Ashley Blog #6: Arye Penkinsky and the Slaughter of Naumiestis

So, I realized on Thursday of last week that I forgot to do a post! Don’t worry, though, I’m planning on making up for it this week with another gut-wrenching and nauseating account from my primary sources, as a bit of a teaser for what’s to come next class period. The analysis and citation are below; this testimony comes from Arye Penkinsky, describing the massacre in Kudirkos Naumiestis, Lithuania.

Bankier, David, ed. Holocaust Testimonials from Provincial Lithuania. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2012.

Penkinsky’s testimony begins with a description of the installation of a new town council in Naumiestis, headed by a medical doctor, a town priest, and a handful of other members of the Lithuanian partisans. These partisans also made up the police force, several members of which Penkinsky could recall by name.  He also noted that the partisans had a spiritual leader who had been arrested during the period of Soviet rule, and that the creation of the new council “happened with the permission and agreement of the German commandants in town.” 

At this point, however, Penkinsky’s testimony turned toward the killings within Naumiestis. One story he relayed is of Chaya Prensky who begged a co-worker to spare her and her small child. He stated, “The murderer struck her on the head with a hard object and she fell dead on the spot.” Penkinsky went on to state that this man, and others that he could remember, “did not shoot small children because, as they put it, ‘the little ones weren’t worth a bullet.’” Instead, the Lithuanian volunteers “would grab the children by their feet, smash their heads against a tree and throw them right into the pit.” This brutality shows a clear detachment in the Lithuanian partisans’ psyche between Jews and themselves; they had no regard for the life of a child if that child was Jewish, and could even overlook bonds of friendship for the sake of carrying out their tasks. 

Penkinsky also described the looting that occurred after the murders. According to his testimony, “The bandits distributed the clothing [of the murdered Jews] among themselves. They cursed the town’s mayor, Pranaitis, for taking the best things for himself, even though he hadn’t come to help shoot and bury the Jews.” These men, who had been voted in as town council members to represent the citizens of Naumiestis, not only murdered neighbors and co-workers, but then fought over the scraps left behind. 

Perhaps the most telling detail follows Penkinsky’s testimony. When transcribing the testimony, Leyb Koniuchovsky asked Penkinsky if he could remember any of those involved in the massacre at Naumiestis. Penkinsky could recall and list nearly twenty names, including the murderers’ occupations, suggesting that he was close enough with these men to know them personally. These were not faceless German soldiers, but friends and neighbors that turned on their fellow townspeople. In fact, Penkinsky stated that, “if the Lithuanian murderers hadn’t taken an active part in the slaughter of Jews, the complete annihilation would have been impossible and a number of Jews would have survived.” While this is merely speculation, it is nevertheless founded upon the terrible actions Penkinsky witnessed carried out by the Lithuanian partisans in Naumiestis.

Violet Jessop's memories of the Titanic

 

    For this blog I will focus on the memoir of Violet Jessop who survived both the sinking of the Titanic and the Britannic. Jessop wrote down her memoir in the early 1930's, about twenty years after the Titanic sank in 1912. Her writings were kept by family members until they asked historian John Maxtone-Graham to edit and publish them in 1997. Although Jessop's memoir is definitely unique and interesting, only a small part of the book addresses the focus of my topic being the events that occurred during the sinking of the Titanic. This is why for this blog and my research paper I will focus on two chapters of the book titled Titanic and also Into the Lifeboat found on pages 115-136. I will give a summary of the highlights of the memoir and then my own analysis at the end.
     
     Violet Jessop had been a stewardess for awhile before she joined the Titanic's crew. She was in awe of the ship and was especially moved by the ships building director Thomas Andrews who had asked the crew how he could improve on their living quarters and make them more comfortable and home like. She had described her past living quarters on other ships as being "wretched" and "infested with bugs," which is why she felt so privileged to have a nice bedroom (117). For several pages Jessop described the first class passengers who although she was excited to meet because of their prestige, she also dreaded assisting many of them because they were extremely high maintenance and arrogant. When the Titanic hit an iceberg, Jessop wrote that she had been reciting prayers from her prayer book. She and her roommate, Ann, stayed in the room not wanting to overreact or believe that the ship had hit something although that's what they feared. A male steward came to their room and told them the ship was sinking. Jessop then put on her uniform and went door to door to assist passengers with putting on their life jackets and making sure they all went to the top deck to the life boats. She kept telling them what her superiors told her that it was only a "precautionary measure" (127).  She went back down to her room after taking care of the passengers when she finally realized the severity of the situation. The same male steward named Stanley came to her room and said "My God, don't you realize that this ship will sink, that she has struck an iceberg, that you have to follow the rest upstairs as quickly as possible?" (127).

