Anthony on Master Ferguson: According to Acting Master Ferguson's official report, a massacre occurred at fort pillow. "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." The burning of bodies is an unnecessary action of war and just gives us an example of cruelty and exaggerated violence. "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." The acts were as inhumane as those of the Indians. Slaughter is a word not usually used to compare war and humans. It is more of a word used in a massacre.

Chris L. on Ferguson: The evidence that Acting Master Ferguson's office report included as to whether or not there was a massacre at Fort Pillow was the sheer number of Union troops killed and the lack of those taken prisoner. 500 Union troops, white or black, were stationed at Fort Pillow. When his ship arrived to take away the wounded, only 100 were left. Also, one wounded man was shot by Confederate troops in an attempt to reach Ferguson's ship. The major factor is his assumption of a massacre has to do with the way the fort's complement was killed. Many bayoneted through the eyes, disemboweled, skulls battered, and many burned to death. This leads him to believe that many of the union soldiers killed were not shot but rather viciously attacked and murdered in a savage way.

Jessica on Ferguson: There is considerable verbal evidence that a massacre occured at the site; however, the reliability of the evidence, like any historical source, must be called into question. He writes: "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." He was given information regarding the actions of the Confederate troops from people who witnessed it. Their stories are corroborated by the physical evidence that Ferguson saw around him. Badly mutiliated bodies were strewn everywhere and there was even evidence in the fire that bodies had been burned. Based on this physical evidence, it is realistic that the verbal evidence obtained is true and that a massacre did occur. The Confederates tried to bury the bodies they could and burn the others in an effort to keep the actual numbers and identities (including gender, race and age) of those they killed concealed.

Jen on Ferguson: The evidence for the massacre comes in the form of the dead bodies, of the state of the fort, and of what the wounded soldiers say. Those who are still alive when Ferguson returns to pick up the dead report that the enemy fought "with a furious and vindictive savageness which was never equaled by the most merciless of the Indian tribes." This comparison suggests that the enemy was ruthless in their treatment of the Union troops. Also, Ferguson reports that the fort itself as well as the nearby huts and tents had all been charred. On top of that, the dead were not just regular dead who had merely died of a gunshot or bayonet wound. Ferguson reports that: "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." The state of these bodies completely contradicts General Forrest's original statement that he had intended to fight the battle in a way that produced the most minimal amount of carnage. In light of all the lost, one is left wondering precisely how serious Forrest was when he asserted that: "I deemed their [surrender] without further bloodshed a certainty." Clearly somewhere along the lines of battle, his plan went array. Either that or Forrest is intentionally glossing over the truth of what he had intended for the battle. Perhaps he had gone into the battle intent on slaughtering as many men as possible or perhaps when he saw the large number of black troops he felt that what he had said was no longer applicable.

Jessica on the Franklin Repository story: The details that were left out of Ferguson's report, but included in the Repository's account are the most incendiary. The Repository reported that women and children were included in the numbers of the dead and wounded. Ferguson stated at the beginning of his report that the garrison was mainly black. The Repository states that there were both black and white people involved. The Repository also states that citizens were killed along with the soldiers. The descrepancies in the two reports makes one wonder what really transpired at the Fort. The details are small, but important to understanding the greater meaning of what happened.

Jen on the Franklin Repository story: The main difference between what was written in the Repository and what was written in Ferguson's report is that the Repository uses details that were never specifically discussed in the report. For example, the Repository alleges that, "The dead and wounded negroes were piled in heaps and burned, and several citizens who joined our forces for protection, were killed or wounded." Ferguson never makes any mention of dead Negroes being heaped in piles. He does make mention that there were men who had been burned in fires, but he does not go into anymore detail than that. The Repository also describes how, "Soldiers unable to speak, from their wounds, were shot dead and their bodies rolled down the banks into the river." Again, while one did read in Ferguson's account that soldiers where both stabbed and shot, no reference was ever made to bodies being rolled down a hill. Clearly, the account given in the Repository represents a sensationalized account of what happened during the massacre on Fort Pillow. Because the Repository was a Northern paper, one is not surprised by the fact that the truth of Ferguson's report was exaggerated in order to be more shocking to the reader.

Nichole on the Franklin Repository story: The newspaper also says that, specifically, black soldiers were "piled in heaps" and burned. Ferguson never mentions that men were burned intentionally. As an attempt to play on societyÕs emotions, the paper said that young children as well as women were "killed in cold blood." It is a typical newspaper account of an event, integrated fact and exaggeration.

