Bank of America insists it can't find slave profits in its past

The killings happened. They are not undocumented generalizations. See here:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/5thuscc/massacr.htm

and

http://www.civilwarhome.com/ftpillow.htm.

For example, here is the After Action Report of Lieuts. Francis A. Smith and William Cleary, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, of the capture of Fort Pillow.

MARCH 16-APRIL 14, 1864.--Forrest's Expedition into West Tennessee and Kentucky. O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXXII/1 [S# 57]

CAIRO, ILL., April 18, 1864.

General M. BRAYMAN.

GENERAL: We have the honor of reporting to you, as the only survivors of the commissioned officers of the Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, that on the morning of the 12th day of the present month, at about the hour of daylight, the rebels, numbering from 5,000 to 7,000, attacked our garrison at Fort Pillow, Tenn., numbering as it did only about 500 effective men.

They at first sent in a flag of truce demanding a surrender, which Major Booth, then commanding the post (Major Booth of the Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery, colored), refused. Shortly after this Major Booth was shot through the heart and fell dead.

Maj. William F. Bradford, then commanding the Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, assumed command of the fort, and under his orders a continual fire was kept up until about I p.m., when our cannon and the rifles of the sharpshooters were mowing the rebels down in such numbers that they could not make an advance. The rebels then hoisted a second flag of truce and sent it in, demanding an unconditional surrender. They also threatened that if the place was not surrendered no quarter would be shown. Major Bradford refused to accept any such terms; would not surrender, and sent back word that if such were their intentions they could try it on. While this flag of truce was being sent in the rebel officers formed their forces in whatever advantageous positions they were able to select. They then formed a hollow square around our garrison, placed their sharpshooters within our deserted barracks, and directed a galling fire upon our men. They also had one brigade in the trenches just outside the fort, which had been cut by our men only a few days before, and which provided them with as good protection as that held by the garrison in the fort.

Their demand of the flag of truce having been refused, the order was given by General Forrest in person to charge upon the works and show no quarter. Half an hour after the issuance of this order a scene of terror and massacre ensued. The rebels came pouring in solid masses right over the breast-works. Their numbers were perfectly overwhelming. The moment they reached the top of the walls and commenced firing as they descended, the colored troops were panic-stricken, threw down their arms, and ran down the bluff, pursued sharply, begging for life, but, escape was impossible. The Confederates had apprehended such a result, and had placed a regiment of cavalry where it could cut off all effective retreat. This cavalry regiment employed themselves in shooting down the negro troops as fast as they made their appearance.

The whites, as soon as they perceived they were also to be butchered inside the fort, also ran down. They had previously thrown down their arms and submitted. In many instances the men begged for life at the hands of the enemy, even on their knees. They were only made to stand upon their feet, and then summarily shot down.

Capt. Theodore F. Bradford, of Company A, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, was signal officer for the gun-boat, and was seen by General Forrest with the signal flags. The general in person ordered Captain Bradford to be shot. He was instantly riddled with bullets, nearly a full regiment having fired their pieces upon him. Lieutenant Wilson, of Company A, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, was killed after he had surrendered, he having been previously wounded. Lieut. J. C. Ackerstrom, Company E, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, and acting regimental quartermaster, was severely wounded after he had surrendered, and then nailed to the side of the house and the house set on fire, burning him to death. Lieut. Cord Revelle, Company E, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, was shot and killed after surrender.

Maj. William F. Bradford, commanding our forces, was fired upon after he had surrendered the garrison. The rebels told him he could not surrender. He ran into the river and swam out some 50 yards, they all the time firing at him but failing to hit him. He was hailed by an officer and told to return to the shore. He did so, but as he neared the shore the riflemen discharged their pieces at him again. Again they missed. He ran up the hill-side among the enemy with a white handkerchief in his hand in token of his surrender, but still they continued to fire upon him. There were several Confederate officers standing near at the time. None of them would order the firing to cease, but when they found they could not hit him they allowed him to give himself up as a prisoner and paroled him to the limits of the camp. They now claim that he violated his parole the same night and escaped. We have heard from prisoners who got away from the rebels that they took Major Bradford out in the Hatchie Bottom and there dispatched him. We feel confident that the story is true.

