While doing research on something else, I came across a couple of accounts of the aftermath of the Confederate assault on Fort Pillow, written by naval officers of U.S.S Silver Cloud (above), the Union “tinclad” gunboat that was the first on the scene. I don’t recall encountering these descriptions before, and they really do strike a nerve with their raw descriptions of what these men witnessed, at first hand.

These accounts are particularly important because historians are always looking for “proximity” in historical accounts of major events. The description of an event by someone who was physically present is to be more valued than one by someone who simply heard about it from another person. The narrative committed to paper immediately is, generally, more to be valued than one written months or years after the events described, when memories have started to fade or become shaded by others’ differing recollections. Hopefully, too, the historian can find those things in a description of the event by someone who doesn’t have any particular axe to grind, who’s writing for his own purposes without the intention that his account will be widely and publicly known. These are all factors — somewhat subjective, to be sure — that the historian considers when deciding what historical accounts to rely on when trying to reconstruct historical events, and to understand how one or another document fits within the context of all the rest.

Which brings us back to the eyewitness accounts of Acting Master William Ferguson, commanding officer of U.S.S. Silver Cloud, and Acting Master’s Mate Robert S. Critchell of that same vessel.

Ferguson’s report was written April 14, 1864, the day after he was at the site. It was addressed to Major General Stephen A. Hurlbut, commanding officer of the Union’s XVI Corps of the Army of the Tennessee, then headquartered at Memphis. It appears in the Army OR, vol. 57, and the Navy OR, vol. 26.

 

U.S. STEAMER SILVER CLOUD,
Off Memphis, Tenn., April 14, 1864.

 

SIR: In compliance with your request that I would forward to you a written statement of what I witnessed and learned concerning the treatment of our troops by the rebels at the capture of Fort Pillow by their forces under General Forrest, I have the honor to submit the following report:

 

Our garrison at Fort Pillow, consisting of some 350 colored troops and 200 of the Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, refusing to surrender, the place was carried by assault about 3 p.m. of 12th instant.

 

I arrived off the fort at 6 a.m. on the morning of the 13th instant. Parties of rebel cavalry were picketing on the hills around the fort, and shelling those away I made a landing and took on-board some 20 of our troops (some of them badly wounded), who had concealed themselves along the bank and came out when they saw my vessel. While doing so I was fired upon by rebel sharpshooters posted on the hills, and 1 wounded man limping down to the vessel was shot.

 

About 8 a.m. the enemy sent in a flag of truce with a proposal from General Forrest that he would put me in possession of the fort and the country around until 5 p.m. for the purpose of burying our dead and removing our wounded, whom he had no means of attending to. I agreed to the terms proposed, and hailing the steamer Platte Valley, which vessel I had convoyed up from Memphis, I brought her alongside and had the wounded brought down from the fort and battle-field and placed on board of her. Details of rebel soldiers assisted us in this duty, and some soldiers and citizens on board the Platte Valley volunteered for the same purpose.

 

We found about 70 wounded men in the fort and around it, and buried, I should think, 150 bodies. All the buildings around the fort and the tents and huts in the fort had been burned by the rebels, and among the embers the charred remains of numbers of our soldiers who had suffered a terrible death in the flames could be seen.

 

All the wounded who had strength enough to speak agreed that after the fort was taken an indiscriminate slaughter of our troops was carried on by the enemy with a furious and vindictive savageness which was never equaled by the most merciless of the Indian tribes. Around on every side horrible testimony to the truth of this statement could be seen. Bodies with gaping wounds, some bayoneted through the eyes, some with skulls beaten through, others with hideous wounds as if their bowels had been ripped open with bowie-knives, plainly told that but little quarter was shown to our troops. Strewn from the fort to the river bank, in the ravines and hollows, behind logs and under the brush where they had crept for protection from the assassins who pursued them, we found bodies bayoneted, beaten, and shot to death, showing how cold-blooded and persistent was the slaughter of our unfortunate troops.

 

Of course, when a work is carried by assault there will always be more or less bloodshed, even when all resistance has ceased; but here there were unmistakable evidences of a massacre carried on long after any resistance could have been offered, with a cold-blooded barbarity and perseverance which nothing can palliate.

 

As near as I can learn, there were about 500 men in the fort when it was stormed. I received about 100 men, including the wounded and those I took on board before the flag of truce was sent in. The rebels, I learned, had few prisoners; so that at least 300 of our troops must have been killed in this affair.

 

I have the honor to forward a list(*) of the wounded officers and men received from the enemy under flag of truce.

 

I am, general, your obedient servant,

 

W. FERGUSON,
Acting Master, U.S. Navy, Comdg. U.S. Steamer Silver Cloud.

 

Ferguson’s report is valuable because it is detailed, proximate in time to the event, and was written specifically for reference within the military chain of command. It seems likely that Ferguson’s description is the first written description of the aftermath of the engagement within the Federal’s command structure. Certainly it was written before news of Fort Pillow became widely known across the country, and the event became a rallying cry for retribution and revenge. Ferguson’s account was, I believe, ultimately included in the evidence published by the subsequent congressional investigation of the incident, but he had no way of anticipating that when he sat down to write out his report just 24 hours after witnessing such horrors.

