay­o­net at Fort Pil­low. Words and thoughts can hurt beyond a mere child’s wildest imag­i­na­tion. Authors of may­hem and mur­der, they too caused the Mis­sis­sip­pi Riv­er to run red that day.

Sources: “Lincoln and the Border States” by William C Harris; Confederate President Jefferson’s General Order 111; The “Retaliatory Act”  passed by the Confederate Congress; New York Times May 3 1864 Letter to the Editor submitted by Congressman Blow from Missouri which is the letter of Robert S Critchell, Acting-Master’s Mate U.S.N.; Samuel Cadwell’s, Surgeon for 16th Cavalry Tennessee, letter to his wife; Committee on the Conduct of the War’s Report on the Fort Pillow Massacre published in the New York Times, May 6,1864