We saw several negroes burning up in their quarters on Wednesday morning. We also saw the rebels come back that morning and shoot at the wounded. We also saw them at a distance running about, hunting up wounded, that they might shoot them. There were some whites also burning. The rebels also went to the negro hospital, where about 30 sick were kept, and butchered them with their sabers, hacking their heads open in many instances, and then set fire to the buildings. They killed every negro soldier Wednesday morning upon whom they came. Those who were able they made stand up to be shot. In one case a white soldier was found wounded. He had been lying upon the ground nearly twenty-four hours, without food or drink. He asked a rebel soldier to give him something to drink. The latter turned about upon his heel and fired three deliberate shots at him, saying, "Take that, you negro equality." The poor fellow is alive yet, and in the hospital. He can tell the tale for himself. They ran a great many into the river, and shot them or drowned them there. They immediately killed all the officers who were over the negro troops, excepting one, who has since died from his wounds. They took out from Fort Pillow about one hundred and some odd prisoners (white) and 40 negroes. They hung and shot the negroes as they passed along toward Brownsville until they were rid of them all. (Out of the 600 troops, convalescents included, which were at the fort, they have only about 100 prisoners, all whites, and we have about 50 wounded, who are paroled.

Major Anderson, Forrest's assistant adjutant-general, stated that they did not consider colored men as soldiers, but as property, and as such, being used by our people, they had destroyed them. This was concurred in by Forrest, Chalmers, and McCulloch, and other officers.

We respectfully refer you to the accompanying affidavit of Hardy N. Revelle, lettered A, and those of Mrs. Rufins, lettered B, and Mrs. Williams, lettered C.

Respectfully submitted.

F. A. SMITH,
First Lieutenant Company D, 13th Tennessee Cavalry, (U.S.A.).

WILLIAM CLEARY,
Second Lieut. Company B, 13th Tennessee Vol. Cavalry (U.S.A.).

The report, written fresh after the event by Smith and Cleary, who were Tennessee unionists and horrified by what they had seen, makes it clear that white soldiers were butchered as well under Forreest's "no quarter" order. But it also makes it quite clear that black soldiers were singled out for special attention. There are more accounts such as these in the official records, so I would say that the Fort Pillow Massacre was hardly undocumented. After the war, the turbulent politics of Reconstruction made it very much in the Army's interest to sweep the whole matter of Fort Pillow under the rug, and write it all off as an unfortunate heat of battle incident. Sherman was an avowed racist, and he too had no real interest in getting to the bottom of the matter, and so his declarations need to be considered very carefully, taken in the context of the times.

So, I would still be required to pay if my great great grandfather killed a chicken? I ain't ever going there. I might accidentally kill one.

Hey, he could have defused the situation by sending more troops in, or seizing the governors in several Southern states, or hiring European mercinaries, or any number of things.

However, there was no obligation on the part of the United States government to back down in the face of anybody's militia!

Here's another account, written fresh after the battle at Fort Pillow:

Report of Capt. John G. Woodruff, One hundred and thirteenth Illinois Infantry, of the capture of Fort Pillow

MARCH 16-APRIL 14, 1864.--Forrest's Expedition into West Tennessee and Kentucky

O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXXII/1 [S# 57]

CAIRO, ILL.,
April 15, 1864.

Brigadier-General BRAYMAN,
Commanding U. S. Forces, Cairo, Ill.

GENERAL: In compliance with your request last evening, I make the following report concerning the capture of Fort Pillow:

Arrived in sight of Fort Pillow on Wednesday, the 13th, about 9 a.m., at which time the gun-boat No. 28, which escorted us up, opened fire on the fort. After firing about 10 shots a flag of truce appeared at the fort, when she ran in and signaled for the Platte Valley (our boat) to turn back, which we did (we having run by the fort without molestation). I went on shore, and while our men were engaged carrying the wounded on board the boat I with other officers, on invitation from General Chalmers, visited the fort. We saw the dead bodies of 15 negroes, most of them having been shot through the head. Some of them were burned as if by powder around the holes in their heads, which led me to conclude that they were shot at very close range.