     Jessop's account is important to my research because she reveals reasons why many people were hesitant to get on the lifeboats. Her account confers with some of my other primary sources who have said that many women were reluctant to leave their husbands and that in the distance they could see another ship which they thought would surely come to their rescue. Her story is interesting because although she was a crew member, she was saved by several of her male crew members who encouraged her to get on a lifeboat. Jessop did not distinguish much between the first and second class passengers although it is apparent that she attended primarily to the first class. When she reached the top deck, she waited until other women and children were loaded onto the boats before one of her male crew member friends told her to get on a lifeboat. On the boat before her own, Jessop witnessed a man jump onto it from the railing while it was being lowered down, something that the crowd greatly disapproved of. She then saw a steward bring up a group of third class passengers, most of whom did not speak English, and of whom he told only the women and children could get on the lifeboats. When she got on the lifeboat, the steward who told her to get on handed her a baby whom Jessop described as being "forgotten." I actually think it was probably the child of a woman in the crowd who didn't want to leave her husband but also wanted her baby to survive. Once the lifeboat had been lowered to the sea, Jessop realized that only five more decks remained above the surface. The baby and most of the women were crying and she watched as another crew member, a man who had been below the decks feeding coal to supply power and somehow made it onto the lifeboat, was rowing it away from the sinking Titanic. Her account was seemed extremely surreal, as she described it as a dream even after she was in a lifeboat rowing away from the Titanic, she still couldn't believe that it was sinking.

     Jessop's memoir is unique because she gave insight to what it was like to have been a female crew member on the Titanic, and although she wrote down her memories over two decades after the event, it seemed like she could remember every single detail of the night the Titanic sank. I think this is possible because when something traumatic happens to people, they often can remember minute details years later whether they want to or not. John Maxtone Graham insinuated in several places that she had probably fabricated some details of her account and that it was probably due to her not writing down her account soon after it had happened. Although this is possible, I don't think he should have repeatedly stated counterevidence against Jessop, it created a sort of argument between Jessop's memoir and Graham. I found his insertion of his own ideas extremely distracting and at times disrespectful to the memories of Violet Jessop. Graham's comments were often unnecessary as well for example about the night the Titanic sank Jessop wrote "Colder and yet a little colder, gray sky deepening into haziness as evening fell, making the water look like molten silver as it caught the soft beams of a misty moon" (124).  Directly after this sentence, Graham inserted his own opinion stating "Jessop's recreation of that Sunday evening is flawed' there was no moon, only brilliant starlight" (124). It really doesn't matter whether Jessop saw a "misty moon" and other passengers only saw stars, that information is irrelevant to the big picture. Graham gave himself a negative voice and influence over the reader while trying to correct Jessop's memoirs. Perhaps what I find most interesting about primary documents is that they can be conflicting sometimes, which doesn't make them "flawed" it makes them unique. Jessop recorded her memories as best as she could, paying attention to detail, and she captured the most important aspects correctly.
 

Primary Sources

                As have we all, this week I have been combing through my primary sources trying to make a decision on which ones to use in my analysis paper. Seeing as most of my sources are very short, a few pages at best, this is not an easy task to accomplish. I have found a few that I had not considered originally that I think will be coming in handy. The reason I had not originally considered them was that they were not related to Spartacus, but because I have now done a bit of a directional switch with my paper, making it more of a comparison style of paper, at least a few of these are now going to be necessary.

                A source that I have decided to use is titled The First Slave War on the Island of Sicily: First Version. It was written in the first century B.C. by Diodorus Siculus, and is going to play a pretty significant role in my paper. This particular source is helpful because it describes in detail many of the events of the revolt, including aspects of the governmental ideas and laws that did not place enough restrictions on slave owners. Siculus points to this being a major reason that the revolt occurred. Siculus also brings in the idea of bandits and how they were a significant factor when looking into how the revolt gained footing. This aspect could be similar to how Spartacus began his revolt sixty years later.

