Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to find my post concerning Henry Jaffa. What you have posted above is true and what I wrote in that post way back in 2002.
I would add the last paragraph of that post of mine.
"Now, I too, have taken a bit of space and time here but there is one thing I want you to be sure of. You have your opinion and I have mine. I feel they both have been honestly arrived at and deserve to be heard, mulled over and torn apart in the spirit of friendship and mutual learning. I hope, my friend Mental Nomad, that you trust me in believing that is my truest wish."
YMOS,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I honestly don't understand how the actual record can be simply disregarded. We have Stanton on 17 Nov 1863 saying that "It is known that the rebels will exchange man for man and officer for officer, except blacks and officers in command of black troops. These they absolutely refuse to exchange. This is the point on which the whole matter hinges. Exchanging man for man and officer for officer, with the exception the rebels make, is a substantial abandonment of the colored troops and their officers to their fate, and would be a shameful dishonor to the Government bound to protect them. When they agree to exchange all alike there will be no difficulty." [OR Ser II Vol 6, p. 528]
Brigadier General Simon Meredith had gone over the issue with Robert Ould, the confederate commissioner of exchanges, and reported on that meeting:
HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF VIRGINIA,
Fortress Monroe, August 25, 1863.
Maj. Gen. E. A. HITCHCOCK,
Commissioner for Exchange of Prisoners, Washington City, D.C.:
GENERAL: I have just returned from a meeting with the rebel agent of exchange at City Point, and I have the honor to report to you that, in reply to his letter to me, dated August 5, 1863, wherein he claims "that the prisoners captured and paroled by the rebel forces in Maryland and elsewhere prior to the 3d of July should either be regarded as legally paroled or returned as prisoners of war," I made the following proposition, as directed in the letter of the General-in-Chief to you of August 12, 1863:
CITY POINT; VA,, August 24, 1863.
I propose, on behalf of the Government of the United States, that all paroles given by officers and men between the 23d day of May, 1863, and the 3d day of July 1863, not in conformity with the stipulations of the cartel, shall be regarded as null and void, a declaration to this effect to be published to both armies.
S. A. MEREDITH,
Brigadier-General and Commissioner for Exchange.
This was declined, and the following was offered by Mr. Ould:
CITY POINT, VA., August 24, 1863.
I propose that all paroles on both sides heretofore given shall be determined by the general orders issued by the War Department of the United States, to wit, No. 49, No. 100, and No. 207 of this year, according to their respective dates, and in conformity with paragraph 131 of General Orders, No. 100, so long as said paragraph was in force. If this proposition is not acceptable I propose that the practice heretofore adopted respecting paroles and exchanges be continued. In other words, I propose that the whole question of paroles be determined by the general orders of the United States, according to their dates, or that it be decided by former practice. Re. OULD,
Agent of Exchange.
In reply to my demand for the release of Colonel Streight and his command I was informed that they were in Richmond held as other prisoners of war, and will be exchanged when exchanges of officers are resumed. In relation to Doctor Rucker, Mr. Ould referred me to his letter of August 16, which I have the honor to forward herewith.
**To my demand "that all officers commanding negro troops, and negro troops themselves, should be treated as other prisoners of war, and be exchanged as such," Mr. Ould declined acceding, remarking that they (the rebels) would "die in the last ditch" before giving up the right to send slaves back to slavery as property recaptured, but that they were willing to make exceptions in the case of free blacks. He could not exactly tell me how his authorities intended to distinguish between the two (free and slave), but presumed that evidence as to the fact of freedom would be taken into consideration. As their laws put slave and free upon the same footing no comment is necessary.**
An informal proposition was made to the following effect: "To exchange officer for officer of the same grade, except such as are in command of negro troops;" which was declined.
Mr. Ould expresses a willingness to release all chaplains, provided that one Septimus Cameron, who, he stated, had been in prison for a year, should be released, or indicted for any offense he may have committed. On my inquiring about and urging the release of the members of the Sanitary Commission, I was informed that they would be set free on making a statement in writing that they had at any time been of assistance to rebel soldiers. General Neal Dow has been handed over to the Governor of Alabama. Lieutenant-Colonel Powell is in Libby Prison, Richmond. I have notified the rebel authorities in relation to the two above-named officers, as directed in yours of the 18th ultimo [instant].
The rebel authorities wish to continue exchanging non-commissioned officers and privates as usual, returning as many as we send. I have given you, I believe, the substance of all that took place, according to your suggestion. I avoided much discussion. No agreement as to exchanges was arrived at.
I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
S. A. MEREDITH,
Brigadier-General and Commissioner for Exchange. [OR Ser II Vol 6 pp. 225-226]
What you are alleging is that Union officers were lying to themselves and lying to each other in order to lie to history. I mean, please.
Regarding the allegations of returning prisoners with no exchanges, I still haven't seen any substantiation. You can belittle my request all you like, but in the absence of primary sources that show such an offer I must still conclude that the probability of its happening is quite low.
I wasn't asking you to personally guarantee anything. I was asking you to point to where the guarantees were. Giving medicines to your enemy in the hopes that they will use those medicines to treat your soldiers they have captured is a bit too trusting, in my judgment. The most likely result would have been for them to use the medicines on their own soldiers before using it on any POWs.
As I said earlier, I agree that the Union did withhold food from the confederate prisoners they held in retaliation for what they believed was the confederate policy. I am not aware of medicine being withheld from prisoners in Union camps.
I'm sorry you think the retaliation policy was sickening, but how else would they be expected to react? If you are convinced that the other side is deliberately starving your men, the only way to affect their behavior is to retaliate in kind.
This is something John Mosby did in the Shenandoah Valley. When some of his men were executed by Union soldiers he executed Union prisoners he held in retaliation. It was a hard decision to make, but it had the desired effect.