One of the gun-boat officers who accompanied us asked General Chalmers if the most of the negroes were not killed after they (the enemy) had taken possession, Chalmers replied that he thought they had been, and that the men of General Forrest's command had such a hatred toward the armed negro that they could not be restrained from killing the negroes after they had captured them. He said they were not killed by General Forrest's or his orders, but that both Forrest and he stopped the massacre as soon as they were able to do so. He said it was nothing better than we could expect so long as we persisted in arming the negro.

Chalmers said that all of his forces would be out of the place by 3 o'clock of that day, and that the main body was already moving. He also said to the officers, myself included, that Forrest's command would never fire on transport steamers. Chalmers told me they took about 25 negroes as prisoners. We saw two bodies of negroes burning.

The above is all I know of the affair which is of importance.

I have the honor to be, general, your obedient servant,
JOHN G. WOODRUFF,
Captain Company G, 113th Illinois Infantry.

Eyewitness testimony from black survivors at Fort Pillow:

38th Congress, 1st Session.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Report No. 65.
Mound City Hospital, Illinois, April 22, 1864.
Jacob Thompson, (colored,) sworn and examined.

By Mr. Gooch:

Question. Were you a soldier at Fort Pillow?
Answer. No, sir, I was not a soldier; but I went up in the fort and fought with the rest. I was shot in the hand and the head.
Question. When were you shot?
Answer. After I surrendered.
Question. How many times were you shot?
Answer. I was shot but once; but I threw my hand up, and the shot went through my hand and my head.
Question. Who shot you?
Answer. A private.
Question. What did he say?
Answer. He said, "God damn you, I will shoot you, old friend."
Question. Did you see anybody else shot?
Answer. Yes, sir; they just called them out like dogs, and shot them down. I reckon they shot about fifty, white and black, right there. They nailed some black sergeants to the logs and set the logs on fire.
Question. When did you see that?
Answer. When I went there in the morning I saw them; they were burning all together.
Question. Did they kill them before they burned them?
Answer. No, sir, they nailed them to the logs; drove the nails right through their hands.
Question. How many did you see in that condition?
Answer. Some four or five; I saw two white men burned.
Question. Was there anyone else there who saw that?
Answer. I reckon there was; I could not tell who.
Question. When was it that you saw them?
Answer. I saw them in the morning after the fight; some of them were burned almost in two. I could tell they were white men, because they were whiter than the colored men.
Question. Did you notice how they were nailed?
Answer. I saw one nailed to the side of a house; he looked like he was nailed right through his wrist. I was trying then to get to the boat when I saw it.
Question. Did you see them kill any white men?
Answer. They killed some eight or nine there. I reckon they killed more than twenty after it was all over; called them out from under the hill, and shot them down. They would call out a white man and shoot him down, and call out a colored man and shoot him down; do it just as fast as they could make their guns go off.
Question. Did you see any of the rebel officers about there when this was going on?
Answer. Yes, sir; old Forrest was one.
Question. Did you know Forrest?
Answer. Yes, sir; he was a little bit of a man. I had seen him before at Jackson.
Question. Are you sure he was there when this was going on? Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you see any other officers that you knew?
Answer. I did not know any other but him. There were some two or three more officers came up there.
Question. Did you see any buried there?
Answer. Yes, sir; they buried right smart of them. They buried a great many secesh, and a great many of our folks. I think they buried more secesh than our folks.
Question. How did they bury them?
Answer. They buried the secesh over back of the fort, all except those on Fort hill; them they buried up on top of the hill where the gunboats shelled them.
Question. Did they bury any alive?
Answer. I heard the gunboat men say they dug two out who were alive.
Question. You did not see them?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What company did you fight with?
Answer. I went right into the fort and fought there.
Question. Were you a slave or a free man?
Answer. I was a slave.
Question. Where were you raised.
Answer. In old Virginia.
Question. Who was your master?
Answer. Colonel Hardgrove.
Question. Where did you live?
Answer. I lived three miles the other side of Brown's mills.
Question. How long since you lived with him?
Answer. I went home once and staid with him a while, but he got to cutting up and I came away again.
Question. What did you do before you went into the fight?
Answer. I was cooking for Co. K, of Illinois cavalry; I cooked for that company nearly two years.
Question. What white officers do you know in our army?
Answer. I knew Captain Meltop and Colonel Ransom; and I cooked at the hotel at Fort Pillow, and Mr. Nelson kept it. I and Johnny were cooking together. After they shot me through the hand and head, they beat up all this part of my head (the side of his head) with the breech of their guns.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War be, and they are hereby, instructed to inquire into the truth of the rumored slaughter of the Union troops, after their surrender, at the recent attack of the rebel forces upon Fort Pillow, Tennessee; as, also, whether Fort Pillow could have been sufficiently re-enforced or evacuated, and if so, why it was not done; and that they report the facts to Congress as soon as possible. Approved April 21, 1864. Pages 30-31

