Posted on 12/22/2002 7:56:45 AM PST by GeneD
Ould published all of that material in the National Intelligencer in 1868. Did someone sue him for libel? I'm asking seriously.
Ould says he tried to get a Congressional Committee chaired by Shanks of Indiana to look into the matter after the war (Ould also mentions this effort in the Intelligencer). The Radical Republican majority blocked the inquiry.
You seemed to have morphed a discussion about the North not following up on an offer to let Northern doctors come to Southern prisons to treat and feed Federal prisoners with an argument about whether or not the South should return black prisoners, many of whom the South alleged should be returned to their (former) owners in the South.
What did the treatment and feeding of Federal prisoners have to do with the escaped slave issue? I can just see the Northern argument now -- we are not going to come feed and treat our soldiers in your prisons because you won't release captured black soldiers. I can see them trying that argument on some Northern mother whose son was in a Southern prison.
With respect, I suggest that you read Immortal Captives, The Story of Six Hundred Confederate Officers and the United States Prisoner of War Policy by Mauriel Phillips Joslyn.
A number of these officers were starved to death on quarter rations of wormy food. By March 1865, most were unable to walk. The six hundred were famous across the South, but they probably didn't make into Northern history books.
The issue the north wanted addressed was equal treatment for black soldiers. The rebel position was that the black Union POW's be turned over to the states, which uniformly would have tried them for servile insurrection -- an automatic death sentence. The Union wanted movement on that issue. The rebels refused.
One thing this all illuminates is the absurdity of the idea that the rebels had any number of black soldiers in ranks.
Walt
When I read your previous post, which alleged "no response" from the federals, I knew there was more to it than your post suggested. And there was. The same thing applies here. We'll see. But since it seems Ould was lying/wrong before (and you accepted it pretty uncritically), I don't give him much credence.
Walt
Found this:
"After his exchange was negotiated, Goff was returned north by the Confederates and paroled on September 1, 1864, at Varina, Virginia, an exchange station on the James River about seventeen miles below Richmond.
There he boarded a Federal steamer flying a flag of truce, and was taken down the James and up Chesapeake Bay to Camp Parole near Annapolis, Maryland. Upon his arrival on September 3, he was given forty-eight hours leave and ordered to report to Colonel William Hoffman, Commissary General of Prisoners at Washington, D. C.
While in Washington, Goff, according to later testimony, had an interview with President Lincoln and Stanton, concerning his treatment as a prisoner of war. The effect of this particular interview is not known, but soon thereafter the government adopted a policy of releasing and exchanging sick and wounded prisoners who would be unfit for active service for sixty days on a man-for-man basis. The new policy was acceptable to General Ulysses S. Grant because Confederate prisoners sent south could not materially affect the war effort. Lincoln's supporters thought that chances of success in the forthcoming presidential election would be enhanced by a concession to public clamor for a general exchange."
http://www.wvculture.org/history/journal_wvh/wvh14-1.html
That doesn't seem to square with what your sources are suggesting.
Too, what possible reason would President Lincoln's administration have for antagonizing the voters in this issue? There's more to it.
Walt
A number of these officers were starved to death on quarter rations of wormy food.
These men were treated 'like for like' as retribution for the abuse of black Union POW's in rebel hands.
Walt
Dr. Steiner of the United States Sanitary Commission noted that mortality in the hospital wards among the rebel troops was 2-3 times that of Union troops. So there's more to -that- than just a straight accounting would suggest also. If mortality rates in the USA and CSA camps were similar, then it might behoove a rebel to get captured.
On the other hand, Dr. Steiner was the observer who saw the 3,000 black soliders with Lee's army in 1862; he also thought McClellan a great genius. But he WAS a doctor, so maybe his his observations in the medical field have more weight.
Walt
Ould published the following in the National Intelligencer in 1868 along with the letter I cited before and the offer to have Federal prioners treated and fed by Northern doctors:
General John E. Mulford is personally cognizant of the truth of most, if not all the facts which I have narrated. He was connected with the cartel from its date until the end of the war. During a portion of the time he was Assistant Agent of Exchange on the part of the United States. I have always found him to be an honorable and truthful gentleman. While he discharged his duties with great fidelity to his own Government, he was kind, and, I might almost say, tender to its Confederate prisoners. With that portion of the correspondence with which his name is connected, he is, of course, familiar. He is equally so with the delivery made at Savannah, and its attending circumstances, and with the offer I made as to the purchase of medicines for the Federal sick and wounded. I appeal to him for the truth of what I have written. There are other Federal corroborations to portions of my statements. They are found in the report of Major General B. F. Butler to the "Committee on the Conduct of the War."
