Yes, Yankees Were "Far Too Ruthless"

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 2/16/2013 | Richard Williams

[Davy Buck]

One of the things that was apparent as I researched the book on Lexington, Virginia and the Civil War, was the mistreatment of Lexington's citizens (Union and Confederate) by Union general David Hunter's army. As my memory was refreshed, I also recalled how a number of Civil War bloggers have downplayed this aspect of the war, even questioning the veracity of some of the claims of Southern civilians; while others took a "so what?" attitude and, in some cases, actually became cheerleaders in justifying such treatment for the "slave-holding rebels." They often sound more like advocates of revenge than they do objective historians . . .

[DariusBane]

Ah, and from that practical perspective I would have been in his camp. The South taking on the North was folly, as the North was industrialized and heavily populated. The South agrarian.

Nothing has really changed from that perspective. To take on the Sea Boards as I understand current political power would be folly for the internal States.

But I am very much against Washington power, pro States rights. But also very realistic that the idea of a voluntary Union was decided in 1860 at the estimated cost of 620,000 dead Americans. That was a full 2% of the population. If we lost 2% today that figure would be around 6,400,000 dead. Don’t forget this is just the dead. Does not count the disfigured, the PTSD induced suicides after the war, the folks who never regain their health, the lost limbs.

[x]

Something a lot of people don’t know is the locals around Andersonville did on their own initiative try to supply what they could to the prison.

For a price, sure. And that could have helped those who had money or something to barter. Don't assume it was a humanitarian operation, though.

The South has absolutely nothing to apologize in the treatment of prisoners.

"Absolutely nothing." Sounds like false bravado.

[DoodleDawg]

I think that the Yankees just ruthless enough to win.

[DariusBane]

For perspective, France and Germany each lost 4% of total population in WWI. Although each reacted differently, the trauma of WWI was devastating to both countries.

[Moonman62]

Grant seemed to parole prisoners to the point of his disadvantage. Many of them took up arms again.

[LonePalm]

That's funny. I did the same thing. She's worse about criticizing the northerners than I ever was.

I proposed to my sweetie on the 4th of July in the middle of the fifth inning at Yankee Stadium.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[SkyDancer]

Don’t forget Fort Pillow.

[Fido969]

[Ditto]

The South had almost nothing to give the prisoners.

BS. Farmers living around Andersonville offered to donate food, and the commanders turned their offer down. South Georgia was a very plentiful area.

It was not the food shortages, however, that took such a toll. It was the lack of shelter and the contaminated water supplies that cost the most lives, and with that as well, the camp commanders could have done much better, but didn't even try.

[Thud]

Not. Ask the United States Colored Troops. AFAIK, there were few intentional field atrocities against white units of either side, but there were lots by CSA units against colored troops, many of which were also directed at their white officers. Nathan Bedford Forrest's troops had particularly ugly reputations in this regard.

The only effective limitation on this was the initial US Army field retaliation, which involved about 20-40 expedient hangings of newly captured Confederate personnel. This retaliation ceased immediately on Lincoln's orders, but pretty much deterred further atrocities by CSA personnel against colored troops (they were instead enslaved), excepting Forrest's who continued to murder quite a few captured colored troops for the rest of the war.

Civil wars are always ugly. The Confederates would not surrender and had to be destroyed inch by bloody inch. Tough for them. The North was outright nice compared to what Europeans would have done in the face of a refusal to surrender.

And the South didn't try guerrilla warfare only because they knew how the North would use colored troops.

[vetvetdoug]

The 6th Tennessee Cavalry captured 21 Confederates at Middleton, Tennessee and killed one at every mile marker from there to Purdy. One was skinned alive and others were left to die after being gut shot. General Forrest in the OR states unequivocally that if he captures any member of the 6th Tennessee he will give no quarter to them. Several of these men were at Fort Pillow when Forrest and his men attacked that fort. If there had been true atrocities at Pillow, doesn't it make sense that the Union would have punished Forrest after the war? No, Sherman himself evaluated the incident and deferred charges against Forrest.

[yarddog]

Actually the South used guerrilla tactics quite a bit. Stand Watie a Cherokee General in the Confederate Army used them effectively. Probably the most successful partisan Ranger ever was Confederate John Mosby. My Mother’s GGsomething belonged to Laird’s Rangers and she had another kinsman serve in the Alabama Partisan Rangers.

George Custer started the hanging of prisoners but John Mosby made him think again. Custer captured a small number of Mosby’s men and hanged them. Mosby who had always just released his prisoners via parole and promise they would not fight again, went out and captured a whole bunch of Custers men and handed 10 for every one Custer had done the same to.

That ended the murder of prisoners by Custer.

You have it exactly backwards. It was the Union which began the murder of prisoners and the Confederates who put a stop to it since they had far more Union prisoners than vice versa, especially early in the war.

[Repulican Donkey]

First, Forrest tried to stop the Fort Pillow massacre. That’s based on Union testimony. Second, the Fort Pillow massacre pales in comparison to Union atrocities in the Shenandoah Valley and Georgia. Third, why should the south have “surrendered”? The states of the Confederacy exercised their right to leave the United States. Fourth, it was not a “civil war”. Check the definition. Lincoln systematically violated the Constitution.

[Shimmer1]

Unfortunately, Andersonville doesn’t actually stand out in it’s depravity, Union prisons were just as bad sometimes, but not as publicized.

[Shimmer1]

heehee, you go!

[JerseyDvl]

Kindle has many great free books available
about the Civil War, many of them being autobiographies and diaries.
Have read about 5 dealing with Andersonville and it never ceases to amaze me how cruel humans can be to each other.

[catfish1957]

I am old enough to remember relatives , (several born in the 1800’s) that had a serious mistrust of anyone from the north. Pretty much the same today, just not as militant about it.

[dfwgator]

Many Freepers believe that the Army would never turn it’s gun on citizens.

Especially once it's full of "Dream Act" recipients.

[wxgesr]

Law of unintended consequences....Booth killed the only sensible man, thereby uplifting Johnson to POTUS and the South was worse for wear.

Reconstruction would’ve been far less brutal if Lincoln had survived to remain POTUS, IMHO.

[vetvetdoug]

Read how the Union Army used black troops at Petersburg, Olustee, and Fort Waggoner. They used them as cannon fodder but to the black man's defense, they followed orders with pride and honor as they were slaughtered. The Union officers admitted using the black troops to just use up the Confederate's ammunition.

At Andersonville the black troops were treated better than were the Tennessee Unionists according to the first hand account book, Life In Rebel Prisons written and published in 1865.