The confederate congressional document in the OR was written in 1865, and I've shown previously that it was very inaccurate. I've produced the actual despatch Stanton used to halt the exchanges, in direct opposition to what was claimed by the confederate congress. I've produced Grant's actual communication with Butler which directly contradicts Butler's account. Not an after-the-fact account, but the actual message Grant sent to Butler in which he said it was the validity of the paroles and the status of black soldier prisoners that held up the exchanges.
Butler was dismissed from the service on Grant's recommendation and held a huge grudge against Grant because of that. That is plenty of motive for him to bear false witness.
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF TENNESSEE,
In the Field, September 8, 1864.
Major General W. T. SHERMAN, Commanding U. S. Forces, &c.:
SIR: I have the honor to propose an exchange of prisoners, officer and men, captured by both armies since the commencement of the present campaign, the exchange to be made man for man, and the equivalents to be allowed as regulated by the stipulations of the cartel. Should you accept this proposition a meeting can take place between officers especially commissioned to make the preliminary arrangements to effect the exchange. This flag of truce is borne by my staff officers, Major J. b. Eustin, assistant adjutant-general, and Captain W. A. Reid, accompanied by an escort of six mounted men and an ambulance.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. B. HOOD,
General.
HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
In the Field, Atlanta, Ga., September 8, 1864.
General J. B. HOOD, Commanding Confederate Army:
GENERAL: I have received your letter of this date and accept your offer to exchange prisoners of war on hand at this moment. I fear most have already gone North, but have to ascertain what number, about, are on hand, and I may also stop such as have not gone beyond Chattanooga. The basis of exchange will be the old cartel. I will send an officer, with a more detailed account of prisoners on hand, to-morrow to Rough and Ready to confer with any one you may name. After prisoners reach Nashville and beyond they properly fall under the jurisdiction of the commissioner, Colonel Hoffman.
Yours, truly,
W. T. SHERMAN,
Major-General, Commanding.
[OR Series II, Vol 7, p. 784]
ATLANTA, GA., September 9, 1864.
Major-General HALLECK, Chief of Staff:
* * * * * * *
Last evening Hood sent in a flag of truce asking to exchange prisoners. I have about 2,000 on hand, and will exchange if he will make a fair deal. I have sent out my inspector-general to confer and agree, and to make arrangements for the exodus of citizens. I am not willing to have Atlanta encumbered by the families of our enemies. I want it a pure Gibraltar, and will have it so by the 1st of October.
* * * * * * *
W. T. SHERMAN,
Major-General.
HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
In the Field, Atlanta, Ga., September 9, 1864.
General J. B. HOOD, Commanding Confederate Army:
GENERAL: As I answered yesterday, I consent to an actual exchange of prisoners, man for man, and equal for equal, differences or balances to be made up according to the cartel of 1862. I have appointed one of my inspectors-general, Lieutenant Colonel W. Warner, to carry out this exchange and will empower him to call for the prisoners and all such guards as he may need to effect the actual transfers. We have here 28 officers and 782 enlisted men, and en route for Chattanooga 93 officers and 907 men, making 1,810 on hand that I will exchange for a like number of my own men, captured by you in this campaign, who belong to regiments with me and who can resume their places at once, as I take it for granted you will do the same by yours. In other words, for these men I am not willing to take equivalents belonging to other armies than my won, or who belong to other regiments whose times are out and who have been discharged. By your laws all men eligible for service are ipso facto soldiers, and a very good one it is, and if needed for civil duty they are simply detailed soldiers. We found in Atlanta about a thousand of these fellows and I am satisfied they are fit subjects for exchange, and if you will release an equal number of our poor fellows at Anderson I will gather these together and send them as prisoner. They seem to have been detailed for railroad and shop duty, and I do not ask for them an equal number of my trained soldiers, but will take men belonging to any part of the U. S. Army subject to your control. We hold a good many of your men, styled "deserters," who were really stragglers and would be a good offset to such our stragglers and foragers as your cavalry pickets up of our men, but I am constrained to give these men, though sorely against the grain, the benefit of their character, pretended or real.
As soon as Colonel Warner agrees upon a few points with the officer you name I will send the prisoners to the place appointed and recall those not beyond Chattanooga, and you may count on about 2,000 in the aggregate and get ready to give ma a like number. I am willing to appoint Rough and Ready or Jonesborough as the place of exchange as also for the place of delivery of the citizens, male and female, of Atlanta who elect to go South.
Brigadier-General Govan is at Chattanooga and can be brought back. I would like to have General Stoneman and Captain Buel.
I am, with respect, yours, truly,
W. T. SHERMAN,
Major-General, Commanding.
[OR Series II, Vol 7, pp. 791-792]
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF TENNESSEE,
In the Field, September 11, 1864.