The second account is that of Acting Master’s Mate Robert S. Critchell (right), a 20-year-old junior officer aboard the gunboat. Critchell’s letter, addressed to U.S. Rep. Henry T. Blow of Missouri, was written a week after Ferguson’s report, after the enormity of events at the fort had begun to take hold. If Ferguson’s report reflected the shock of what he’d seen, Critchell’s gives voice to a growing anger about it.  Critchell’s revulsion comes through in this letter, along with his disdain for the explanations of the brutality offered by the Confederate officers he’d met, that they’d simply lost control of their men, which the Union naval officer calls “a flimsy excuse.” Crittchell admits to being “personally interested in the retaliation which our government may deal out to the rebels,” but also stands by the accuracy of his description, offering to swear out an affidavit attesting to it.

 

UNITED STATES STEAMER “SILVER CLOUD.”

Mississippi River, April 22nd, 1864.

 

SIR :-Since you did me the favor of recommending my appointment last year, I have been on duty aboard this boat. I now write you with reference to the Fort Pillow massacre, because some of our crew are colored and I feel personally interested in the retaliation which our government may deal out to the rebels, when the fact of the merciless butchery is fully established.

 

Our boat arrived at the fort about 7½ A. M. on Wednesday, the 13th, the day after the rebels captured the fort. After shelling them, whenever we could see them, for two hours, a flag of truce from the rebel General Chalmers, was received by us, and Captain Ferguson of this boat, made an arrangement with General Chalmers for the paroling of our wounded and the burial of our dead; the arrangement to last until 5 P. M.

 

We then landed at the fort, and I was sent out with a burial party to bury our 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 and cavities 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 bayonetted 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, anyway, 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. One of the wounded negroes told me that “he hadn’t done a thing,” and when the rebels drove our men out of the fort, they (our men) threw away their guns and cried out that they surrendered, but they kept on shooting them down until they had shot all but a few. This is what they all say.

 

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.

 

I buried very few white men, the whole number buried by my party and the party from the gunboat “New Era” was about one hundred.

 

I can make affidavit to the above if necessary.

 

Hoping that the above may be of some service and that a desire to be of service will be considered sufficient excuse for writing to you, I remain very respectfully your obedient servant,

 

ROBERT S. CRITCHELL,

Acting Master’s Mate, U. S. N.

Critchell’s note about the explanation offered by Confederate officers, who argued that the black soldiers “would not surrender and in some few cases [the Confederate officers] ‘could not control their men,’ who seemed determined to shoot down every negro soldier, whether he surrendered or not,” is worth noting. That was the excuse offered at the time, and it remains so almost 150 years later, for those Fort Pillow apologists who acknowledge that unnecessary bloodshed took place at all. Critchell observed at the time that “this is a flimsy excuse,” and so it remains today.

Critchell’s letter also seems to endorse retaliation-in-kind, “because some of our crew are colored and I feel personally interested in the retaliation which our government may deal out to the rebels, when the fact of the merciless butchery is fully established.” This urge is, unfortunately, entirely understandable, and we’ve seen that within weeks the atrocity at Fort Pillow was being used as a rallying cry to spur Union soldiers on to commit their own acts of wanton violence. Vengrance begets retaliation begets vengeance begets retaliation. It never ends, and it’s always rationalized by pointing to the other side having done it before.

It never ends, but it often does have identifiable beginnings. Bill Ferguson and Bob Critchell saw one of those beginnings first-hand.

_____________
Critchell letter and images from Robert S. Critchell, Recollections of a Fire Insurance Man (Chicago: McClurg & Co., 1909).

By Niles Anderegg

On the tour of the Cottage, visitors hear of Lincoln’s use of a parable of “the Wolf and the Sheep.”  The point of recounting this story is to explore Lincoln’s views on the institution of slavery, and in particular how his attitude towards slavery and slaveholders had changed over time.  But Lincoln’s story also tells us something about his employment of rhetoric, and especially his use of parable.

The Wolf and the Sheep story, which would have reminded Lincoln’s audience of the parable of the Good Shepherd from the Gospel of John, comes from a brief, little remembered speech Lincoln gave in Baltimore in April of 1864.  The setting itself is important.  Maryland, a border state that had remained in the union, was at this time considering a new constitution that would include a provision ending slavery.  So Lincoln went to Baltimore to support and persuade Marylanders to adopt the new constitution.  The speech marked a rare moment for Lincoln, who seldom left Washington (he lived at the Cottage during the summer months of the war in part because he believed that, as Commander-in-Chief, he needed to remain in the district and in communication with the War Office).  The venue where Lincoln gave his speech was a sanitation fair, which was essentially a fundraiser for the United States Sanitary Commission and the work it did on behalf of wounded and sick soldiers.