                This source also backs up much of what my secondary sources said concerning religious aspects in detail that I had before seen. It explains how Eunus prophesied that a goddess foresaw that he was going to become a king. He later used the prophesy as justification for beginning his rule. Siculus also goes into detail on him being a magician, and how that played a role in the takeover. Overall, I believe this source was an excellent find for my paper. The reader claims that the sources that come after this are minor sources to help back this one up, so I guess that I chose the correct one.

Sanitary Fair Speech, President Lincoln April 18, 1864

Six days after the massacre at Fort Pillow, Abe Lincoln took to Baltimore, Maryland to speak about the liberty, partly in the context of the 13th Amendment and the freeing of slaves. While the opening of the speech focuses on the different definitions of liberty the North and South have, the second part of his speech focused on Fort Pillow. One line of the speech that sticks out to me, and gives mention to the public opinion at the time, was "To take the life of one of their prisoners, on the assumption that they murdered ours, when it is short of certainty that they do murder ours, might be too serious, too cruel a mistake." 

Lincoln had to address the issue of "retribution" as he later called it because not only were there opinions within his own party that favored retribution, like Wade, but there were also many citizens who felt the need to do so, otherwise he would not have had to mention it in his address. Another indication from his address that there was strong support (cannot determine how strong, but strong enough to matter) for retribution was Lincoln's diction. Lincoln went as far as saying that he thought the investigation would find no massacre, likely in hopes of calming down the situation and the opinion of the masses. He also reiterates multiple times that it has yet to be proven that there was a massacre. He is likely doing so because Northern papers at the time were not waiting for the congressional report to deem the event a massacre. 

This helps my argument that Wade did not need to exaggerate the findings of the report in order to get support for retribution. The support was already there, or Lincoln would not have had to address it. It is possible that if Wade had concluded some of the more unrealistic Northern claims from his report, that it would have been taken more seriously and the Battle of Fort Pillow would be a rallying cry for retribution. But by publishing some far fetched claims of Southern brutality and publishing a report on the treatment of prisoners, Fort Pillow faded into the background and prisoner treatment came to the foreground. The treatment of prisoners had a solution to lessen brutality and weakened the push for retribution. 

Primary Source: Widgery Report

The Widgery Report, conducted on behalf of the British government to investigate Bloody Sunday, is technically a secondary source since it is a recounting of what actually happened on that specific day. However, since it was published in 1972, only a few months after Bloody Sunday, and since its conclusions are somewhat controversial to the truth as we know it today, I am going to consider it a primary source. In looking at the Widgery Report, my intentions are to see how its conclusions are biased, also how they could have antagonized the nationalist community in Northern Ireland to join the IRA.

The summary of conclusions of the Report provides a great and concise understanding of Widgery believed to have happened on Bloody Sunday. His number one point states, “There would have been no deaths in Londonderry on 30 January if those who organised the illegal march had not thereby created a highly dangerous situation in which a clash between demonstators and the security forces was almost inevitable” (CAIN). In this statement alone, Widgery already proved that he was not sympathetic to the nationalist or Catholic cause occurring in Northern Ireland. Though the civil rights march was illegal, it was considered a peaceful one before the shooting. No evidence has indicated otherwise. The peaceful march (that may have broken a law which infringed upon Catholics rights) was by no means a clear sign that violence would ensue. To state that violence was inevitable is to be cliché; to criticize a march that promoted humanitarianism for Catholics is to prove that sympathy or compassion for the Catholic cause is not apparent. Widgery’s use of the word “hooligan” also seems to show that he was not sympathetic towards Catholics or nationalists (CAIN).