Major General W. T. SHERMAN, Commanding U. S. Forces:
SIR: I had the honor on the 8th instant to propose to you an exchange of prisoners, office and men, captured by both armies since the commencement of the present campaign. On the same day you answered my communication, stating that you accept my offer to exchange prisoners of war in hand at this moment. There being no condition attached to the acceptance on your part of my offer to exchange prisoners, I regarded it as obligatory to the extent of the number of prisoners represented by your to be within your jurisdiction. At the meeting on the 9th instant between our respective staff officers, Major J. B. Eustis, assistant adjutant-general, and Lieutenant Colonel W. Warner, inspector-general, intended to arrange such preliminaries as the time and place of delivery, &c., a communication was received from you, rendering, I regret to inform you, an exchange of prisoners impossible. Your refusal to receive in exchange your soldiers belonging to regiments whose times are out and who have been discharged discloses a fixed purpose on that part of your Government to doom to hopeless captivity those prisoners whose terms of service have expired or will soon expire. The new principle which you seek to interpolate upon the cartel of our respective Government as well as upon the laws and customs of war, will not be sanctioned by me. All captives taken in war who owe no obligations to the captors must stand upon the same equal footing. The duration of their terms of service can certainly impose no duties or obligations on the captors. The volunteer of a day and the conscript for the war who may be captured in war are equally subject to all of the burdens and equally entitled to all of the rights secured by the law of sanctions. This principle is distinctly conceded in the cartel entered into by our respective Governments and is sanctioned by reason, justice, and the public law of all civilized nations. My offer to exchange the prisoners captured during this campaign precludes any intention on my part in the delivery to discriminate between you prisoners, as all would have been you men whose of service had and had not expired would have been impossible and could not have been effected, as I had no reliable means of ascertaining what proportion of your men were entitled to their discharge. Your avowal that this class of your soldiers will not be exchanged, but will be rewarded by the sufferings and privations incident to military imprisonment, because their boldness and courage subjected them to capture, although their term of service had nearly expired, is deeply regretted by me, as I share the earnest desire of my Government to release from prolonged confinement the large number of prisoners held by both parties. Permit me to hope that this declared policy of your Government will be reconsidered, as it is unjustly oppressive to those whom the hazards of military service have rendered prisoners, and is violative of the well-understood obligations assumed by a Government toward those who are enlisted in its service. As was proper, I notified my Government of my offer to you to effect an exchange of prisoners captured during this campaign, and not only was any action approved, but my Government placed at my entire disposal for immediate exchange, man for man, all the prisoners of Andersonville. I have the honor to renew my offer to exchange prisoners, as proposed in my first communication, and remain,
Your obedient servant,
J. B. HOOD,
General.
[OR Series II, Vol 7, p. 799]
HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
In the Field, Atlanta, September 12, 1864.
General J. B. HOOD, Commanding Army of Tennessee:
GENERAL: I have yours of to-day. You asked to exchange prisoners, and I consented, as far as those which remained in my hands here and this side of Chattanooga. These I will exchange in the manner I have stated and not otherwise. As you could not know those of our men whose terms have expired, I authorized Colonel Warner to say I would receive any number taken of this army between certain dates, say the last 2,000, or in any other single period, but as a matter of business I offered terms that could not be misunderstood.
You have not answered my proposition as to the men captured in Atlanta who are soldiers of the Confederate Army detailed on extra duty in the shops.
I think I understand the laws of civilized nations and "customs of war," but if at a loss at any time I know where to seek for information to refresh my memory. If you will give our prisoners at Anderson a little more elbow room and liberty to make out of the abundant timber shelters for themselves, as also a fair allowance of food to enable them to live in health, they will ask nothing more until such time as we will provide for them.
I am, with respect, your obedient servant,
W. T. SHERMAN,
Major-General, Commanding.
[OR Series II, Vol 7, p. 808]
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF TENNESSEE,
In the Field, September 14, 1864.
Major General W. T. SHERMAN,
Commanding Military Division of the Mississippi:
GENERAL: I agree upon the terms of your letter of the 12th to the exchange of the last 2,000 prisoners captured by both armies.
As to "the men captured in Atlanta who are soldiers of the Confederate Army detailed on extra duty in the shops," I can make no agreement to exchange, not knowing whether they are exempts, or what they are; but for every man regularly in the C. S. service, whether detailed or not, I will exchange man for man.
My staff officer, Lieutenant Colonel G. A. Henry, assistant inspector-general, is charged by me with the duty of arranging with any officer you may designate the details of the exchange, and Rough and Ready will be the point selected for the delivery of the prisoners.
I have sent to Andersonville for the above-named class of prisoners.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. B. HOOD,
General.
HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
In the Field, Atlanta, September 14, 1864.
General J. B. HOOD,
Commanding Army of Tennessee, Confederate Army:
GENERAL: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this date, agreeing to the exchange of prisoners of war to the extent of about 2,000, the number held by me here and at Chattanooga.
I have appointed Lieutenant Colonel W. Warner, of my staff, to meet the officer you name, Lieutenant Colonel G. A. Henry, to-morrow at Rough and Ready, and to carry into effect the exchange.
I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,
W. T. SHERMAN,
Major-General, Commanding.
[OR Series II, Vol 7, p. 822]
HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
In the Field, Atlanta, Ga., September 20, 1864.
Major General H. W. HALLECK, Chief of Staff, Washington, D. C.:
GENERAL: I have the honor herewith to submit copies of the letters which have passed between General Hood and myself concerning the exchange of prisoners. He proposed the exchange as to all prisoners captured during the campaign. We have taken 13,000 and he has not taken 5,000. So I would not entertain the proposition of a general exchange, but consented to exchange 2,000 that we still had on hand, not sent to the rear, and for those I agreed to receive only such of ours as belonged to my army and who did not belong to regiments whose time was out. In other words, I insisted on receiving on the spot an equal number of effective men who could immediately resume their places in the ranks of my army. Otherwise my enemy would re-enforce his army at my front and would have been at liberty to send me men belonging to the Army of the Potomac, the Gulf, or of men actually out of service. Had I not on the impulse of the moment assented to a partial exchange I would have declined it altogether when General Hood assented to my terms, and under this agreement sent down 1,300 and received 800. To-morrow we are promised 1,300, after which I will make up the equivalent and send the balance North.
To illustrate the justness of my terms, I need only mention after our agreement General Hood sent me 137 men belonging to Sturgis' command, captured last summer in Mississippi. Hard as it was, my representative, Colonel Warner, had to decline to receive them and see the poor fellows sent back to the disgraceful pen at Andersonville. I have sent word to our prisoners to be of good cheer, for the day of their deliverance and revenge is fast approaching; and you will observe I have asked General Hood to enlarge the area of their pens and give them the means to make for themselves shelter, &c. Many of these prisoners escape, and I have frequent intelligence from them.
Their condition is hard, but Confederate officers assure me that a disposition is felt that will result in improved food and condition. I have reason to believe, that a large part of the prisoners will be removed to South Carolina.
I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,
W. T. SHERMAN,
Major-General.