The speech itself is interesting for several reasons.  Lincoln begins by reminding his audience that much has changed since the war began and that the people of Baltimore, especially, had seen much of that change.  He alludes to the difficulty Union soldiers had in marching through the city in 1861 when they were faced with riots.   Now, three years later, the citizens of Baltimore are raising money and urging support for those same troops.  Lincoln goes on to explain that Baltimore has not only changed its view of Union soldiers but has changed in its attitude towards slavery as well.

It is in this context of change that Lincoln uses the Wolf and the Sheep parable.  He starts off by explaining that “the world has never had a good definition for the word liberty,” and that in the midst of the Civil War, America is in need of a good definition.  He goes on to say that everyone talks about liberty but that when they use that word they don’t all mean the same thing.  Lincoln’s remark is surprising: “liberty” is one of the defining words of American history. The revolutionary generation called themselves the Sons of Liberty, so they presumably had a definition for liberty.  Jefferson talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence, so he too must have had a definition for liberty.  But Lincoln says no: in America, and in the world, liberty means different things to different people.

Lincoln goes on to give us two basic definitions of liberty.  He notes that “with some, the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor” while with others liberty is where men are free to “do as they please with other men and the product of other men’s labor.”  He goes on to point out that these two definitions are incompatible.  He also points out that each believer in one definition of liberty will call the other definition tyranny.   Then, instead of explaining which definition he believes is the correct one, he presents these two definitions in the form of a parable.

Lincoln dives into his parable almost without warning.  “The shepherd,” he says, “drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one.”  He goes on to explain that his policy of emancipation is viewed the same way as the sheep and the wolf view the shepherd, even in the North.  But he makes clear that it is the sheep’s definition that he believes is the right one. He goes on to say that the people of Maryland were “doing something to define liberty” and that their work has meant that “the Wolf’s dictionary has been repudiated.”

The language of this parable represents an evolution in Lincoln’s thinking.   He clearly defines the controversy over the meaning of liberty by creating a stark contrast which he applies directly to slavery. The wolf symbolizes those men who support a definition of liberty as: meaning to do as they please with other men and the product of other men’s labor.  This is a strongly negative description for Lincoln, given that throughout his pre-presidency political career he went out of his way to not demean slaveholders in particular, and Southerners in general.  Here, for example, is a passage from Lincoln’s debates with Douglas in 1858:

“Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tiptop Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave-masters.”

The direct challenge to the morality of slaveholders found in the speech in Baltimore is a significant departure from Lincoln’s pre-presidency rhetoric, but it is entirely consistent with the theme of the speech, which is that of change. The Civil War changed the lives of many Americans, and it also changed Abraham Lincoln.  He came to realize that in order to win the war and save the union he needed to end slavery.  He reinforces this view at the end of the Baltimore address when he alludes to news reports of the massacre of “some three hundred colored soldiers and white officers” at Fort Pillow, reminding his audience that there were those who resisted the inclusion of African-American troops in the Union Army who were now calling for retribution on Confederate prisoners.

Lincoln’s remarks on the Fort Pillow massacre connects back to the “black sheep” he refers to in his parable.   In Lincoln’s time (as well as in our own), the term “black sheep” had a negative connotation, describing a disreputable member of a family or group.  Lincoln, however, turns this definition in a new direction.  If the sheep is traditionally the victim of the wolf, how much more in danger is the black sheep, who stands out from the rest of the flock.  In arming the former slave, Lincoln might not be able to save every one of those black sheep, but at least he was giving them a fighting chance against the wolf.  In the gospel parable, we read: “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”  Lincoln’s definition of liberty now included all Americans.

Click here to read the full speech.

Mr. Anderegg is a Historical Interpreter at President Lincoln’s Cottage.

River run red : the Fort Pillow massacre in the American Civil War       Andrew Ward Fort Pillow Battle of Tenn. 1864 New York : Viking, c 2005 Hardcover. 1st ed. and printing. xxiii, 531 p. : ill., maps ; 25 cm.  Includes bibliographical references (p. [495]-518) and index. Clean, tight and strong binding with clean dust jacket. No highlighting, underlining or marginalia in text. VG/VG

On April 12, 1864, a force of Confederate cavalry under Nathan Bedford Forrest galloped across West Tennessee to storm Fort Pillow on the Mississippi River, overwhelming a garrison of some 350 renegade unionists and over 300 armed slaves turned artillerymen. By the next day, hundreds of union sympathizers were dead or wounded, more than 60 blacks had been captured, and more than 100 unionists had been marched off to Andersonville. Confederates called this bloody battle and its aftermath a hard-won victory. Northerners deemed it premeditated slaughter. To this day, Fort Pillow remains one of the most controversial battles in American history.

River Run Red vividly depicts the incompetence and corruption of Union occupation in Tennessee, the horrors of guerrilla warfare, and the pent-up  rage at previous union atrocities that found its release at Fort Pillow. Andrew Ward brings to life the garrison’s black troops and their ambivalent white comrades, and the intrepid Confederate cavalrymen who rode with Nathan Bedford Forrest.

The result is a fast-paced narrative that hurdles toward that fateful April day and beyond to establish Fort Pillow’s true significance in the annals of American history.