************************************************************

38th Congress, 1st Session.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Report No. 65.
Mound City Hospital, Illinois, April 22, 1864.
George Shaw, (colored,) private, company B, 6th United States heavy artillery, sworn and examined.
By Mr. Gooch:

Question. Where were you raised?
Answer. In Tennessee.
Question. Where did you enlist?
Answer. At Fort Pillow.
Question. Were you there at the fight?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. When were you shot?
Answer. About four o'clock in the evening.
Question. After you had surrendered?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Where were you at the time?
Answer. About ten feet from the river bank.
Question. Who shot you.
Answer. A rebel soldier.
Question. How near did he come to you?
Answer. About ten feet.
Question. What did he say to you?
Answer. He said, "Damn you, what are you doing here?" I said, "Please don't shoot me." He said, "Damn you, you are fighting against your master." He raised his gun and fired, and the bullet went into my mouth and out the back part of my head. They threw me into the river, and I swam around and hung on there in the water until night.
Question. Did you see anybody else shot?
Answer. Yes, sir; three young boys, lying in the water, with their heads out; they could not swim. They begged them as long as they could, but they shot them right in the forehead.
Question. How near to them were they?
Answer. As close as that stone, (about eight or ten feet.)
Question. How old were the boys?
Answer. Not more than fifteen or sixteen years old. They were not soldiers, but contraband boys, helping us on the breastworks.
Question. Did you see any white men shot?
Answer. No, sir. I saw them shoot three men the next day.
Question. How far from the fort?
Answer. About a mile and a half; after they had taken them back as prisoners.
Question. Who shot them?
Answer. Private soldiers. One officer said, "Boys, I will have you arrested, if you don't quit killing them boys." Another officer said, "Damn it, let them go on; it isn't our law to take any niggers prisoners; kill every one of them." Then a white man took me to wait on him a little, and sent me back to a house about two hundred yards, and told me to stay all night. I went back and staid until about a half an hour by sun. Another man came along and said, "If you will go home with me I will take good care of you, if you will stay and never leave." I did not know what to do, I was so outdone; so I said, "If you will take care of me, I will go." He carried me out about three miles, to a place called Bob Greene's. The one who took me there left me, and two others came up, and said, "Damn you, we will kill you, and not be fooling about any longer." I said, "Dont' shoot me." One of them said, "Go out and hold my horse." I made a step or two, and he said, "Turn around; I will hold my horse, and shoot you, too." I no sooner turned around than he shot me in the face. I fell down as if I was dead. He shot me again, and hit my arm, not my head. I laid there until I could hear him no more, and then I started back. I got back into Fort Pillow about sun up, and wandered about there until a gunboat came along, and I came up on that with about ten others.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War be, and they are hereby, instructed to inquire into the truth of the rumored slaughter of the Union troops, after their surrender, at the recent attack of the rebel forces upon Fort Pillow, Tennessee; as, also, whether Fort Pillow could have been sufficiently re-enforced or evacuated, and if so, why it was not done; and that they report the facts to Congress as soon as possible. Approved April 21, 1864. Pages 25-26

"I think it was unAmerican to have my ancestors' city burned down and their property stolen and getting raped and murdered by Union Soldiers."