[OR Series II, Vol 7, pp. 846-847]
**Please note that these prisoners were proposed as part of an exchange, and therefore NOT what Thea was talking about.
HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
Atlanta, Ga., September 22, 1864.
JAMES E. YEATMAN, Esg.,
Sanitary Commission, Saint Louis, Mo.:
DEAR SIR: Yours of September 14 is received, and I assure you the compliments you have lavished on me make me fear that my services and abilities are overrated. I don't want to be elevated an inch more than I can sustain myself, for pride will have its fall.
The condition of the prisoners at Andersonville has always been present to my mind, and could I have released them I would have felt more real satisfaction than to have now another battle. Indeed, General Stoneman's trip was partly for that purpose, and I fear failed partially because the general took a road east of Ocmulgee, instead of west, as I contemplated and ordered. I have frequent messages from them, and have sent word for the men to be of good cheer; that the day of their deliverance was approaching; but I now think that Jeff. Davis is removing them to Charleston, Savannah, and a point on the Savannah and Macon road at Millen, where a branch puts off for Augusta. My last escaped prisoners left Andersonville on the 12th, at which date many train loads had gone off eastward, and this reduction of the number will improve the condition of the balance.
I am now engaged in exchanging with General Hood a couple thousand of the prisoners, but this is confined to the last 2,000 captured from my army, who, of course, are not in as bad condition as those who have been longer confined. During the few days that must expire before all the papers are completed I will have occasion to write to General Hood and will offer to send down some fifty or sixty tons of clothing and other necessaries, but I doubt if he will consent. These Confederates are as proud as the devil and hate to confess poverty, but I know they are really unable to supply socks, drawers, undershirts, scissors, combs, soap, &c., which our men need more than anything else to preserve cleanliness and health. Should, however, he assent, I will telegraph you to send me such articles as we do not have on hand, and will give credit to your commission for all I obtain. This appears to me the best manner in which I can carry out your humane, patriotic, and most worthy object.
With sentiments of great respect, your friend,
W. T. SHERMAN,
Major-General, Commanding.
HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
Atlanta, Ga., September 22, 1864.
General J. B. HOOD:
GENERAL: My latest authentic information from Andersonville is to the 12th, and from what I learn our prisoners of war confined there are being removed to Savannah, Charleston, and Millen, [and] need many articles which we possess in superfluity, and can easily supply, with your consent and assistance, such as shirts, drawers, socks, shoes, soap, candles, combs, scissors, &c. If you will permit me to send a train of wagons with a single officer, to go along under flag of truce, I will send down to Lovejoy's or Palmetto a train of wagons loaded exclusively with 10,000 or 15,000 of each of these articles, and a due proportion of soap, candles, &c., under such other restrictions as you may think prudent to name I would like my officer to go along to issue these things, but will have no hesitation in sending them if you will simply promise to have them carried to the places where our prisoners are and have them fairly distributed.
I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,
W. T. SHERMAN,
Major-General, Commanding.
[OR Series II, Vol 7, pp. 857-858]
HDQRS. DEPARTMENT OF TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA,
September 27, 1864.
Major General W. T. SHERMAN,
Commanding Military Division of the Mississippi:
GENERAL: I had the honor to receive your letter of September 22, requesting permission to send your prisoners a supply of shirts, drawers, socks, shoes, soap, combs, scissors, &c. To this you have my consent, and your wagon train, in charge of a single officer, loaded exclusively with be allowed to come under flag of truce to Griffin, Ga., where I will have an officer to receive the supplies, and to attend to their further distribution and transportation to your prisoners. I cannot consent that you officer should accompany the supplies ****her than Griffin.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. B. HOOD,
General.
[OR Series II, Vol 7, p. 883]
HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
In the Field, Atlanta, Ga., September 27, 1864.
Mr. JAMES E. YETMAN, Sanitary Commission, Saint Louis:
SIR: Send me all the shirts, fine combs, and scissors for cutting hair you can spare for our prisoners South. I will, on their receipt, send them out under an agreement with General Hood. I would like to get 1,200 fine combs, and 400 scissors. Our commissary can supply soap and candles, and the quartermaster has shoes, socks, and underclothing.
W. T. SHERMAN,
Major-General.
W. Walkarte, and others, Confederate prisoners, Camp Chase, asking that clothing, blankets, and shoes, of which they are much in need, be sent to them by the Government.
SEPTEMBER 27, 1864.
Respectfully returned to Quartermaster-General.
There is at present no agreement between the two belligerents as to the supply of clothing to prisoners. I am now, and have been for some time, of the firm belief that it would be good policy to allow the Federals to supply Yankee prisoners here with coarse clothing. It would save us the expense, and give us an opportunity of sending clothing to our people in the North, which would otherwise be denied to us. I see no other way half as acceptable of settling the question, both as to our own and the enemy's prisoners. I understand from a conversation with the Secretary of War that such is his view also. I shall accordingly make the proposition (limiting it to one suit of coarse clothing for each prisoner, with blanket) to the Federal authorities when I next meet them. I am quite sure they will accede to it.
[RO. OULD.]
[OR Series II, Vol 7, pp. 885-886]
Thanks for the lead on this exchange, but I'd still appreciate evidence of prisoners offered by the confederates without exchange and being refused by the Union.
I'm very disappointed in your comments concerrning sources, when you say, "Yet I am not going to post it since it doesn’t correspond to the apparent views of the current Yankeedom, nor are there 13 notarized Yankee pre-approved witnesses or the testimony of at least 9 of the 12 disciples of Christ, Because even when proof is admitted here as evidence, since it contradicts the Almighty Northern Point of View, it will be ignored as of no consequence."
I frankly find comments like that offensive. In each case when I've said items were not reliable I have given specific, concrete evidence as to why they were, evidence that was drawn from primary sources and not a matter of interpretation. In no case have I rejected any source because it was "from a Southern point of view." In the case of the confederate congress I gave specifics as to why it was in error. In the case of Butler I posted the message sent by Grant to Butler that directly contradicted Butler's 1892 version.