Ould did mention in the Intelligencer some negotiations on general prisoner exchange, but he didn't mention the problem with exchange of black prisoners.
About the last of March, 1864, I had several conferences with General Butler at Fortress Monroe in relation to the difficulties attending the exchange of prisoners, and we reached what we both thought a tolerably satisfactory basis.The day that I left there General Grant arrived. General Butler said that he communicated to him the state of the negotiations and "most emphatic verbal directions were received from the Lieutenant General not to take any step by which another able bodied man should be exchanged until further notice from him;" and that on April 30, 1864, he received a telegram from General Grant "to receive all the sick and wounded the Confederate authorities may send you, but send no more in exchange. Unless my recollection fails me, General Butler also, in his address to his constituents, substantially declared that he was directed in his management of the question of exchange with the Confederate authorities to put the matter offensively, for the purpose of preventing an exchange.
All of this may be found in Point Lookout Prison Camp for Confederates by Edwin Beitzel, which can be obtained from St. Mary's County Historical Society, P.O. Box 212, Leonardtown, MD 20650. I purchased the book at Appomattox Court House National Military Park.
You are right about the excuse part, Walt. US General Butler said:
In case the Confederate authorities should yield to the argument...and formally notify me that their slaves captured in our uniform would be exchanged as other soldiers were, and that they were ready to return to us all our prisoners at Andersonville and elsewhere in exchange for theirs, I had determined, with the consent of the lieutenant-general (Grant), as a last resort, in order to prevent exchange, to demand that the outlawry against me should be formally reversed and appologized for before I would further negotiate the exchange of prisoners.It may be remarked here that the rebels were willing enough to exchange prisoners at this time, man for man, were we to permit it to be done.
Perhaps, perhaps not. What I have seen indicates the retribution was for general alleged mistreatment of Northern prisoners.
The 600 Confederate prisoners were fed less than Federal prisoners at Andersonville and Charleston even though the North had food. Would you have been in favor of this treatment, Walt?
You reminded me of something I read. Someone thought the South's offer in the summer of 1864 to release 10,000 to 15,000 Federal prisoners with no equivalent exchanges of Confederate prisoners was a ploy designed to affect the Federal elections, what with the prisoners mad at Lincoln's government for sacrificing them in prison.
If it was a ploy, it didn't work because the Feds did not arrange to come pick up the prisoners until months later in late November, after the election, leaving the prisoners dying in prison until that time and unable to vote.
You might be interested in the opinion of Walt Whitman in a December 1864 letter to the New York Times:
In my opinion, the Secretary has taken and obstinately held a position of cold-blooded policy, (that is, he thinks it policy) in this matter, more cruel than anything done by the secessionists. ... In my opinion, the anguish and death of these ten to fifteen thousand American young men, with all the added and incalculable sorrow, long drawn out, amid families at home, rests mainly on the heads of members of our own Government..."
Source: Immortal Captives
"What happened was that your boy, Abe, decided to exploit his 3:2 advantage to the utmost by ceasing prisoner exchanges and letting those loyal, patriotic farmboys, who went to war to preserve his precious Union, rot and die in overcrowded, undersupplied, unsanitary, disease infested hellholes like Andersonville (the Confederates were imprisoned in equally bad conditions at places like Elmira). It was by making the South run out of cannon fodder first that he obtained his unworthy (I should have said ignominous) victory."
Did your simple-minded cut-and-paste have any relevence to that post; did it bear any relation whatever to my post to which it was an ostensible response. The answer is: a resounding no none whatever. As I said, you need a different hobby. Collecting Barbie dolls isn't to your liking? Try frequenting your local lover's lanes and collecting condom wrappers. There must be something you could find that would suit you better and fulfill you better than making a fool of yourself on this forum.
Mouthing such utter nonsense is beneath contempt. Nothing could have been more total than the indifference that Union oficers would have had for Confederate treatment of black Union POWs. Having a sense for history means understanding how people of the time thought rather than how Hollywood movies portray them as having thought.