How did I learn all of this? By reading a new book that I predict will become a classic – Freedom by the Sword: The U.S. Colored Troops, 1862-1867. I’ve been waiting for this book ever since I learned that the Army’s Center of Military History was working on it. Although the use of black troops by the Union has been studied from many angles, this is the most thorough operational history I’ve seen – in other words, this is a detailed account, by region, of the actual military activities in which these troops engaged. For every heroic charge, these soldiers, like any soldiers in war, spent lots of time patrolling, garrisoning, and guarding. As someone once noted, army life in wartime is made up of long stretches of boredom punctuated by short periods of extreme fear. In addition, poorly managed logistics and spotty (to say the least) medical services created their own special negatives, especially for troops that did not always receive adequate (or any) training. Reading about these gritty details is an excellent corrective to the romantic take on war so prevalent among Civil War soldiers before they “saw the elephant,” a colloquialism of the day for engaging in combat.

Freedom by the Sword also addresses problems unique to black soldiers – the possibility of re-enslavement or massacre if captured. After the notorious slaughter of black soldiers by Nathan Bedford Forrest’s Confederates at Fort Pillow, which soon was recognized by the South as “a propaganda weapon they had handed their opponents,” retaliatory actions and counteractions were succeeded by a mutual realization that such crimes cut both ways. In these cases, fighting for freedom had a steep price, but one that ex-slaves and free blacks alike were prepared to pay.

Freedom by the Sword is an important scholarly resource based on wide-ranging research, as well as a compelling account of men whose real accomplishment, beyond military victory, was “to assert their right to full citizenship and, by extension, that of all their kin.” Serious students of the Civil War will be using this book for many years to come. You can browse through Freedom by the Sword here, get your own copy in either paperback or hardcover, or page through it at a library.

Unlike the other cast members of the films Gods and Generals and Gettysburg that I have been able to track down over the last several months, Les Kinsolving is not noted for his acting. Appearing as Confederate General William Barksdale, the distant cousin of the real general, he is more known for his career in the political spectrum, which includes serving as a White House correspondent (part-time now) and talk-radio host on 680 WCBM, which is run out of Baltimore. Les’ career has spanned several decades and has encompassed so much, including being nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.

When I was done asking him about his filming experience, I just had to probe him on some of his political views, and what being a reporter in our nation’s capital is like. Les was very kind to me and answered all of my questions, and I did not even know this interview was going to be taking place when I woke up this morning. I had contacted him a few days ago, and he responded this afternoon. Rather than schedule an interview for the future, we thought it best to just get it done today. I asked him about his filming experience, what it is like being related to a Civil War general (and a second one which will knock your socks off!), and much more, in our interview below!

GC: How did you first get involved with the movie Gettysburg back in 1993?

LK: Well, I have a cousin, the one that I played the part of, General William Barksdale, and I had always been interested in the Civil War, and I heard they were going to do a movie on the battle of Gettysburg. So, I talked to the author of The Killer Angels, Michael Shaara, on the phone and I enjoyed speaking to him very much. He was a very stimulating person and he told me about Ron Maxwell who was going to direct it. I phoned up to Maxwell in New York, and we made an appointment. I did not tell him of my relation to Barksdale, and I talked with him and we had a wonderful time and there was a great deal of mutual interest. It was then when I told him of my relationship to General Barksdale of Mississippi, and he asked, “You’re his cousin?” and I responded, “I am.” and he said, “You look like him.” Then he said, “Just a minute”, and he went into this closet and came out after a while with this great big picture of Barksdale. He was the only Confederate general at Gettysburg who did not have a beard or a mustache, and again he told me that I looked like him, and I said, “I’m complimented”. He then asked me if I would like the part! (laughs). It took a long time to be produced but I had the part, and I played it again in Gods and Generals, which followed it.

GC: In both films, your scenes were very short, but how much did you have to prepare for these roles?

LK: I had previously been in a considerable number of plays, both little theater and light opera, but this did not take any time at all—I just had a couple of lines in each. I was still honored to have these lines. When I was first cast in Gettysburg, there were no lines and Maxwell waited until my scene came and put in a line for me. General Lee, played by Martin Sheen, says to me, “General Barksdale, is Mississippi ready?” and I said, “Mississippi is ready!”. (laughs) And that was it! I just had one or two lines in Gods and Generals as well. But in Gettysburg, I also played an extra as a flag bearer in a Virginia regiment during Pickett’s Charge, which took seven days to film.

GC: What was the hardest part of your filming experience?

LK: I think the hardest part was when I was playing this Confederate flag bearer and we went over the wall at the charge, and there were three huge Yankees who went after my flag, and I held it and it broke right in two, and I went down and got kicked; I don’t think they did it on purpose, there was just an enormous amount of action. They strapped me up with one of these wrap-around bandages and I was able to go back and do it three or four more times, because we did that scene six times that day.

GC: Did you happen to see the Gettysburg documentary that was on the History Channel last week?

LK: I did not see the whole thing because it came on while I was broadcasting.