I can't help but think that my postings are not being read when people continue to ignore the evidence that contradicts their claims. I hope that impression is incorrect.
As to Grant's viewpoint, I'll post again what he sent to Butler concerning the exchange policy:
HEADQUARTERS ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES,
In the Field, Culpeper Court-House, April 17, 1864.
Maj. Gen. B. F. BUTLER,
Comdg. Dept. of Virginia and N. Carolina, Fortress Monroe, Va.:
GENERAL: Your report of negotiations with Mr. Ould, C. S. agent, touching the exchange of prisoners, has been referred to me by the Secretary of War with directions to furnish you such instructions on the subject as I may deem proper.
After a careful examination of your report the only points on which I deem instructions necessary are:
First. Touching the validity of the paroles of the prisoners captured at Vicksburg and Port Hudson.
Second. The status of colored prisoners.
As to the first, no arrangement for the exchange of prisoners will be acceded to that does not fully recognize the validity of these paroles and provide for the release to us of a sufficient number of prisoners now held by the Confederate authorities to cancel any balance that may be in our favor by virtue of these paroles.
Until there is released to us a sufficient number of officers and men as were captured and paroled at Vicksburg and Port Hudson not another Confederate prisoner of war will be paroled or exchanged.
As to the second, no distinction whatever will be made in the exchange between white and colored prisoners; the only question being, were they at the time of their capture in the military service of the United States. If they were the same terms as to treatment while prisoners and conditions of release and exchange must be exacted and had in the case of colored soldiers as of white soldiers.
Non-acquiescence by the Confederate authorities in both or either of these propositions will be regarded as a refusal on their part to agree to the further exchange of prisoners, and will be so treated by us.
I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
U.S. GRANT,
Lieutenant-General. [OR Ser II, Vol 7, pp. 62-63]
I have read that missive from Grant several times and I still do not see where it says that:
1) Grant did not meet with Butler on or about the 1st of April
2) That during the meeting Grant did not discuss in person with Butler the intent they would avoid returning healthy troops.
3) That Butler did not, in writing, inform the Confederates of this intention to not return healthy prisoners.
4)The Confederate inquiry was lying when they testified they had signed correspondence from Butler on the issue of Grant’s desire on not returning healthy prisoners.
You can keep claiming it proves it but it ain’t there.
To me, your adamant claim that Grant's mid April missive "directly contradicted Butler's 1892 version" is quite simply not valid.
Butler presented it to the C.S.A. in 64. They testified to that fact in 65. All Butler did in 92 was validate and reconfirm that the C.S.A. was not lying about receiving this info from him..
What Grant put on paper weeks after the meeting does not prove he did not meet Butler nor does it prove that during the meeting he did not say it.
It does not prove that Butler did not write the Confederate Government regarding the issue.
Nor does it prove the Confederate government were deliberately lying about receiving information that Grant had told Butler about not returning healthy prisoners nor that Butler was lying about the meeting when he told the C.S.A. about it.
As to offense. I can only see the accusation that the evidence I provide is my partisan rhetoric so many times before I get tired of it. It is evidence, which basically means that which is seen. You do not see it. I clearly do.
And on that happy note. I am gone from this thread.....now that..is what I will call in my partisan fashion, a fact.
I came across this message from Butler to Stanton in early April:
HDQRS. DEPT. OF VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA,
Fort Monroe, Va., April 9, 1864.
Honorable E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War:
SIR: Upon the last flag-of-truce boat which carried up Confederate prisoners in our hands I sent up from Point Lookout some 400 and odd prisoners, being all the wounded and sick Confederates who were sufficiently convalescent to bear the voyage.
Upon the return of the boat I was informed by Major Mulford that the Confederate agent of exchange would meet me on the James Rover on Wednesday, the 29th of March. Accordingly I received notice from Admiral Lee late in the evening of that day that a flag-of-truce boat was seeking communication at the outer picket-line of the blockading fleet at the mouth of the James River.
The same messenger brought a communication from Robert Ould, esq., agent of exchange of the authorities of the belligerents at Richmond, directed to Major-General Butler, agent for the exchange of prisoners on behalf of the United States, signed with the official signature of Robert Ould, agent of exchange, Confederate States, informing me that he was then on board the C. S. steamer Roanoke, and desired an interview upon the subject of exchange.
Deeming this to be an official recognition of the commissioner of exchange of the United States on behalf of the belligerent authorities at Richmond, and an abnegation of the letter to General Hitchcock, commissioner of exchange, of the date of December 27, 1863, refusing to treat with myself as commissioner of exchange on the part of the United States, I sent Major Mulford with a steamer to officially inform Mr. Ould that I would confer with him as proposed, and suggested, as a matter of comfort to both parties, that he should meet me with his assistant at Fortress Monroe.
Owing to the darkness and storminess of the weather he was not able to come down the river until the following day. Upon meeting Mr. Ould informed me that most of the soldiers of the United States in the hands of his authorities had been sent to Americus, Ga., for the convenience of furnishing them with food and for the purpose of relieving us from the temptation of continual movements upon Richmond for the purpose of their liberation, and that in further exchange, he would desire to have these prisoners delivered to us at Fort Pulaski, in Savannah River, and urged as a reason that it was more desirable to have them come by sea than to suffer the discomfort of a ride of many hundred miles by railroad.
From motives of tenderness to the prisoners, and to prevent their being broken down by the journey, I assented that, in case the exchange went forward, our Government would receive those prisoners at that point, although the expenditure would be much heavier than at City point; but leaving that question, as well as the one whether the prisoners held by us in the West might not be delivered by the Mississippi River, and thus save an expensive land transportation, to be adjusted by future conference, after other questions of more moment were settled, we then proceeded to discuss the points of difference which had arisen in the matter of exchange, and the points reduces themselves to a few, which for more convenience for reference were put upon a memorandum. I confess that excepting the first point, as to persons of color, which I beg leave to discuss last, I can see no reason why an agreement upon all points of difference cannot be arrived at upon just and equitable terms.