The second theme I saw within the Widgery Report was how its conclusions could have sparked even more fury in the Catholic/nationalist community and pushed them to join the IRA. Point ten’s controversial statement most likely aroused some tension from the nationalist crowd: “None of the deceased or wounded is proved to have been shot whilst handling a firearm or bomb…but there is a strong suspicion some others had been firing weapons or handling bombs in the course of the afternoon and that yet others had been closely supporting them” (CAIN). Two things can be taken out of this: one, the fact that Widgery declared himself that the victims did not have firearms on them; they did not shoot at the soldiers who shot at them. Yet the soldiers were still acquitted from any crime they committed against these victims. This would (and did) cause outrage among the nationalists; justice was not served for the victims. To make matters even worse, the second important note of the quote is that Widgery hints that someone must have been handling explosives or firearms, and that those who were shot most likely were supporting them. First, Widgery states that the victims were innocent of having weapons but acquits their murderers, giving them no justice; then he insults the victims by implying that they most likely were involved in some foul deed, or else they never would have been shot upon in the first place. It is not hard to imagine the kind of dissent the victims’ families and friends would feel after hearing or reading this report. And thus, it is not hard to understand why so many of these dissented people would join a group that promised true retribution which the British government obviously would not.

So, needless to say, the Widgery Report is going to be a valuable tool in my analysis on Bloody Sunday’s significance in IRA recruitment. It provides a wealth of information that I am eager to use! 

The Rt. Hon. Lord Widgery, O.B.E., T.D. Report of the Tribunal: Appointed to Inquire into the Events on Sunday, 30 January 1972, which Led to Loss of Life in Connection with the Procession in Londonderry on That Day. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1972. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/widgery.htm.

Blog Post #6 - Christabel's Memoir

     This week happened to be another primary source for my topic. I am finally delving into another memoir, this one being Christabel Pankhurst’s. Unshackled tells Christabel’s feelings toward both the movement and the militancy of the WSPU. For Christabel the militant movement originally began to give women a voice when society lost interest in the movement. She like her mother argues that the militancy began in response to a lack of acknowledgement via political and economic routes. One interesting thing that Christabel notes is her mother’s choice to stand alone in the beginning by choosing militancy. She says, “She stood utterly alone in the world, so far as this decision to militancy was concerned,” (Pankhurst 50). While originally the WSPU stood alone in its militant behavior over time other women’s organizations joined in militant behaviors.

     This source offers much more information than the memoir of Emmeline Pankhurst. Arguably, this occurs because of Christabel’s law degree and focuses more upon the events of the WSPU as a whole as opposed to her personal work within the militancy. She does offer her own opinion and details surrounding the events, yet she is sure to include the opinions of other Suffragettes. One thing that Christabel mentions is the idea of a technical assault. Up until this point, most of what I read focused on the idea of women assaulting police violently. Christabel explains a technical assault as much less violent as previously believed. She states, “It was not a real spit but only, shall we call it a ‘pout’, a perfectly dry purse of the mouth…my technical assault was enough,” (Pankhurst 52). This is an important idea to remember because the public learned of the violence perpetrated by women from the police, and the media. Both of these sources offer a bias against women, wanting to discredit their behavior as that of hysterical women.

Source:

Pankhurst, Christabel. Unshackled: The Story of How We Won the Vote. Edited by Lord Pethick-Lawrence. London: Hutchinson & Co., 1959.

Blog Post #5 - An Article, Useful?

     This week I decided to analyze another one of my secondary sources, although I chose an article. The article Miranda El-Rayess wrote discussed the connection between women in art and the violent painting slashing that members of the WSPU perpetrated. The beginning of this article showed a lot of promise discussing how the women managed such a feat as to enter a museum and proceed to desecrate a painting. El-Rayess includes direct quotes from the women who destroyed the paintings, and includes background information on the painting chosen and the reaction to the attack. This source could be particularly helpful in the description of painting desecration since none of my other sources directly relate to it. Instead, the sources mention it in passing, if they refer to it at all.

     Sadly, after the first four pages of detailed information concerning one specific instance of destruction by Mary Aldham, the article delves into the rather useless discussion of art. Yet it does have a strong quote from Aldham, “I have tried to destroy a valuable picture because I wish to show the public that they have no security,” (El-Rayess 30). This would have been useful if it centered on women in art, or even art during the period of my study, the early twentieth century. Instead, the article relates how Henry James sought to connect the idea of violence with portraiture in his own stories. While his extensive usage of paintings and analysis in his work, this does not relate to my topic at all, especially when one considers that James’ writings are all works of fiction.

Source:

El-Rayess, Miranda. “The Violence of Representation: James, Sargent and the Suffragette.” Critical Quarterly 53, no. 2 (2011): 30-45. Academic Search Elite, EBSCOhost (accessed September 18, 2013).

Literature Review

My focus this week has been on my literature review. I had read three books about taverns in colonial America.