GC: Okay, because there was a pretty big section on General Barksdale in it and I was just curious if you had any thoughts on that.

LK: Yes, my son watched it and told me, and I just ran in and took one look and was disgusted because the first thing I saw was that this Barksdale had a beard, and Barksdale did not have a beard at the time of the battle! The picture that I have of him, he does not have one, and I was disgusted at that.

GC: Now, a lot of us Civil War enthusiasts and historians wish we could be related to somebody who fought during the Civil War, so what is it like for you, to not only be related to a soldier, but a prominent general at that?

LK: Well, I am also related to another Confederate soldier named Robert E. Lee, who is a fifth cousin. Robert Duvall, who portrayed Lee in Gods and Generals, was also related to him, and so we found that we were distant cousins.

GC: What it is like being related to one of the greatest generals in military history?

LK: I agree with you, I think he is one of the greatest men in our history, with enormous courage and fundamental decency, and he will always be remembered. Of course, there are those that like to tear him to pieces, but that is expected of those who are still fighting that war.

GC: I would like to move to your other career now, as a White House correspondent. What does that entail?

LK: I am a White House correspondent, but I am not a full-time one anymore because I am a talk radio host and columnist, and I just can’t do it full-time, and with this particular press secretary, as well as the last one, who are two of the three most difficult I have ever dealt with, they hardly ever call on me. This one almost refuses me consistently, so I only go once a week. What I do is, I always have two questions, just two. He allows the people in the front two rows from the networks, to ask eight, ten, and twelve questions, but he will try to bypass me. Sometimes I will call out the networks, and sometimes I don’t. So what I do is, we report for the nine million people who visit World Net Daily, we list all the people at the briefing and the large majority whom he never recognizes or allows to ask questions because he is playing favorites with the front two rows. I think that is abysmal. I made a suggestion once, which was one of the few times I have ever had applause from the back, that he should call on each person in the front row for two questions and work his way right back so he gives everybody a chance, and then go back to the front row and give them two more. That got applause, but not from the front row (laughs).

GC: I have another question for you, and this is just out of curiosity, but what do you think of Sarah Palin?

LK: To look upon her, I think she is a very beautiful lady, and I realize that she had a lot of problems at home, but I think she really damaged herself by leaving the position of Governor of Alaska. I thought she did a good job out there, but she resigned. Now she is going all over the country campaigning, but she hasn’t, to the best of my knowledge, announced her candidacy as yet. I’m generally impressed with a lot of what she stands for, though I do not agree with her on everything…I don’t think there is anybody I agree with on everything.

GC: One more political question for you, who would be your favorite president, whether in your lifetime or in the past?

LK: Let me say that I think the greatest of all presidents, closely followed by Abraham Lincoln, was the father of our country, George Washington. I am a great admirer of his and he was not only a military leader that without him, we would have never won our independence, but he was our first president and guided us through the really tough times in getting us established as a country. There are a number who I admire in the modern era as well. I personally liked Ronald Reagan a great deal and I knew him when he was in California because I was a columnist and reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, and then the Examiner, while he was governor. There were times when I would ask him questions and he was always very astute and very amusing. I thought he was a great president, and there were others of course. The Roosevelt’s were two of the greatest and let me see who else…we have had some bad ones (laughs).

GC: Well, then who would be the worst president of your lifetime?

LK: That would be a tie between Jimmy Carter and the one we’ve got now (laughs).

GC: Thanks for being honest! I’m an independent so I don’t care who you don’t like.

LK: It’s not that I don’t like Barack Obama, it’s just that he has these press conferences where there are eighty reporters (I’ve stopped going to his press conferences) and they’re ridiculous. He’ll only call on certain ones. In the last three he called on thirteen, thirteen, and seven. He takes an enormous amount of time in answering questions—he gives these long monologues, and it sounds like he is dodging questions with these long answers, and he does this often. That is one of the reasons why I am not very impressed with him. There are times when I have commended him, and I think his order to go after Bin Laden was wonderful, but I think Bush had the same purpose. If they had just found him earlier under Bush, like the Seals did, I think he would have given the same order. I will try to be fair with the president whenever he says or does something that I believe honestly is good. I feel that it is only fair that you should try to emphasize that, and I do.

GC: One last question for you, and this is going back to the Civil War. If there is one piece of information that you think is being taught the most incorrectly about it, what would that be to you?

LK: I would say the alleged massacre at Fort Pillow, where they try to smear [Confederate General] Nathan Bedford Forrest. I have really studied that issue, and I have concluded and spoken out on this a number of times that it was not true. I think there are a lot of things that are misrepresented, but that is one of the worst. I hope that answers your question.

GC: Yes, it is definitely up there on my list. That, and people who say the war was fought solely because of slavery.

LK: Well, the interesting thing about the slavery issue, which is not often mentioned (laughs), is that among the slaveholders in the United States were Ulysses S. Grant and Mrs. Grant.

GC: And I don’t think Robert E. Lee owned any.