Anthony on the Franklin Repository story: In the Franklin (PA) Repository report it explains the Confederates as hellish characters. "Up to that time comparatively few of our men were killed, but, insatiate as fiends and bloodthirsty as devils incarnate, the Confederates commenced an indiscriminate butchery of the whites and blacks including those of both colors who had been previously wounded." It even goes further to describe how helpless innocent victims just looking for protection were killed as well. "The dead and wounded Negroes were piled in heaps and burned, and several citizens who joined our forces for protection, were killed or wounded" The fact that Ferguson's states that he assisted in helping the wounded contradicts the Repository. "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." [In contrast, the Repsository] stated that the wounded did not have a chance, that they were shot dead and then rolled down into the river. "The black soldiers, becoming demoralized, rushed to the rear, their white officers having thrown down their arms. Both white and black were bayonetted, shot or sabred, and even dead bodies were horribly mutilated. Children of seven or eight years of age, and several negro women were killed in cold blood. Soldiers unable to speak, from their wounds, were shot dead and their bodies rolled down the banks into the river."

Mike F. on the conflicting accounts of Ferguson and Forrest: The Forrest and Ferguson official reports of the Fort Pillow Massacre contain several contradictory statements. The first being that the Forest report states that Fort Pillow requested an hour peace treaty so that they could contemplate their next move, and the Ferguson report suggests that the hour long peace was so that the Union army could bury their dead so that the Confederates didnt have to deal with it. Also, the Forrest report suggests that Fort Pillow was defended by 700 troops, while the Ferguson reports that only 550 Union Troops engaged in the battle. Forrest also never even hints a massacre, stating that the majority of the dead Union soldiers drowned in a desperate attempt to flee the batle. Ferguson, on the other hand, describes a brutal massacre at the hands of the Confederacy.

Chris L. on the conflicting accounts of Ferguson and Forrest: Some details of the two reports include the number of times the union officers were allowed to surrender. Ferguson's report says that the first Union boat was there to provide cover for the fort and when the Union flag went down it stopped firing and then went in to get wounded and was fired upon by rebel troops. Forrest's report stated that there was more than one Union ship and they were continually firing on the confederate troops to allow the Union soldiers to retreat.

Anthony on Gen. Lee's explanation: General Lee offered a very convincing explanation for what happened at Fort Pillow. He explains that it was not an indiscriminate slaughter but rather an attack required due to refusal to surrender and furthermore, those refusing were African Americans, who in the eyes of the South were a "servile race" fighting against their slave owners. The biggest issue in this massacre was the number of African Americans slaughtered. Was this planned or were they simply casualties of war?

Jen on Lee: Lee does not concede that the troops under Major General Forrest slaughtered Union troops after the fall of Fort Pillow. Lee maintains that the soldiers did what they had to do. Lee tries to downplay what happened at the battle by saying that the Union should not be surprised by what happened at the battle. Lee feels that his men acted as any soldier would have done. He says that, "It is generally conceded by all military precedent that where the issue has been fairly presented and the ability displayed, fearful results are expected to follow a refusal to surrender. The case under consideration is almost an extreme one. You had a servile race, armed against their masters and in a country which had been desolated by almost unprecedented outrages."

Liz on Lee: General Lee does not deny or confirm that troops under Major General Forrest slaughtered Union troops after the fall of Fort Pillow. Instead, Lee attempted to point fingers at the Union's commanding officers: "its commanding officers assumed the responsibility of refusing to surrender." In his letter to Washburn, he furthered his argument by writing that according to military precedent slaughters often occur after a refusal for surrender. Also under the circumstances, Lee appeared not to be surprised about the massive deaths, especially due to the presence of "a servile race, armed against their masters." With such arguments, Lee declared the Union's commanding officers should have expected such an outcome under the conditions of racial tension and lack of numbers, which therefore took the responsibility off Confederate officers who could not control their troops.

Elilzabeth on Lee: I do not think that General Lee conceded that the troops of Major General Forrest slaughtered Union troops at Fort Pillow. I think that he is making excuses for his troops, saying that what was done was done because of their feelings for blacks, but he states that both white and black soldiers were taken prisoner and killed indiscriminately. In his letter to General Washburn, he states: "Your colors were never lowered, and your garrison never surrendered, but retreated from the fort to the cover of the gun-boats with arms in their hands, and constantly using them." This implies that the battle was continuous, and that the slaughter that ensued would thus be justified. However, it sounds like a very biased view of the events that General Lee would have received second- hand because he was not personally at the battle. How would General Lee know for sure that this is what really occurred, that Union soldiers did not lower the flag and did hide with arms so as to continue fighting? What if the flag was never lowered because the troops did not have a chance to because they were fleeing for their lives? I also find it interesting that he mentions that "both white and colored prisoners were taken, and are now in our hands." The numbers of the members of each race are interesting: 164 white men and 40 black men. In addition to this, 300 black men were killed and mutilated, while 100 whites met the same fate. The numbers contradict each other. More than 100 more white men were taken prisoner than black, yet 3 times the amount of black men were killed than white. It seems to me to be a huge contradiction in just the numbers, and I think that General LeeÕs letter does not prove that General Forrest did not institute a massacre, it only claims that what has happened has happened, and what is in the past is in the past.

