Posted on 05/23/2002 8:52:25 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
RETALIATION (From the Richmond Inquirer, Jan. 22 [1864])
The following is a copy of the letter sent to Gen. Wilde by the colonel commanding the forces on the Blackwater, relative to the late measures of retaliation adopted by our military authorities in Eastern North Carolina:
Headquarters Forces on Blackwater Franklin, Va, January 1864
Gen. Wilde, commanding Colored Brigade, Norfolk, Va. Sir – Probably no expedition, during the progress of this war, has been attended with more utter disregard for the long-established usages of civilization or the dictates of humanity, than was your late raid into the country bordering the Albemarle. Your stay, though short, was marked by crimes and enormities. You burned houses over the heads of defenseless women and children, carried off private property of every description, arrested non-combatants, and carried off ladies in irons, whom you confined with negro men. Your negro troops fired on Confederates after they surrendered, and they were only saved by the exertions of the more humane of your white officers. Last, but not least, under the pretext that he was a guerrilla, you hanged Daniel Bright, a private of Company L, 62d Georgia Regiment (cavalry), forcing the ladies and gentlemen whom you held in arrest to witness the execution. Therefore, I have obtained an order from the general commanding for the execution of Samuel Jones, a private of Company B, 5th Ohio, whom I hang in retaliation. I hold two more of your men -in irons- as hostages for Mrs. Weeks and Mrs. Mundin. When these ladies are released, these men will be relieved and treated as prisoners of war.
Col. Joel R. Griffin
Now the next report. RETALIATION The following is from the Richmond Examiner of the 12th. It will be recollected that some weeks ago a Georgia cavalryman, Daniel Bright, of the 22d Georgia, was hanged by the Federals as a guerrilla. It now appears that retaliation has been sternly executed by our troops. We learned that, at the spot of the tragic execution, a few days ago, our soldiers hung in retaliation, a negro soldier from Ohio, and that his body was left swinging on the very beam from which Bright was suspended. The victim was a bright mulatto; he had been captured near Elizabeth City, and he must have been brought nearly seventy miles to the place of execution, that the retaliation might be executed on the very same spot where the atrocity which occasioned it had been committed. Our informant saw the corpse swinging in the wind at Hampton Cross-roads. The following label was attached to it: NOTICE – Here hangs the body of Sam Jones, of the 5th Ohio Regiment, executed in retaliation for Daniel Bright, hung in retaliation, hung by the order of Brig. Gen. Wild. By order of GEN. PICKETT. We have, also, information on the hanging of another free negro soldier, the day before yesterday, by our troops, at Franklin. He was executed for burning houses. The wretch belonged to a Massachusetts regiment. He is said to have been much affected by his fate, protesting that he never had any idea of such consequences of his enlistment. In addition to these fearful and determined acts of retaliation, we learn that two hostages were yesterday committed to Castle Thunder, under the orders of Col. Griffin – one white man; and the other a bright mulatto; and they will be held to await the threat of Gen. Getty, who commands at Portsmouth, to hang two women, who are already in irons, in retaliation for the execution of the negro Jones. The first? [the word is hard to read] seems to have gone forth for stern and terrible work on the North Carolina frontier, in this dark and melancholy of swamps, overrun with negro banditti, and now the special theater of war’s vengeance. Our informant states that Capt. Maffit, of Burrough’s Battalion, had recently come out from Princess Anne county and joined Col. Griffin’s command; and he is entirely certain from what he heard from our officers that seven of Maffit’s men, taken by the enemy, were hung.
From what I could find on the web, Burrough’s Battalion fought with other regular Confederate Army units under the command of Confederate officers. I don’t know whether it was a state unit or a regular army unit.
Gen. Wilde (or 'Wild', his name is spelled both ways in reports) issued a warning that he considered the NC state troops to be guerrillas even though they were paid by the state to defend their home counties. I'm not sure he had the legal or moral authority to do that. If he hung NC state troops, how is he any different from Pickett?
A special committee was formed by the Confederates to investigate outrages committed by the Federals. They reported that Daniel Bright, a citizen of Pasquotank County, was taken from his residence and hanged and that two most respectable married ladies were taken as hostages for a negro soldier captured by the Confederates. They report Bright was hanged close to his home a few miles from Elizabeth City. I don’t have the date on this committee investigation other than 1864.