LK: His wife, Mary Custis, had a number of slaves, and he emancipated them. Grant, who was too poor to keep slaves, sold them, but Mrs. Grant continued to own them, and I think it was in 1864, she was almost captured by Confederate cavalry with her slaves! (laughs) I have no indication that the Grant’s ever mistreated their slaves, and I do not believe that the Lee’s did either. I have always been opposed to slavery, even though I am a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and I was one of the 25,000 who walked in the last day of the Selma March to Montgomery, because I believe new occasions teach new duties, and time makes ancient good uncouth.

GC: I want to thank you so much for this interview. It was great getting a chance to speak to you.

LK: It was my pleasure, and I hope that this gave you everything you needed, and I am grateful and honored.

I want to thank Les again for taking the time to conduct this interview. It truly was an enlightening experience! You can visit his official website here. Please check out my other interviews with Gods and Generals and Gettysburg personnel, located in the Civil War section on this site, which include Brian Mallon (General Hancock), Patrick Gorman (General Hood), Bo Brinkman (Major Taylor), and Jeff Shaara (Author of G & G).

“The colored population is the great available, yet unavailed of, force for restoring the Union. The bare sight of fifty thousand armed, and drilled black soldiers on the banks of the Mississippi, would end the rebellion at once.”
President Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Tennessee Governor Andrew Johnson in March, 1863

The sight of black Union soldiers did indeed draw an intense reaction from Confederates. But it was nowhere near the kind of response that Lincoln predicted. Far from fear, the sight of black men in Union dress fostered a rage in the Confederate soldier that led to merciless – and often unapologetic – acts of violence against African Americans on the battlefield. White Confederates and black Union men became engaged in a war within a war that was constrained only by the smaller numbers of black soldiers and their combat role during the Civil War. (In the first half of the war, colored troops were less likely to do combat duty than white soldiers. This changed as the war lasted into 1865.)

As some readers may be aware, there is some debate among scholars and non-scholars about what the Confederate soldier “fought for.” The historical record provides very clear evidence that the politicians who drove the secession decision in the Deep South – the seven states that left the Union before the firing of guns at Fort Sumter – did so to protect the institution of slavery. Historian Gordon Rhea, in his essay Why Non-Slaveholding Southerners Fought, describes not so much why non-slaveholders fought, but rather, the reasons that were given by politicians, preachers, the prominent, and the press for a separate Confederate nation and the need to fight for it. All of those reasons, Rhea shows, were related to the defense of slavery, and appealed to white fears of a society overrun with free black should the Confederacy lose. We can say that the propaganda machine in the Deep South played the race/slavery card: “secession was necessary to preserve white supremacy, to avoid a race war, and to prevent racial amalgamation,” Rhea says of the arguments for the creation and defense of the Confederacy.

Did the “average” Confederate soldier accept these reasons, or have them as his own? Or was he motivated by Southern nationalism, or the basic and pressing need to protect his home from the invading Northern horde? The individual soldiers’ reasons were no doubt diverse and complex. But regardless of his own reasons, the soldier understood from his leaders that defeat would mean black freedom and equality.

But it’s one thing to talk about black freedom in the abstract; it’s another thing to see it on the battlefield. Before the war, or even in its early phases, the idea of emancipation as a consequence of defeat was just that – an idea, a concept, something that people talked about. But then the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. And now, the theoretical was the actual. In her book What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War, Chandra Manning writes “Confederates began to meet black Union soldiers in combat more frequently in 1864, which further aggravated white southern men’s sense of racial aversion. By bearing arms and mostly holding the same rank (private) as most of the Confederate Army, black troops literally presumed equal status with white southern enlisted men. ‘Damn you, you are fighting against your masters,’ howled one confederate as he faced black troops in Tennessee.”

When Confederate soldiers saw colored troops, they didn’t see black; they saw red. Historian Jason Phillips, in his book Diehard Rebels: The Confederate Culture of Invincibility, writes

The emancipation and Federal enlistment of thousands of slaves further enraged Confederates and confirmed their perception of Yankees… Emancipation and black Union soldiers verified Confederate fears that Yankees were racial fanatics…

…Rebels ridiculed Federals’ involvement with blacks. One Confederate denigrated the enemy with remarks such as, “The Yankees marched a line of battle, composed of white negroes and black negroes.” In his eyes, white northerners had descended to blacks’ racial status because of their association in a biracial army. A South Carolina soldier laughed at a dream he had in which Henry Ward Beecher and other abolitionists were “married to the blackest, dirtiest, stinkiest… negro wench[es] that can be found.” A Virginia officer wished that “all the Yanks and all the negroes were in Africa.”

Rebels’ pity and ridicule ended, however, when African Americans entered the fray. Facing black opponents implied a parity between former slaves and Confederate soldiers that many Rebels could not stomach. When Confederate soldier Nugent learned that “Lincoln demands that we treat negro soldiers upon an equality with whites,” he predicted that “the war will not be conducted in a civilized way hereafter.”

Black federal troops meant race war. Armed blacks roaming the countryside, murdering and raping whites-the nightmare that had terrified white southerners for centuries-seemed to be coming true. A soldier manning Lee’s trenches confessed that the men in his unit abruptly ended cease-fire when they realized that black Union troops had replaced white ones.

