Yes, let's.
The Confederates were consistently short on supplies. In the latter years, they couldn't even reliably get their own soldiers enough shoes. What makes us think they're going to be able to lavishly pour goodies upon enemy POWs?
The confederates had transportation and resources enough to get the prisoners to the camps, but they didn't have resources enough to provide them with food?
The Union could have rescued many of its soldiers in POW camps if it hadn't stopped prisoner exchanges halfway through the war.
Exchanges were stopped because the South refused to treat black Union soldiers as POWs but instead said that they would be sent into slavery and their officers shot. The South also threatened to execute, without trial, specific Union generals.
Being in a POW camp, belonging to EITHER side, would not have been a fun experience. Both sides didn't have enough resources or personnel to "waste" supplying and guarding enemy prisoners. There were some Northern POW camps that were every bit as bad as Andersonville - and it wasn't because the Northerners were evil, genocidal monsters. The same, however, holds true for the Southerners.
I disagree. Both sides are culpable because both sides could have provided decent care for their POWS and neither side did. Both could have provided decent food, but didn't. Both sides could have provided decent shelter, but didn't. Both sides could have taken steps to reduce the fatalities, but didn't. Abuse and mistreatment was deliberate both North and SOuth.
Men march. Food doesn't.
Exchanges were stopped because the South refused to treat black Union soldiers as POWs but instead said that they would be sent into slavery and their officers shot. The South also threatened to execute, without trial, specific Union generals.
An unfortunate stance on the part of the Southerners but, ultimately, not consequential to the point I had actually made. The North had a choice to free its soldiers - and didn't. Irregardless of the stated reasons for doing so, they chose an option that led to thousands more dying in overrun, under-supplied Confederate prison camps.
I disagree. Both sides are culpable because both sides could have provided decent care for their POWS and neither side did. Both could have provided decent food, but didn't. Both sides could have provided decent shelter, but didn't. Both sides could have taken steps to reduce the fatalities, but didn't. Abuse and mistreatment was deliberate both North and SOuth.
Ridiculous. The South couldn't even give sufficient supplies of clothing, shoes, and food to its soldiers who were in the field. What makes you think they were going to magically call up adequate supplies for thousands of enemy soldiers? But also, why would the North be expected to do so, either? Production was geared towards supplying the war effort - and the North, as much as the South, didn't have nearly enough resources to divert to POW camps which didn't serve to sustain the war drive. While there was some deliberate mistreatment on both sides (notably the Confederates summarily executing captured black Union soldiers), I do not believe that prisoner mistreat was a systematically applied policy at either the national or theatre level.