Lee wrote in a January 11, 1865 letter that the best relation between blacks and whites was that of slave and master.
But, happy holidays any way. :)
Walt
Mouthing such utter nonsense is beneath contempt. Nothing could have been more total than the indifference that Union oficers would have had for Confederate treatment of black Union POWs. Having a sense for history means understanding how people of the time thought rather than how Hollywood movies portray them as having thought.
"The "Immortal Captives" affair -- a sourced chronology
What follows is a sourced chronology for this affair, based mostly on message traffic in the OR. 6/15/64:
CS Gen. Sam Jones informs US Gen. J.G. Foster that there areabout 50 US officers now in Charleston, to be housed in an area currently under Federal fire. (OR, Series I, vol. 35, part II, page 132.)
6/16/64: Foster protests to Jones, telling him that he has forwarded the correspondence to the President, along with a recommendation that a like number of CS officers be forwarded to Federal positions for similar treatment. (Ibid, page 134.)
6/21/64: Halleck informs Foster that the Sec'y of War has authorized sending 50 CS officers to the Charleston area to be placed under fire.(Ibid, page 143; a list of the Rebel officers is given on page 147, the US officers on page 145.)
7/1/64 & 7/4/64: Foster informs Jones of his intent to retaliate. (Ibid,pages 163-164.)
7/29/64: Foster informs Jones that he has been authorized to make a special exchange of prisoners, in order to resolve the issue. (Ibid, page198.)
8/2/64: Jones agrees to the exchange. (Ibid, page 210.)
8/4/64: Foster informs Halleck that the exchange has taken place. (Ibid,page 212-213.) It appears that the 50 Confederates were never placed under fire of Confederate guns; see OR, Series II, vol. 7, page 607. Foster also tells Halleck on this date (OR, Series I, vol. 35, part II, page 213) that he thinks there are still about 600 US officer prisoners in Charleston. Foster speaks encouragingly of exchanging for them.
8/8/64: Halleck writes to Foster, saying that 600 CS prisoners will be sent to him for treatment "in the same manner as our officers, prisoners of war, are treated in Charleston." No exchange will be made without authorization from Washington. (OR, Series II, vol. 7, page 567.)
8/15/64: Foster writes to Halleck, acknowledging receipt of Halleck'snote of 8/8. Foster tells Halleck that as soon as "the 600 prisoners arrive" they will be placed under fire on Morris Island. (Ibid, pages597-598.) 8/15/64: Foster writes to Jones, saying that information has crossed the lines that about 600 Federal officer prisoners are in Charleston, housed under fire. (OR, Series II, vol. 7, page 598.)
8/20/64: Jones replies to Foster, confirming that there are about 600 Federal officers in Charleston, but pleading that these are men who are simply enroute to a new camp, and they are not being sent to Charlestonfor the purpose of being placed under Federal gunfire. (Ibid, page 625.)8/25/64: Foster forwards Jones's message of 8/20 to Halleck. (Ibid, page675.)
8/26/64: Foster informs Admiral Dahlgren that 600 CS officers have arrived for the purpose of being placed under fire on Morris Island. (Ibid, page 683.)
9/4/64: Foster informs Jones that he will be placing CS officer prisonersunder fire. (Ibid, page 763.)9/7/64: The CS officers are placed in an open stockade on Morris Island. (OR, Series I, vol. 35, part II, page 275.)
9/10/64: Jones protests to Foster. (Ibid, page 279.)
9/15/64: Foster responds, describing the stockade and shelter arrangements, and the ration that he has ordered to be given. (OR SeriesII, vol. 7, page 826.)
10/13/64: CS Gen. William Hardee informs Foster that the Federal prisoners in Charleston have been removed from the city. (Ibid, page981-82.)
10/15/64: Foster responds, asking for confirmation. (Ibid, page 990.)
10/17/64: Foster informs Hardee that the prisoners on Morris Island will be moved without delay. (Ibid, page 1007.)
10/31/64: Foster informs Hardee that the prisoners have been moved. (Ibid, page 1073.) According to Joslyn, citing several memoirs anddiaries, the men were moved on October 20, arriving at Fort Pulaski onOctober 23.