Slavery, treason and starting a civil war were pro-American? lol

Are you quoting from Tommy 'Delusional' DiLorenzo? That putz is the master neo-confederate disinformation minister.

Are you quoting from Tommy 'Delusional' DiLorenzo? That putz is the master neo-confederate disinformation minister.

I wasn't quoting diddly, that's a review by Walter E. Williams, perhaps you've heard of him. If not, try looking him up.

If history serves correctly, The San Fracisco Bank of Italy started by Gianini in the early 1900's developed into The Bank of America. Seems like these people are using the Jessie Jackson approach.

BOA bought Fleet Bank of Boston. Fleet had previously purchased Providence Bank. Providence Bank, founded by John Brown, who also founded Brown University, is the bank being "investigated." You're correct in saying BOA was not in existence pre civil war.

From an article online:

Most of the reporting at the time was emerging from the Union newspaper "Memphis Bulletin", which had been organized following the Commercial-Appeal’s evacuation of the city.

In the articles, numerous atrocities were charged against the Confederate soldiers at Fort Pillow.

Then-Secretary of War Edwin Stanton ordered Gen. William Sherman to put an officer in charge of an investigation of the Fort Pillow incident. Sherman assigned the task to Cairo, IL commander Gen. Brayman.

It was common knowledge that Northern voters were tired of the war and that weariness spelled doom for President Lincoln’s reelection campaign. A renewed interest through a story like Fort Pillow was what Stanton and the others needed to maintain the war effort.

Stanton then silently began pressuring allies in Congress to begin its own investigation, which it did – forming a joint investigation from both the Congress and the Senate. The Congressional investigation under Senator Benjamin F. Wade concluded that:

"Southerners treacherously gained the positions from which they assaulted the fort during a flag of truce and then commenced an indiscriminate slaughter, sparing neither age nor sex, white or black, soldier or civilian."

Further atrocities were alleged and no mention was made of the Union steamers who could have rescued the fort or the actions of the Major Bradford during the negotiations.

Even though the investigation never interviewed one Confederate soldier, there were still conflicting reports. One came from the Union’s Fort Pillow surgeon Dr. C. Fitch of Iowa, who had testified that Gen. Chalmers found him about ready to be stripped of his boots and, after identifying himself and appealing to the general, heard him order the guard to shoot anyone who tried to molest him.

One of the more dubious reports entered into the Congressional investigation came from a soldier, who said he heard Forrest himself issue the order to massacre the troops.

When asked to describe the man he heard give the order, he testified that he was a little bit of a man, which was hardly a description of the 6’2" general.

A black soldier named Ellis Falls, who had fought at the fort was also asked if blacks and whites were killed in equal numbers after the supposed surrender, and Falls replied:

"Yes sir, until the order was given to cease fire."
"Who gave the order?" asked Sen. Wade.
"They told me his name was Forrest," replied Falls.

Experts and historians later concluded that the investigation was little more than a show trial. Gen. Sherman was contacted by Gen. Grant and told to look into the charges as a response would be necessary if found to be true.

Sherman, who was no lover of the man (Forrest) he later said should be killed if it bankrupted the U.S. Treasury and cost the lives of 100,000 men, cleared his enemy of his any wrong doing in the incident.

The Congressional investigation created a feeding frenzy in the Northern press and it was front page news. Later historians concluded Secretary of War Stanton had been successful in his aims with publicizing the battle.

Stanton’s thirst for power was legendary in Washington and President Andrew Johnson would later fire him for similar type tactics, which led to Stanton virtually organizing the Presidential impeachment trial of President Johnson in Congress.

"What happened at Fort Pillow was no different than what happened at a dozen other battles under Union generals," said military historian Dr. Brian Wills.

"Some soldiers in that kind of environment are going to get ‘out of hand’ and the military record is replete with prosecutions of such men. Gen. Forrest was a strict disciplinarian and consistently prosecuted men in his command for such actions as those alleged at Fort Pillow. Why that particular battle drew national attention has more to do with a Presidential campaign that was going badly for Lincoln and a Secretary of War wanting to hold onto power.

