Replies

Walt again incorrectly cites the Confederate source documentation about conduct toward Blacks taken under arms. The reference was to Blacks taken under arms in "servile insurrection" - in other words, slave rebellion by non-military combatants.

Well, you're caught in a big fat lie on your first day on FR.

http://www.inform.umd.edu/ARHU/Depts/History/Freedman/pow.htm

ADJT. AND INSP. GENERAL'S OFFICE, Richmond [Va.], December 24, 1862.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 111.

I. The following proclamation of the President is published for the information and guidance of all concerned therein:

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES. A PROCLAMATION. "Now therefore I, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America and acting by their authority, appealing to the Divine Judge in attestation that their conduct is not guided by the passion of revenge but that they reluctantly yield to the solemn duty of repressing by necessary severity crimes of which their citizens are the victims, do issue this my proclamation, and by virtue of my authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armies of the Confederate States do order--

...

3. That all negro slaves captured in arms be at once delivered over to the executive authorities of the respective States to which they belong to be dealt with according to the laws of said States."

It doesn't say a word about non-combatants.

And the state penalties, I believe, were uniformly death.

Consider also this text:

More details are at members.aol.com/jfepperson/pow.html.

12/24/62:

Jefferson Davis issues a proclamation which states (1) White officers of black troops will not be treated as POWs; (2) The black troops themselves will not be treated as POWs; (3) Union Maj. Gen. Benjamin Butler is to be hanged w/o trial immediately upon being captured; (4) No Union officers will be paroled until Butler is caught and hanged. All four of these provisions were violations of the Dix-Hill Cartel.

12/28/62:

In response to Davis's proclamation, the Federals end the exchange and parole of Confederate officers.

5/25/63:

Non-exchange and parole of Confederate officers is re-affirmed in orders from Halleck to all commanders in the field. This is done largely in response to the CS Congress passing a law implementing a small variation of Davis's 12/24/62 proclamation.

7/13/63:

Secretary of War Stanton orders an end to the exchange and parole of enlisted men. This is done largely because of increasing arguments over the parole provisions of the cartel, and the feeling that this aspect of the agreement is (unfairly) being manipulated by the Confederates to their advantage.

Fall, 1863:

Confederates return to service most of the Vicksburg garrison, an act which the Federals claim is not justified by the cartel. This hardens Federal attitudes towards the exchange process. So, as of 1/1/64, the exchange cartel is more or less entirely disrupted, as a result of reasonable objections being made by the Federals, and we have yet to see US Grant's name being mentioned. Now, here comes his involvement:

4/17/64:

Lt. Gen. US Grant issues orders that exchanges remain halted until the Confederates compensate the Yankees for the release of the Vicksburg garrison, *and* agree to treat black soldiers equally with white. Grant's role was to confirm a policy already in place, a policy reached as a result of difficulties in managing the cartel. Grant's views on exchange are well-known: He thought it was a bad idea. There's a quote from him to the effect that re-opening exchange might be humanity towards the men in the camps, but keeping it closed was humanity towards the men in the ranks. That's a harsh judgment, but it is no less accurate for being harsh.

Jim Epperson

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html

Time to take off the rose colored glasses, bub.

Walt