Anthony on Lee again: Was the fact that Forrest's troops did take "both white and colored prisoners" evidence that "our officers...endeavored to prevent the effusion of blood"? According to several different accounts I conclude that it was a matter of Confederate officers finally calming and controlling their troops. They had such a vicious attitude towards their former slaves and felt threatened by this civil war and took out their anger through evil acts against the African Americans. Once they finally calmed down, the few survivors they took in as prisoners. The only evidence we have are the actual accounts that each side gives us. Lee is obviously trying to cover up the slaughtering that the confederate soldiers took part in at Fort Pillow.

Liz on Northern and African-American attitudes: Unionists regarded Confederate policy towards black troops as contrary to the rules of war. Since the South viewed the black troops as captured property, rather than captured soldiers, General Washburn did not punish the troops for their voluntary oath of vengeance for Fort Pillow. Instead, in his letter to Forrest, he supported their decision to not provide quarter to captured Confederate soldiers and gave warning about the spirit of retaliation which may follow: "You must have learned by this time that attempt to intimidate the colored troops by indiscriminate slaughter has signally failed, and that instead of a feeling of terror you have aroused a spirit of courage and desperation that will not down at your bidding."

Chris L. on the Harper's Weekly illustration: The amazingly blunt picture in Harper's Weekly from 1864 depicted Confederate President Davis as being the devil and his associates as demons. Their evil practices come from Richmond, VA as the "traitors in council." All of the pictures depict Confederate soldiers killing slaves and Union colored troops indiscriminately and not letting them be considered prisoners of war. It mentions locations such as the infamous Fort Pillow and Fort Wagner. The picture also mentions Gen. Forrest by name killing a free mulatto. Thus this depiction by the North is the South being murderers and non-ethical.

Nichole on the Harper's Weekly illustration: . . . , in this picture, the Confederates are depicted as devils, who show no mercy on humankind, especially blacks. Women and children are seen holding or lying close to their dead, beloved soldier. It appears that the child itself may have been killed. . . . The four pictures around the outer edge of the picture show brutal killings. Men are tied to trees and only a few feet away, their executioner; thus, illustrating the brutal inhumane manner or the Confederacy.

Mike P. on the Harper's Weekly illustration: . . . The images served as good propaganda in the Norths' fight against the South. These images serve as an interpretation of the South's confiscation act that is similar to the fugitive slave law.

Nick on the Harper's Weekly illustration: The Unionists hated the way that the Confederates treated the black troops. The illustration says things like "retribution will surely be given." This means that the Union would get back at the South for what they were doing to black troops. This could be referring to when Jefferson Davis declared that he would not treat blacks as regular prisoners of war. This could be the North's motivation for making illustrations like this. They could be bitter that prisoners of war weren't being treated well, which means that they could lose a lot of manpower. The illustration shows harsh feelings concerning the South's actions.

Anthony on the Harper's Weekly illustration: In the Illustration from Harper's Weekly the devil in the center of the picture gets the message across in a vivid way. The Union apparently thought of the Confederates as the devil's soldiers, "The Traitors in Council." These devilish soldiers have large dark wings with feet of hooves surrounded by snakes, just waiting, probably discussing how many African Americans they can kill in one battle. Starting from the top left of the Illustration, General Forrest can be seen shooting a free slave whom he clearly has an overwhelming advantage over. He is seen on a horse shooting an unarmed man while his other soldiers watch in amusement. In Belle Isle the helpless people are seen with their faces in their hands, In the bottom left is the horrible depiction of Paducah, Fort Wagner and Fort Pillow. It is very dark, full of death as the bodies lay lifeless on the river banks. In the bottom right picture a women holds a man who looks dead and behind him is a baby lying under wooden planks, a impure, inhumane example of the Confederate policy. Above that men and slaves are tied to trees helplessly being shot at like still target practice. It is almost as a game for them. This is not war, it is more like a heartless butcher shop.