In regard to paroles, the Confederate commissioner claims nothing, so far as I can see, which he is not willing to concede to us, acting under the cartel and out general orders, with the exception that, I believe, on both sides it should be yielded that, as well before as subsequently to Order Numbers 207, of July 3, 1863, paroles should not be accepted by either belligerent of officers or soldiers who were not so far in the power of the captor as to be taken to a place of safety, and I believe this proposition will be agreed to by the Confederate commissioner, although for paroles given prior to July 3 I was at a loss to answer the fact claimed, which I suppose to be the fact that paroles of prisoners taken on raids had been insisted upon on behalf of the United States, as in the case of Kilpatrick's first expedition to Richmond, and had been allowed and counted by the Confederate authorities. But I have still no doubt that matter can be easily adjusted.
The next question of difference which presented itself in discussing what paroles should be allowed was the necessity of defining what is the meaning of the words "commanders of armies in the field," as used in Order Numbers 207; and this was further complicated with the question when that order should be considered as taking effect; whether at its date, July 3, 1863, or on the date of its being notified to the Confederate commissioner of exchange, July 8, or at so The practical result of the difference of opinion upon this question would be this: If the "commanding officer of an army in the field" should only mean the officer actually commanding a military department, or an expeditionary corps in a given section of country, and the order should be held to take effect July 3, the day of its date, then the Confederate commissioner claims that paroles at Vicksburg were invalid under Order Numbers 207, which took effect July 3, as the surrender was July 4 by General Pemberton, who was not "commander of the army in the field" the commander of the department being General Johnston, who was then within a few miles, and the immediate superior of General Pemberton, who was not negotiated with in the act of capitulation at Vicksburg. Or, if it should be held that Order Numbers 207 took effect on July 8, the date of its notification to the Confederate commissioner, then the paroles at Port Hudson would be invalid, because that surrender was on the 9th of July by Colonel Gardner, an inferior officer of the C. S. Army, in command of a fortified post simply, who in no ordinary sense can be deemed to be a "commanding of an army in the field," he, in fact, being at that time under the command of General Johnston.
And it was further claimed that upon this point General Banks had himself given a construction as to what was meant by a "commander of an army of the field" by refusing to recognize the paroles of the colonel commanding at New Iberia, who, being a subordinate of General Banks, surrendered to General Dick Taylor, commanding Confederate forces, and negotiated paroles of himself and men without the consent of his immediate superior, General Banks, who was at that time ****her distant with the remainder of his army from New Iberia, where the surrender was effected, than was General Johnston from Port Hudson at the time Colonel Gardner, the commander there, negotiated the surrender of that fortified place with General Banks.
There might be other cases cited on the part of the United States, but these claims of the Confederate commissioner will sufficiently illustrate the importance of the question, and the necessity of agreeing, in case the exchange goes on, upon some call obviate this difficulty; and therefore the definition was suggested which appears upon the points discussed, to wit, that in addition to the general meaning, it ought to include a commander of a besieging force and the commander of the fortified place besieged, also to commanders of detached forces acting for the time independently of headquarters, either by order or because of the necessities of warlike operations where it is in the power of the captor to hold and bring off his prisoners.
And it was further suggested that to cover all these cases of difficulty, both on the one side and on the other, as to the time General Orders, Numbers 207, should take effect, that it should be held to take effect within a reasonable time after its promulgation for the order to have reached the commanding officer giving the paroles, which time should be judged of according to the distance from Washington. And I think upon both these points an agreement upon the basis here suggested may be arrived at, so as to settle without further debate the capitulation of both Vicksburg and Port Hudson and others standing in like case. In order to prevent any temptation for the capturing party to take along the sick and wounded of the other party who are not able to be moved another modification of General Orders, Numbers 207, was suggested, to wit, that when the captured party is disabled so that his transportation would endanger life or limb his own parole should be respected if he is released.
To prevent the complications which now arise by the unauthorized, sporadic, and ill-judge acts of some officers holding commands in the rebel forces I suggested another addition to the cartel, which is found as the last point of discussion, to wit: In all cases of condemnation to death, imprisonment to hard labor, or confinement in irons, except upon sentence of death, of any person in the military or naval service of either belligerent, before execution of the sentence the copy of the record of the trial and conviction shall be submitted to the agent of exchange of the accused party, and unless a communication of an order of retaliation within fifteen days thereafter be made to the agent of exchange furnishing the record no retaliation for such execution or for such punishment shall be claimed or executed by the other party.
By this continual necessity for retaliation because of unauthorized acts of individual officers and the cruel treatment of prisoners of war by confinement in irons, causelessly or without hearing, which might call for retaliation on the other side, can be prevented, so that the Confederate authorities and the Government of the United States can both assume the responsibility of any act of this sort before it is committed, and not be called upon after the act is done to either assume, disapprove, or retaliate it.
If all the points of this discussion in the memoranda could be fully settled, and the principle upon which paroles should be allowed on the one side and on the other could be adjusted and faithfully acted upon, I do not see why the exchange under the cartel ought not to go on. The cartel was a very hard bargain against us, but still it is our compact, and I suppose it is to be stood by. The details of these paroles, I have no doubt, can all be perfectly and satisfactory settled upon the principle I have suggested, none being claimed or allowed on either side except where officers and soldiers of known and recognized military organizations shall have been captured, provided always, that citizens may exchanged for citizens. This question of paroles becomes of less consequence to settle in detail, because, after allowing all the paroles of the Confederates claimed by them as now existing on their behalf, and allowing the 10,000 paroles at Vicksburg declared exchanged, which the Confederate commissioned claims he had a right to declare exchanged under the cartel to meet an equal number of prisoners actually delivered to us at City Point, which we number of prisoners actually delivered to us at City Point, which we have the right to declare exchanged, there will then remain a balance of paroles in favor of the United States of some 25,000 men, the Confederate commissioner claiming to have now in his hands only 16,000 paroles.