Other Rebels showed no remorse over the murdering of black prisoners at Fort Pillow. A South Carolina soldier was “glad that Forrest had it in his power to execute such swift & summary vengeance upon the negroes, & I trust it will have a good influence in deterring others from similar acts.” By killing black prisoners, Rebels revealed not only racist rage but also a chilling psychological distance from their victims. A Confederate song that celebrated Fort Pillow expressed the dehumanizing effects of war:

The dabbled clots of brain and gore
Across the swirling sabers ran;
To me each brutal visage bore,
The front of one accursed man

The reference to the Fort Pillow massacre is telling. There has been some debate as to whether there was a massacre at Fort Pillow (most believe it was), and if so, who was responsible for it (it seems to have resulted from the actions of the soldiers, and not direct orders from Confederate Major General Bedford Forrest). But at the time, many Confederates believed it was a massacre – and they celebrated it.

Manning further describes the reasons for rage against the colored troops, indicating that the emotion acquired an eerie functional purpose:

As the number of black Union troops grew, Union authorities stipulated that black Union prisoners captured in the line of duty be exchanged exactly like white soldiers. The demand infuriated Confederate troops, because it equated a white Confederate with a black man. Grant Taylor, a father who never owned a slave, regarded the prospect of equal exchange as unthinkable. When some of his companions were captured at Marietta, Georgia, he expected Confederate authorities to let the prisoners languish in northern prison camps for the duration rather than allow “the Confederates [to] exchange negroes for white men.”

Alabama soldier Edmund Patterson saw only one acceptable response: the Confederate Army must avoid the possibility of exchange by killing all black soldiers, leaving no African American prisoners of war to be bartered for free white Southerners. “If we lose everything else, let us preserve our honor,” he insisted, apparently concluding that implied equality with a black man was more dishonorable than murdering one. After defeating black troops at a fort near Charleston Harbor, a Georgia soldier reported with satisfaction that black prisoners were “literally shot down while on their knees begging for mercy.”

Violence against black prisoners of war allowed weary, frustrated Confederate troops to lash out against the literal embodiments of their worst fears, served warning to any local slaves who might consider running away to join Union regiments, and helped reinvigorate soldiers’ commitment to the war.

The violence against colored troops led them to respond in kind. Whether the massacres were real or perceived, cries of “Remember Fort Pillow” and “Remember Poison Springs” reverberated among their ranks. Believing they would be shown no mercy, many vowed to show none in return. The colored troops’ cries of “no quarter” were probably a factor in the bloodbath for black troops at the Battle of the Crater.

For some Confederate soldiers, even the presence of colored troops may not have turned the Civil War into a fight to maintain slavery. For them, it would always be a war to save his home and his family, whether the enemy had a white face or a black one. But woe to the man with the black face, for he had no honor on the battlefield which a white soldier was bound to respect. No matter what cause he was fighting for, the Confederate soldier’s rage at the black soldier was a constant.

KKK founder Gen. Nathan B. Forrest

General Forrest is infamous for ordering the massacre of black Union soldiers at Fort Pillow, Tennessee. The confederacy was so incensed by President Lincoln’s issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation they issued a standing order that black men, presumably runaway slaves, found in Union uniforms be executed. Apparently, emboldened by the federal government’s post-war failure to court-martial him for sedition and war crimes, he later founded the terrorist organization known as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). The rise of the KKK was depicted in D.W. Griffith’s cinematic masterpiece, The Birth of a Nation (1915).

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, a potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate, and every member of the party of Lincoln should denounce and reject this despicable effort to “honor” a war criminal, a racist and a violent seditionist.

If Governor Barbour truly desires national office, he will speak out on behalf of millions of Americans and denounce this effort honoring Nathan Bedford Forrest as an affront to patriotic Americans. If not, his presidential ambition will be defenestrated. Barbour should be driven from office if he fails to take a stand against this and any commemoration of General Forrest.

Nonetheless, the Sons of Confederate Veterans plan to honor this murderer because he was a “military genius” and a pillar of his community. Apparently, the blood he spilled in defense of white supremacy is not a stain upon the State of Mississippi and the United States of America. It is amazing that vaunted Confederate military geniuses such as Forrest still managed to lose the war. The only reason Confederate officers were not court-martialed was because their victorious West Point classmates took pity upon them and the ragtag remnants of their army.

For some unknown reason, white Southerners have romanticized a disgraceful and disreputable past. Truth is, were it not for the African slave, their forbears would have been nothing more than landless serfs themselves. Instead, they served as cannon fodder for those who thought lesser men should die for their vain glory.

If Mississippi decides to honor the racist Nathan Bedford Forrest, I would join the NAACP in urging a boycott of Mississippi. If Governor Haley Barbour really plans to seek the Republican Presidential nomination, he should denounce the evil that General Nathan Bedford Forrest personified to black Americans in the South. In fact, I call upon all of the Republican candidates for national office to denounce this effort to honor the founder of the KKK. Last year, you couldn’t keep a politician from running over little old ladies to get to a microphone to denounce the “Ground Zero Mosque.” Ladies and gentlemen of the Republican Party, lace up your running shoes.