"Gen. Sherman later acknowledged that what happened at Fort Pillow was one of those unfortunate consequences of war and Forrest could not be personally held responsible for it."

The story of the "Fort Pillow massacre" and the ensuing investigations, however, entered the American historical record and historians following the war documented it as fact, even though later testimony from former Confederates and others present at the battle completely disproved the Union accounts in the Congressional record.

Through the years it has officially come to be recognized as one of the greatest myths of the War Between the States.

Facts continue to be uncovered about the battle that helped propel President Lincoln back into the White House and led to the one of the biggest controversies in American military history.

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War be, and they are hereby, instructed to inquire into the truth of the rumored slaughter of the Union troops, after their surrender, at the recent attack of the rebel forces upon Fort Pillow, Tennessee; as, also, whether Fort Pillow could have been sufficiently reinforced or evacuated, and if so, why it was not done; and that they report the facts to Congress as soon as possible. Approved April 21, 1864. Pages 25-26"

A report was prepared, and Lincoln gave Sherman the permission to retaliate if evidence of a massacre had occurred.

Sherman did not find evidence and did not retaliate.

Later, in 1871, another Congressional Investigation was organized, and found...................

Nothing

The were all kinds of problems with the 1864 and 1871 investigations, and all of the foremost Civil War historians (McPherson, Robertson, Gallagher, Davis, Nevins, Catton, Sword, McDaniel, etc.) agree that Forrest's men committed a massacre of both black and white soldiers at Fort Pillow. It is not a myth, as many in the modern neo-Confederate movement are trying to suggest. The historical question has been not if a massacre occurred, but what was the level of Forrest's involvement in it. In his memoirs, General Sherman categorically states:

No doubt Forrest's men acted like a set of barbarians, shooting down the helpless negro garrison after the fort was in their possession; but I am told that Forrest personally disclaims any active participation in the assault, and that he stopped the firing as soon as he could. I also take it for granted that Forrest did not lead the assault in person, and consequently that he was to the rear, out of sight if not of hearing at the time, and I was told by hundreds of our men, who were at various times prisoners in Forrest's possession, that he was usually very kind to them."

Additionally, one of Forrest's own cavalrymen admitted that a massacre had happened, very shortly after the fact. On April 19, 1864, Sergeant Achilles V. Clark, of the 20th Tennessee cavalry, wrote from Brownsville to his sisters at home. He said:

The slaughter was awful. Words cannot describe the scene. The poor, deluded negroes would run up to our men, fall upon their knees and with uplifted hands scream for mercy but they were ordered to their feet and then shot down. The white men fared but little better...I with several others tried to stop the butchery and at one time had partially succeeded but General Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs and the carnage continued.

Clark had no reason to lie to his sisters, especially about acts as heinous as those committed by his comrades. As a Confederate soldier who saw what happened himself, and in fact had tried to intervene, his letter is powerful evidence of the massacre. Additionally, the online article referenced in post 151 appears to be based upon Robert Selph Henry's biography, Nathan Bedford Forrest: First with the Most, which was published in 1944, and discusses the incident in chapter 17 (pages 248-268). It has long been superceded by a number of newer works on both Forrest and Fort Pillow, which are not as apologetic for Forrest as Henry, and even his more well known predecessor, John Wyeth. The author of the online piece would have been much better off looking at more recent scholarship rather than Henry's more or less obsolete treatment of the incident.

That is total CR*P. Those witnesses were Yankees.
Congress cleared General Forrest and his men of any wrongdoing. Better do some more research. Propaganda doesn't count.

That is total CR*P. Those witnesses were Yankees.

Hmmmmmm....so, let me get this straight, just because the witnesses were "Yankees," that automatically disqualifies their evidence??? I think your agenda has now become apparent, sir.

NO...but their testimony alone is not sufficent. If you have read some of the other posts in this thread, you should know what I already knew. Congress found the charges groundless. It is a myth. There ends the matter. The moral is, when you fight a Southern Soldier, you had better be prepared to die, because it is very possible that could be the result. Killing another soldier doesn't qualify as a "massacre" when it is in the heat of battle. Don't presume to think I have an agenda. My "agenda" is to teach History to the uninformed, which by your comments, I presume you are!