I would suggest, therefore, that, passing the first questions which I now desire to bring to your notice, that I have authority to settle and determine all these questions of paroles upon the basis suggested in the "points of discussion" and in this note, because I think it important to get these questions out of discussion and out of difficulty, and settled between the Confederate authorities and the United States, in order that the only question which shall prevent a full and just carrying out of the cartel shall be very important, one which stands at the head of these points of discussion, because, while I do not believe that the good sense of the country, the justice of the Government, or humanity toward our suffering brother soldiers in the Confederate prisons will permit us for a moment to break off the cartel upon any difference arising from either of these questions about paroles, number and details of paroled men, which can be settled upon the basis adjusted in this note, yet I do believe that the dignity of the Government, its rights, to its self-respect, and the respect of other nations, require us to hold with a hand rigid as iron the point of discussion first presented, and that we shall be justified, not only by the judgment of the civilized world, but by the self-respect of our Government, and by the consent of all good men, and even by those of our sons and brothers who may suffer in prison because of the stand we take, as well as by our own conscience, in refusing for a moment to permit those black men whom we have made free, uniformed, and armed, and put in our service, when captured, from being treated as slaves.
And I desire, therefore, that this point of difference between the United States Government and the Confederate authorities shall stand out alone as full justification, if not yielded by them, for setting aside the cartel, because of a gross violation of it by the Confederate authorities.
It will be remembered that by the declaration and proclamation of Jefferson Davis of December 23, 1862, all officers commanding colored troops were to be delivered over to the Governors of States, to be punished under their laws for inciting negro insurrections, which is a paraphrase for punishment by ignominious death, and that the colored soldiers so commanded were not to be treated as prisoners of war, but were to be turned over to their masters to hard labor as slaves, and that this was substantially the recommendation of Mr. Davis' message to the Confederate Congress, and that an act was passed substantially in accordance with this recommendation.
Now, while it may be conceded as a usage of civilized warfare that prisoners of war necessarily supported by the capturing government may be employed by that government to labor upon public work, yet it has never been, among nations making professions of Christianity, held that captives of war, either by land or sea, could be made slaves. And it will also be remembered that the United States Government went to war with Tripoli and other Barbary powers in 1804 to force them at the cannon's mouth to repudiate this doctrine. It will be seen that the Confederate commissioner, however, has so far modified his claim that officers in command of colored troops and free negroes, although both may be serving in company with slaves as soldiers in United States, are to be treated as prisoners of war, so that the question of difference between us now is not one of color, because it is admitted now that free black men of the loyal States are to be treated as prisoners of war.
But the claim is that every person of color who ever was a slave in any of the eleven Confederate States shall not be treated as a prisoner of war, but when captured are to be deemed to be slaves, and may be turned over to their masters as such by the Confederate Government.
Now, as the United States Government has, by the proclamation of the President and by the law of Congress, emancipated all slaves that have sought refuge within the lines of the Union Army, and declared that they shall never be returned to their master, and as men heretofore slaves, when duly enrolled in the U. S. Army, must be deemed and taken to be within the Union lines, therefore we have no slaves in our army; and the question is, whether we shall permit the belligerents opposed to us to make slaves of the free men that they capture in our uniform simply because of their color. Because, upon no ground of national law, so far as I am advised, can it be claimed for a moment that to any slave from any State, when found within our lines, any right of property can attach in behalf of his former master; because, treating the slave as property only, his capture by us from a belligerent would give the captor the right of property, the "jus disponendi," and we have exercised that right of disposition by making him free.
But suppose we had not done so. His recapture on land by the Confederate forces, treating them as representatives of a Government, would make the salve, as an article of property, the property of the Government that captured him, and would by no reason revert the title in the former owner.
To use an illustration which has occurred to my mind: Suppose on land we capture from the rebels a horse belonging to A; that horse, disposed of by our Government, is taken into its own service and is afterward recaptured by the Confederate forces; would there be any doubt that the property in the animal would have been diverted from the original owner, A, by the first capture and come to the United States, and then been taken from the United States and given to the Confederate Government by the recapture?
Further, to permit this would be a violation of the laws of some of these very Confederate States.
Virginia has emancipated her slaves by provisions which no one can doubt must be held according to any usage to be operative within the lines of the U. S. Army. Many slaves are thus made free who are now in our army, and we cannot, of course, suffer them to be enslaved by the fact of capture by the rebels. I understand this right to thus dispose of black soldiers in arms to be made a sine qua non by the Confederates, and therefore I take leave the suggest that I may be instructed to settle with the Confederate commissioner, upon further conference with him, all points of difference except this, and to declare exchanged numbers equal on either side heretofore delivered and paroled, so that this point may be left standing out sharply alone, and in regard to it, to insist that the cartel applies, as it does apply, to these colored prisoners of war, and that no further exchange can go on by the delivery of prisoners captured until this point is yielded, with the purpose, but not with the threat, of exact retaliation in exact kind and measure upon treatment received by ours.
Awaiting instructions, I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
BENJ. F. BUTLER,
Major-General and Commissioner for Exchange.
[OR Series II, Vol 7, pp. 29-34]
This still confirms the policy as I've outlined it previously.
This is very interesting reading indeed. I will give but a few paragraphs and suggest that the reader use this url and read the rest. I don't see the necessity of re-printing here what readers are perfectly capable of reading, if they so desire.
Page 1
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 3, 1865.--Laid on table and ordered to be printed.
[By Mr. PERKINS.]
REPORT
Of the Joint Select Committee appointed to investigate the Condition and
Treatment of Prisoners of War.