That seems at odds with the newspaper report above that mentions that Bright was hung some 70 miles from Elizabeth City. Perhaps there were two hangings by Union troops, one of a local near Elizabeth City and one of a Georgia soldier 70 miles away. Perhaps the names of the hung were the same or similar, or just reported in error. It’s hard to tell through the mists of time.
Union Gen. John Peck corresponded with Gen. Pickett about yet another hanging. He sent a copy of a Richmond Examiner article to Pickett concerning the hanging of a Union negro soldier who had shot and killed a Confederate colonel. He enclosed a copy of Lincoln’s order stating that a rebel soldier would be executed for each Union soldier killed in violation of the rules of war.
Pickett replied that the news story was a fabrication. He then went on to say that “had I caught any negro who had killed either officer, soldier, or citizen of the Confederate States, I should have caused him to be immediately executed.”
In response to Peck’s threat to hang a Confederate soldier, Pickett says, “I have merely to say, that I have in my hands, and subject to my orders, captured in the recent operations in this department, some four hundred and fifty officers and men of the United States army, and for every man you hang, I will hang ten of the United States army.”
This is similar to Union escalations of the number of Confederates to be killed for each Union man killed in Kentucky (I think it was Kentucky, I have a contemporary newspaper report of it somewhere).
However, you are right in your idea that Davis was fatally wrong for his position, particularly in his dealings with Lee. Lee was by nature an aggressive fighter, though also a fine defensive tactician, and had he been under a president commited to aggressive warfare, he perhaps would have crushed the Union armies. However, Davis lacked the will to decide between a defensive war and an aggressive war- he tried to play both cards, and it hardly worked. At times he instated aggressive commanders when the precise opposite was needed- witness his replacement of Johnson with Hood. He rarely recognized the capabilities of his generals, and often neglected them at prime opportunities.
Personally, I find the methods of N.B. Forrest to be some of the finest implemented by the Confederacy, considering their situation. Forrest was capable of excellent defense, holding eastern Mississippi and Alabama quite well until 1865, and conducting swift and well-executed raids upon enemy position in occupied states. He operated with fairly minimal numbers and was usually very under-armed, yet, even when opperating against vastly superior numbers he tended to hold the upper hand and rarely lost a battle, or suffered heavy losses (there were exceptions, of course, the most notable- and perhaps embarrasing- at Parker's Crossroads, TN). Had he been given greater liberty to strike at, say, Sherman's line of supply, the results for the Confederacy would have been excellent.
Since 1865, perhaps, but not before.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The one good thing that can be attributed to Butler, and is even acknowledged at the Confederate Museum in New Orleans, is that he caused significant improvement in public sanitation, which apparently had been pretty abysmal. In this connection, it is amusing to note that the citizens of New Orleans honored him for his overall contributions by having his picture in the bottom of their chamber-pots.
I found the following contemporary Southern newspaper report on Olustee.
"We learn from a dispatch to the Savannah Republican that the Federals have abandoned their position on the St. Mary's River and taken to the protection of their fleet. Our loss in the late battle was thirty-five killed and from 700 to 800 wounded. The enemy's loss was between 2500 and 3000."
"The enemy's force is reported to have been 10,000 men of all arms. Our force was about 3500 to 4000. The enemy placed two of their negro regiments in the front and urged them on at the point of the bayonet. They withstood our fire at a distance, but as our troops advanced they retreated. More than one half of the two negro regiments are said to have been left on the field of battle."
Keep in mind that was from a Southern newspaper. I also found some after-battle official reports by participants on the web. I gather a Federal general (Hatch) many months after the battle thought wounded negro troops must have been killed after the battle because there were so few negros among the prisoners in the Confederate General's report. He stated it was known that many wounded negroes were killed on the battlefield, but provides no evidence other than the low number of negro prisoners.
Confederate Gen. Finegan in his report to headquarters said that he had only 3 negro prisoners out of 150 total prisoners (later amended to near 200), but he reported a large number of negroes among the captured wounded (number of negroes not given, but the total captured wounded was 418).