NO...but their testimony alone is not sufficent.

What about Confederate cavalryman Achilles Clark's testimony to his sisters, which corroborates the Union accounts. Is that sufficient? If not, then Confederate soldier Samuel H. Caldwell corroborates Clark, who corroborates the Union accounts of the massacre. After the battle, an appalled Caldwell to wrote his wife that the battle at Fort Pillow "was decidedly the most horrible sight that I have ever witnessed." Concerning the black soldiers garrisoning the fort, he said, "They refused to surrender-which incensed our men & if General Forrest had not run between our men and the Yanks with his pistol and sabre drawn not a man would have been spared." (Quoted in Jack Hurst, Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography, p. 176)

Congress found the charges groundless.

This is not true at all. In the 1864 and 1871 investigations, Congress found that a massacre had in fact occurred, but that Forrest and his adjutant general Chalmers had not ordered it and had stopped once it became apparent to them that their men were out of control. Sherman's 1864 own investigation, followed by that in 1871, fully supports this, as he explicitly states in his memoir. As I said before, the issue was not if a massacre occurred, but to what degree Forrest was responsible for it.

It is a myth. There ends the matter.

Well, General Sherman didn't think so, but he recognized that Forrest had not ordered the killings and was willing to let it go at that. However, he concluded that Forrest's men acted like "barbarians" in the incident.

The moral is, when you fight a Southern Soldier, you had better be prepared to die, because it is very possible that could be the result.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response...

My "agenda" is to teach History to the uninformed,

Wow! You sound exactly like a reenactor who is out to preach the gospel of the Lost Cause to the "uninformed" masses. While I agree that the public at large is woefully deficient in historical education, what you are spouting is hardly history. Right now, I am appalled and astonished that anyone would even question the fact that the Fort Pillow massacre had happened, and would in fact argue that it was a myth. This is simply incredible, and is not at all not supported by the historical documentation as found in the "Official Records" and the "Congressional Record," both of which I have abundant experience with in my Civil War research.

to the uninformed, which by your comments, I presume you are!

Hardly. I have a Master's Degree in Civil War studies and another year of Ph.D. work, and have studied under some of the most distinguished Civil War historians in the field. I am also a serious reenactor myself (Confederate by the way), who bases his presentation on thorough historical research, in both the political realm and in material culture of the period. Therefore, I would be very careful about labeling someone as "uninformed" just because he or she has serious issues about your particular, flawed interpretation of Civil War military history.

Well friend:

I am a reenactor as well, with a Masters in US History,and Texas History, so I think I am as quite qualified as you are. I teach History every day. And being a reenactor doesn't mean you are qualified. Your credentials are another thing. Ken Burns thinks he is qualified as well, but isn't. I think you are also quite aware that the "victors" tend to write the history books.

My point in all this is that I don't believe there was a deliberate massacre, such as you imply. I think the soldiers, like all soldiers under certain circumstances, were caught up in the fury of battle, and killed everything that moved. That is not unusual in battle. At San Jacinto, the Texan Army did the same thing.

I am going to dispute anything that impugns the honor and dignity of the Confederate Soldier. If you are indeed a Confederate Reenactor, you should do do as well.

Who said "raped"? Customs were different in that day and men much more restrained. After all, there was no cure for any of the better known STDs. New Yorkers probably threw all care to the wind, but folks from the American Midwest had farms to take care of and injury to their reproductive capacity brought about by an indiscrete daliance meant economic disaster! It is an error to project current beliefs and standards back on earlier generations who had different problems.

Wow! So there was no such thing as rape until recent times? It's good to know that our forefathers practiced safe sex.[/sarcasm]

Hate to break it to you, different customs or not, rapes did occur by soldiers during the Civil War. Women alone on a plantation were easy targets. The Union armies took over plantations even when people were living in them, then burned them down after they left. Why would you presume that they wouldn't get a little "somethin' somethin'" from the women left all alone?

Two words for Dorothy Tillman… fraud and extortion. Maybe she can have her daughter "research" their meaning.