11/19/64: To relieve over-crowding at Pulaski, 179 of the men are moved to Hilton Head. (Joslyn, page 155, citing prisoner accounts.)2/5/65: Grant authorizes the exchange of all prisoners within theconfines of Foster's department. (OR Series II, vol. 8, page 219.)
It isnot until June that the last of the officers are released. Let me close with some comments.
Where Ms. Joslyn and others go wrong in their study of this affair is in ignoring the very fact that there was a war on. The two sides in a war generally do not trust each other, and onCivil War POW issues this was very true by 1864. It appears from allaccounts that the Federal prisoners were in Charleston as an expedientmatter, while they were awaiting the construction of a prison in Columbia. Ms. Joslyn wants, indeed, she appears to expect, that the Federal authorities should take the Confederates at their word on this. But in August of 1864, tales of Andersonville were filtering northwards; in addition, the Confederates had mis-treated black Union troops and their white officers, had violated the exchange and parole cartel by returning to action thousands of men from the Vicksburg garrison without proper exchange, and had stolen food stuffs and clothing that had been sent through the lines for the use of Federal prisoners.
It matters not a whit that some of these beliefs may have been ill-founded or even untrue; what matters is that the Federal authorities =did= believe them, and had a rational basis for believing them. (And a lot of them =were= true.) Nordoes it matter that the CSA might have had equal complaints against theFederal government. By this point in time, neither side had any reason totrust the other, and many reasons to distrust the other, where POW's wereconcerned. So, when the Federals hear that prisoners are in Charleston,they aren't going to just take Confederate Gen. Sam Jones's word for itthat this is a temporary expedient. They believed that placing prisoners under fire is a violation of the laws of war, and they therefore believed they need to retaliate in order to protect their soldiers. And they are justified in doing so, based on the information they had at the time. My reading of Joslyn's book reveals nothing happening to the Confederate officers that did not happen to inmates at Libby or Andersonville or Elmira."
-- from the ACW moderated newsgroup
Found this too:
"Headquarters Department Trans-Mississippi,Shreveport, La, June 13, 1863
Maj. Gen. R. Taylor Commanding District of Louisiana:
GENERAL:
In answer to the communication of Brigadier-General Hebert, ofthe 6th instant, asking what disposition should be made of negro slaves taken in arms, I am directed by Lieutenant-General Smith to say no quarter should be shown them. If taken prisoners, however, they should be turned over to the executive authorities of the States in which they may be captured, in obedience to the proclamation of the President of the Confederate States, sections 3 and 4, published to the Army in General Orders, No. 111, Adjutant and Inspector General's Office, series of 1862. Should negroes thus taken be executed by the military authorities capturing them it would certainly provoke retaliation. By turning them over to the civil authorities to be tried by the laws of the state, no exception can be taken.I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
S. S. Anderson"
It is beyond grotesque to refer to the rebel traitors as heroes.
Walt
In your recounting of the Charleston situation, you forgot to mention the communique of the five Union generals among the Federal prisoners held in Charleston: Here is what they sent to Foster:
The journals of this morning inform us, for the first time, that five general officers of the Confederate service have arrived at Hilton Head, with a view to their being subjected to the same treatment that we are receiving here. We think it just to ask for these officers every kindness and courtesy that you can extend to them in acknowledgment of the fact that we, at this time, are as pleasantly and comfortably situated as is possible for prisoners of war, receiving from the Confederate authorities every privilege that we could desire or expect, nor or we unnecessarily exposed to fire. (Joslyn, page 21)
Your reply also mentioned the following:
...Confederates...had violated the exchange and parole cartel by returning to action thousands of men from the Vicksburg garrison without proper exchange...
I've addressed this concern before with you. Joslyn points out that Stanton had declared paroles after July 3, 1863 to be worthless. This was the situation for the Vicksburg paroles. General Halleck acknowledged that the Feds were not justified in punishing Confederates for violation of improper and illegal paroles.
Yes, Vicksburg surrendered on July 4.
The word of CSA officials was often worthless.
But happy holidays, and I remain your obedient servant, etc. etc. and so forth. :)
Walt
Happy holidays, non-seq.
Some time ago I found the following site which contains a Southern view of Andersonville from one of the prison guards. I cannot vouch for its correctness, but it makes interesting reading: Southern view of Andersonville
It may be that what he says about guards and prisoners being given the same food is correct. However, the guards probably had more access to food from outside.
rustbucket, in search of truth, as always
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.