US Col. Langdon's official report states: "I saw many wounded colored soldiers appearing suddenly in front and on my left, without muskets, and it appeared as if they had been lying down and taken the first opportunity to get to the rear. Some of the infantry, while facing the enemy and firing wildly, did not show fear, nor did I see any of them absolutely run off, but groups of them huddled together and did nothing, and many were in this position shot, while they seemed unconscious that they were hit."
From US Capt. Hamilton's official report: "The left wing of the U.S. Colored Infantry could have done little injury to the enemy; they fired very wildly and without purpose. It was not from cowardice as much as ignorance. Their officers appeared to do their duty as brave men, but without self-reliance, and I did not see any of the regiment run, yet they only served the purpose of keeping the enemy in check from charging. They should not be condemned, for I saw nothing wrong that could not be accounted for by want of experience and ignorance of object, apparently."
If the negro troops were the front troops in the Federal advance and later simply huddled on the battleground confused, it is not surprising that a high percentage of them were wounded. Maybe they didn't know what to do. Col. Langdon did not say the negro troops had surrendered or that firing from Confederates was unjust.
Perhaps you could point me to some other references. I don't doubt that some negroes may have been killed after the battle, but I didn't find support for it.
It was Sumter that quickened the North's anger and strengthened its resolve.
Gettysburg and Antietam did help to bolster flagging Union determination, but so did Vicksburg, Mobile and Atlanta. Victory over an invader was better for morale than victory in enemy territory, but it's victory that was most important. Had Lee won at Gettysburg, would that have increased Northern determination?
Lee's aggressive tactics and willingness to incur losses hurt his side, but these were as much in evidence on his own territory as in enemy country.
You could make a case against those tactics and argue that a far more defensive style of war more focused on avoiding losses would have served the Confederacy better.
In defense of Lee, his way of fighting was intended to offset Confederate losses in the West, to rouse failing morale, and to convince outsiders that the Confederacy had become a viable nation. He was looking for the master stroke, perhaps because fatalism convinced him that Northern numbers and industry would otherwise prevail.
And flushed by some of their victories in the East, "writing off" the border states and territories was something Confederate leaders would not do. In some very real ways, we are talking about a revolution and an empire when we talk about the Confederacy. It's only in retrospect that its victim status predominates.
So yes, Lee could have behaved differently and perhaps have succeeded over time, but only if the Confederacy had had good enough commanders in the West -- which they didn't have. If rebel commanders in the West had prevented their domain from being divided, a more conservative strategy could also have been pursued in the East, and perhaps over time Unionists would have grown weary with the long war.
**********
The war must have seemed very strange and absurd to many Americans before the horror sank in. In so many ways we were clearly one country then, perhaps more so than we are today. Of course had the Confederacy succeeded we would see things differently. But for Americans living before or after the conflict it would have seemed inconceivable or inexplicable. Those who tell us that leaving slavery out of the picture makes things clearer are wrong, as it makes secession and war so much more incomprehensible.
The idea of the rebellion as a libertarian revolt may jibe with current political preoccupations, but how valid is it? Would putting what would probably be an armed and fortified international border on the Potomac or the Ohio or the Mason-Dixon line lessen the role of government in American life?
General Lee, when he was appointed the Commander in Chief of the Confederate Army, realized what he was up against, and knew that the best course of action was to fight the war in the South, and to not go on the offensive immediately.
This actually was met with success at the war's onset, and had they continued with this plan of action, should have won.
And your 'ancestors' were all sweetness and light? As to who is 'collaberating' with the thought control 'fascists' you should check out the campus anti-Lincoln propaganda. The same rash of BS that DiLorenzo peddles. The libitarians, and the left have merged in their anti-Americanism.
Levying War against her, or adhering to her Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
So yes, General Thomas and General Lee's nephew would appear to have been guilty of treason. General Lee, on the other hand, properly recognized that his first duty of citizenship was to his home state.
Sorry. I typed the newspaper's words in incorrectly. It should read: "NOTICE – Here hangs the body of Sam Jones, of the 5th Ohio Regiment, executed in retaliation for Daniel Bright, hung by the order of Brig. Gen. Wild. By order of GEN. PICKETT."
Did even Thoreau realized that the war was being fought to replace one kind of slavery with another? And the Yankee crony-capitalists' ever-growing Leviathan state has been taking it's revenge on the new "slaves" ever since.
Probably something the likes of you would be proud of.
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.