UPDATE: My friend, Assemblyman Michael Fitzpatrick (R-Nassau) informs me that his contact in the Mississippi State House says that the SCV commemorative license plate is D.O.A. there. Let’s raise a toast to the Union.

ALS, 10pp., 8vo., on picket near Memphis, Tenn. 4/14/64 to girlfriend.

Soldier (Maitland) writes about Fort Pillow (75 miles from Memphis), has fallen to Rebels, Forrest with a force of 4-5000 attacked it (4/12/64), Union force “nearly all negroes” consisted of 600-700 men, nearly 1.2 killed during fight, Col. Comdg. (Wm. Bradford) captured, remainder also captured, Rebels “have a particular dislike for negro soldiers, they fell to & butchered them in cold blood after taking possession of the fort,” One of Union transports (Golden Age) sunk, boxes of provisions & mail missing & presumed captured incl. mail from female recipient of his letters, force to be sent out with gunboats to break blockade & repossess fort, expects next raid by Forrest to be on Memphis, Col. McMillen told Genl. Buckland that he could recapture fort but writer does not think that would be feasible, describes dinner (cold beef, dry break, hot coffee), southern (Tenn.) ladies try to pass the lines but could not w/o pass from Genl. Buckland, writer said they were expecting Forrest & had rations prepared for him, ladies said they did not know him but did some of his men, thought their good looks would pass them thru but “no go”, returned to camp to learn Ft. Pillow evacuated by Rebels, boats can pass unmolested, troop reinforcements in area & Forrest would get “warm welcome” if he returned, boxes (damaged) arrived, speech by Col. McMillen, had picture taken, will send one etc. Great battle action, ltr. from one of war’s most notorious incidents. First Fort Pillow battle letter we have had in all out years (25 +) of dealing. XF. $1150.00.

BMG Civil War - bmgcivilwar.com/

Vidalia, La.
May 17th, 1864

There has been a party of guerrillas prowling about here, stealing horses and mules from the leased plantations. A scouting party was sent out from here, in which was a company of colored cavalry, commanded by the colonel of a colored regiment. After marching some distance, they came upon the party of whom they were in pursuit. There were seventeen prisoners captured and shot by the colored soldiers. When the guerrillas were first seen, the colonel told them in a loud tone of voice to “Remember Fort Pillow.” And they did: all honor to them for it.

If the Confederacy wish to fight us on these terms, we are glad to know it, and will try and do our part in the contest. I do not admire the mode of warfare, but know of no other way for us to end the war than to retaliate.

Lieut. Anson T. Hemingway
70th U.S. Col. Regiment

I’ve seen no better example of the way one atrocity is used to justify another in wartime, fueling an endless, violent spiral of reprisal and revenge. And yet, knowing what happened at Fort Pillow, I cannot be sure I’d have tried to stop those cavalrymen. The desire for retribution is very strong, and very human.

Anson Tyler Hemingway was born in East Plymouth, Connecticut in 1844. He moved to Chicago with his family at age ten. Hemingway enlisted in Company D of the 72nd Illinois Infantry and served with that regiment at Vicksburg. Mustered out of the service, he later joined Company H, 70th USCT as 1st Lieutenant and also served as provost martial of the Freedman’s Bureau in Natchez. Hemingway was mustered out of the service in March 1866, after which he attended Wheaton College. Two of Hemingway’s brothers had died in the war. After two years at Wheaton, Hemingway took a position as general secretary of the Chicago YMCA. He later established a real estate business in Oak Park. He died in 1926 at the age of 82.

Anson Hemingway’s grandson Ernest also enjoyed some success as a writer.

__________

Image: Wheaton College Archives and Special Collections

]]> http://civilwargazette.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/april-12th-in-the-american-civil-war/ Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:16:06 +0000 tellinghistory http://civilwargazette.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/april-12th-in-the-american-civil-war/

What happened on this day during the Civil War – April 12th?

1. April 12th/13th, 1861 – The American Civil War officially begins when rebels in Charleston fire on the U.S. Fort Sumter in the harbor. Fire is returned from the Federals. There are no war-casualties. The fort is surrendered on the 13th.
2. April 12th, 1862 – Union raiders, led by James Andrews, steal a locomotive in Big Shanty, Georgia, and attempt to take it to Chattanooga. The great Civil War locomotive chase ensues.
3. April 12th, 1863 – Gen Hooker informs Lincoln he wishes to flank Robert E. Lee and capture Richmond, Virginia.
4. April 12th, 1864 – Confederate cavalryman, General Nathan Bedford Forrest captures Fort Pillow (TN) on the Mississippi River. Surrendered U.S. Colored Troops are massacred, sending shock waves throughout the country.
5. April 12th, 1865 – April 12 – Confederate forces make official surrender of arms at Appomattox.

For a complete timeline of the American Civil War, click here.