Taverns and Drinking in Early America, written by Sharon Salinger, focuses on taverns during colonial America. She does not include taverns during the American Revolution. While this book does not have the America Revolution, as I would like, it does fantastic background for taverns in colonial America. She pays particular attention to laws pertaining to alcohol vs. the observance of the law. She notes that while, most, colonies had strict laws against drunkenness and strict laws about taverns in general, the law itself was mostly disregarded by the masses. Magistrates in charge of persecuting people breaking the law were often found in taverns themselves. There were a low number of people prosecuted, compared to the amount of people breaking the law, during the colonial years. Salinger notes the difference between sectarian (religiously ruled) colonies and non-sectarian colonies. She argued that sectarian colonies were more strict in their approach on upholding the law, while non-sectarian colonies paid less attention to the laws.

Rum Punch and Revolution: Taverngoing and Public Life in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia, written by Peter Thompson, also focuses on taverns during the colonial era, but he expands his timeline to include the American Revolution. Thompson focuses more heavily on the social aspect of taverns and how that influenced the culture of Philadelphia. Since Philadelphia was a center of rebellion, it is interesting to read on how taverns helped influence the Revolution. His approach is centered on the changes in culture from the colonial era through the Revolution. Thompson favors using first person accounts to expand his idea of the ‘big picture’ of culture during this time.

In Public Houses: Drink and the Revolution of Authority in Colonial Massachusetts, written by David Conroy is a staple in the realm of taverns in colonial America. Taverns were also known as public houses, dram houses, ordinaries or tippling house. This book expresses the culture and social aspects of taverns, in Massachusetts, during the colonial era, as well as during the Revolution. His chapters focus on certain people, public houses and cities. This approach gives a very detailed approach to taverns. It also adds a depth to the story of the role taverns played during the Revolution.

These books have been a central part to my paper because of the amount of information they provide. They are also very solid and well written, which provides me with a strong secondary basis that will give my paper a sturdy base on which to stand (minus my primary sources).

In all honesty, these books, while very thick and timely to read, have been really interesting!

Colonel Nathan Bedford Forrest to Lutinent Colonel Thomas M. Jack, Major-General Commanding. April 15, 1864

"The victory was complete, and the loss of the enemy will never be known from the fact that large numbers ran into the river and were shot and drowned. ... The river was dyed with the blood of the slaughtered for 200 yards... It is hoped that these facts will demonstrate to the Northern people that negro soldiers cannot cope with Southerners." 

Since I cannot post the link to this primary as I have with others, I have provided part of the letter from Forrest to Jack that spoke of the tremendous victory by the Rebels at Fort Pillow that I will reference in this post.

The tone taken by Forrest in this particular communication to his superior, Lient. Col. Jack was very grandiose. In parts of the letter he speaks of clearing all Tennessee of Greenbacks and Tories and says with time he could do the same with Kentucky. The final sentence provided above is another example of grandiose speech by Forrest. I say this because previous to Fort Pillow, a very select few battles featured black soldiers. Black soldiers were not even allowed to serve in the U.S. Army until the beginning of 1863.  Forrest was applying one battle in which Rebels heavily out numbered the Union forces to the entire viability of the black soldier. Forrest, aside from having the common Southern views of the time, also hoped to demonstrate the inequality and inability of blacks to the Northern people because less than a week before the Battle of Fort Pillow, the 13th Amendment was passed in the Senate. One could argue that Fort Pillow was not meant to be a regular battle in Forrest's mind, it was meant to be a statement by the South that blacks were not worthy of the freedoms they would be granted in the United States.

The tone taken by Forrest in his letters to superiors has been noted by other secondary authors who claimed the massacre to be a blood-lust for blacks by the South. In reviewing this particular letter, I am not surprised they arrived at such a conclusion. There is a compelling argument to be made that Forrest's views towards blacks were extremely unfavorable and that the massacre was carried out in pure racism. However, since I am evaluating the Northern news reports, speeches and congressional findings with scrutiny that they were meant to be political, I should also take the same approach to Forrest.

