The Confederate soldiers themselves were eating a concoction of cornmeal moistened and wrapped around the end of their rifles, then put in the fire to cook and harden. This, and a handful of parched peas. They were starving themselves. The Union boycott didn’t help matters. Southern civilians were in even worse straits, eating grits three times a day. They made regular grits in the morning, the fried the solidified grits in large pieces to eat as a type of “pie”, then the same for dinner, if they had any dinner. They stewed “greens” which in other times would have been considered weeds. Read the memoirs of Mary Chestnutt and other Southerners who lived through the war, they were first first hand witnesses-participants. As bad as the Confederate soldiers had it, the civilians fared even worse, because for one thing, the soldiers were considered to need the “best” such as it was, because they had to do the fighting. Second, because the soldiers-both Confederate and Union-comandeered what little food the civilians had. Most of the war ws fought on Southern soil, so Southern civilians fared the worse.
In other words, the Union prisoners weren’t being starved because of Southern cruelty, the Confederates simply didn’t have enough food to even feed themselves.
And I don’t blame the South for not wanting to trade prisoners for blacks who fought for the Union-there was a real fear that these blacks would not hesitate to put a knife in the backs of Confederate men, not excluding civilians.
Consider this-when Lee’s forces fought in Pennsylvania, he threatened to shoot any soldiers who looted crops there. Sherman, during his march through Georgia, didn’t scruple to burn the homes and crops of civilians the entire way to the sea, and allowed his soldiers to eat whatever little livestock they came across. What they couldn’t eat right then and there, they took with them. These days, that would be considered a war crime.
The Confederates had the transportation to get those troops to Andersonville. They had the ability to get food to them. If they wanted to, but they didn't.
In other words, the Union prisoners werent being starved because of Southern cruelty, the Confederates simply didnt have enough food to even feed themselves.
I know of no evidence supporting the idea that there was widespread hunger anywhere in the South.
And I dont blame the South for not wanting to trade prisoners for blacks who fought for the Union-there was a real fear that these blacks would not hesitate to put a knife in the backs of Confederate men, not excluding civilians.
And I see nothing wrong with refusing to negotiate prisoner exchanges when your opponent refused to treat a conservable number of your prisoners as soldiers.
Consider this-when Lees forces fought in Pennsylvania, he threatened to shoot any soldiers who looted crops there.
LOL. No he didn't.