First, Forrest is writing to a superior, he cannot claim (as secondary authors have) that the massacre occurred because he had no control over his forces once the Fort was taken. If he were to say that he had no control and thats why so many blacks were murdered, his position could be in jeopardy.  The South was more concerned about winning back land than about Reconstruction in 1864 so any win would be beneficial. Forrest may have seen Fort Pillow as a possible statement win that might scare black soldiers from fighting in the future if his forces destroyed them in large numbers. If that were to happen, the South would be in better shape since the Confederate Army struggled to find soldiers. In the letter, Forrest mentions to Jack that he has not been conscripting, or forcing men to join the Army, because he has been too busy fighting. If Jack was pressing upon Forrest and other colonels to actively recruit while they went base to base fighting, that could be an indication that at this time in the war the South knew it had to do something drastic to even the difference in the size of the armies.

Although I am making some claims based off of speculation, I think it is entirely possible that Forrest embraced the blood shed at Fort Pillow as a moment to make a statement to the North right after the passing of the 13th Amendment and the use of black soldiers.

Forrest, Nathan Bedford. letter to Thomas M. Jack "Colonel Nathan Bedford Forrest to Lutinent Colonel Thomas M. Jack, Major-General Commanding." (April 15, 1865) in United States War Department. “Operations in Kentucky, Southwest Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, and North Georgia. January 1-April 30, 1864.” In The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, 1-703. Washington: Govt. Print Office 1891. http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/m/moawar/text/waro0057.txt

Image Evaluation

I answered the questions in the Rampola book for the class presentation so I am pasting that document in first before going more in depth.

1.     There is no mention of the Author’s name in the paper the work comes from or in on the photo. Therefore I cannot evaluate his/her other works. However, based on the publication it was posted in and the known illustrators who published in the publication, the author is probably a Union supporter looking to expose the inhumane nature of the Rebel soldiers. 

2.     The work was made in 1864 at the end of April, approximately two weeks after the end of the Battle of Fort Pillow. It was commissioned by Harper’s Weekly, a New York based political cartoon magazine. During the Civil War the magazine published work with a Union slant.

3.     Harper’s Weekly was characterized as having being moderate leading up to the Civil War, and a pro-Union during the war. The illustration may not be part of a specific intellectual movement in art, however, it was part of their Civil War coverage.

4.     The illustrations available online seem to all be similar in nature to this illustration, where white southern soldiers are slaughtering black northern soldiers. 

The illustration above comes from Harper's Weekly, a northern political cartoon magazine. The illustration was published April 30, 1864, 18 days after the Battle of Fort Pillow. Two days after the Battle of Fort Pillow press was already being circulated around the Union that described the events of the battle. This illustration was presumably not made by someone who was at the Battle. Instead, it is likely the illustration was made by someone who based his work off of testimony and intended to illustrate a recreation of the massacre. 

One reason to infer this is because there is no background to the illustration other than gun smoke. Had the artist been recreating what they had seen, the background would likely have included the gunboat that was off shore and shown an unorganized chaos of Rebels chasing black soldiers who fled towards the river and tried to swim to the gun boat. However, this illustration seems to me to be portraying the black soldiers being entrapped by a line of Rebel cavalry outside of the Fort (not pictured, so I assume outside) and those men killing the black soldiers while having them surrounded. 

pOne part of the illustration that is very interesting to me is the higher ranking Union soldier at the right of the image who is left untouched in the carnage as the two Rebel soldiers slit the throat of a black soldier who looks like he had already been wounded during the battle. I find this interesting because Northern media and testimony did not focus only on the barbarism used in killing black soldiers but also of the Rebels trying to murder the white soldiers of the Union Army. Also, it seems odd that in trying to portray the barbarism, the high ranking soldier is left untouched by Southern soldiers. In fact, part of the reason that there was so much confusion on the Union side was because a Rebel sniper had killed General Booth, the head of the Union forces stationed at Fort Pillow, early on in the battle. Mismanagement by Commander Bradford, the man who took over for Booth after his death, in the secondary literature is a main reason why the Union failed to keep the Fort. However, in this illustration the higher ranked white Northern soldier is left untouched amongst the slaughter. Another aspect I find interesting about this man is that he seems to be observing all that is happening by facing the battle. If the illustration were to more accurately depict testimony given on the Battle, this man would have been fleeing to the river for dear life as well as giving some indication of surrendering.

“The Massacre at Fort Pillow” an illustration. Harper’s Weekly (April 30, 1864): 284. http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1864/april/battle-fort-pillow.htm