The duties assigned to the committee under the several resolutions of Congress designating them, "to investigate and report upon the condition and treatment of the prisoners of war respectively held by the Confederate and United States governments; upon the causes of their detention, and the refusal to exchange; and also upon the violations by the enemy of the rules of civilized warfare in the conduct of the war." These subjects are broad in extent and importance; and in order fully to investigate and present them, the committee propose to continue their labors in obtaining evidence, and deducing from it a truthful report of facts illustrative of the spirit in which the war has been conducted.
Northern Publications.
But we deem it proper at this time to make a preliminary report, founded upon evidence recently taken, relating to the treatment of prisoners of war by both belligerents. This report is rendered specially important, by reason of persistent efforts lately made by the Government of the United States, and by associations and individuals connected or co-operating with it, to asperse the honor of the Confederate authorities, and to charge them with deliberate and willful cruelty to prisoners of war. Two publications have been issued at the North within the past year, and have been circulated not only in the United States, but in some parts of the South, and in Europe. One of these is the report of the joint select committee of the Northern Congress on the conduct of the war, known as "Report No. 67." The other purports to be a "Narrative of the privations and sufferings of United States officers and soldiers while prisoners of war," and is issued as a report of a commission of enquiry appointed by "The United States sanitary commission."
This body is alleged to consist of Valentine Mott, M. D., Edward Delafield, M. D., Gouverneur Morris Wilkins, Esquire, Ellerslie Wallace, M. D., Hon. J. J. Clarke Hare, and Rev. Treadwell Walden[.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
Although these persons are not of sufficient public importance and weight to give authority to their publication, yet your committee have deemed it proper to notice it in connection with the "Report No. 67," before mentioned, because the sanitary commission has been understood to have acted to a great extent under the control and by the authority of the United States government, and because their report claims to be founded on evidence taken in solemn form.
Their Spirit and Intent.
A candid reader of these publications will not fail to discover that, whether the statements they make be true or not, their spirit is not adapted to promote a better feeling between the hostile powers. They are not intended for the humane purpose of ameliorating the condition of the unhappy prisoners held in captivity. They are designed to inflame the evil passions of the North; to keep up the war spirit among their own people; to represent the South as acting under the dominion of a spirit of cruelty, inhumanity and interested malice, and thus to vilify her people in the eyes of all on whom these publications can work. They are justly characterized by the Hon. James M. Mason as belonging to that class of literature called the "sensational,"--a style of writing prevalent for many years at the North, and which, beginning with the writers of newspaper narratives and cheap fiction, has gradually extended itself, until it is now the favored mode adopted by medical professors, judges of courts and reverend clergymen, and is even chosen as the proper style for a report by a committee of their Congress.
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
"So far From Dixie: Confederates in Yankee Prisons," by Philip Burnham. Taylor Trade Publishing, Lanham, Md. 2003. 320 pp. $25.00.
By Bill Ward, Salisbury Post
Usually in discussions of the Civil War and prisoners of that war, the first images to surface are those of the infamous Camp Sumter, Ga., better known as Andersonville. Historians also might recall Confederate prisons at Florence, S.C., or Salisbury. It must be hard for students to understand that Andersonville was not the only prison camp and that the Union Army maintained several prisoner-of-war camps, as well.
Until recent years, history has not been open to the brutal deprivation suffered by Confederate prisoners in Yankee camps. It's a story begging to be told about the 11 Civil War POW camps spread across the far reaches of the North. Places like Point Lookout, Md.; Johnson's Island, northern Ohio; Camp Douglas, Chicago; and Elmira, N.Y., whose nightmarish conditions earned it the name "Hellmira."
In "So Far From Dixie: Confederates in Yankee Prisons," Phillip Burnham paints a macabre scene of a mixture of events from the Civil War, or more accurately, The War Between the States. He stirs together a mess of humanity in the boiling cauldrons of Southern battlefields and Northern prison camps. His sources of eyewitness information remain alive through documents left by five
men who experienced firsthand the horrors of being Northern POWs.
Oddly enough, one of those five prisoners was a Union soldier, Frank
Wilkeson. A Union Army volunteer, only 16 years old at the time, Wilkeson saw the worst kinds of criminals released from Northern jails and transported south under guard for conscription into the Union Army.
Berry Benson focused all his energy on escaping from the New York hellhole, sometimes called Andersonville on ice. Constantly digging tunnels with other prisoners, Benson felt a dire urgency to gain his freedom, after having been transferred from other camps to Elmira.
Anthony Keiley of Petersburg, Va., the better educated of the prisoners, was a glib-tongue lawyer-politician who talked prison officials into giving him a job that he enjoyed, logging prisoners into Elmira. Then he had to start logging them out, up to 20 or 30 dead in a day. After the war, and always the politician, Keiley became mayor of Richmond.
In one of his prison observations, Keiley wrote: "The Northern people, and I speak from long acquaintance with them, care much less for Negroes than we. ... It is the free states that have made the most odiously discriminating laws against the Negroes as have characterized Chicago and New York." He referred to the New York City draft riots, a reminder that many of the white men who stood guard over him had serious doubts themselves about the fighting ability
and intelligence of the black men who had joined the Union army by the thousands.
Then there was John King, a skilled craftsman who refused to build coffins for his fellow prisoners. And Marcus Toney refused to take the Union oath of loyalty to gain his freedom, nor would he take it until many years after the war's end.
Shocking images of gaunt figures with hollow eyes and protruding bones that were released from the Georgia prison at Andersonville have filled our history books. But little thought has been given to the fate of Southern prisoners held in the north. If lessons in morality are to be taught, it's that the South was starving due to the pillaging and destruction wrought by the marauding hordes of William T. Sherman in Georgia and Phillip Sheridan in the
Shenandoah Valley. With scarcely any food to feed Southern armies and civilians, almost nothing was available for prisoners.
In locales such as Elmira, food and medicine was plentiful to the Union Army. Still, Confederate prisoners were subjected to starvation and death by diseases for which medicine was purposely withheld. A unique method of thinning out the prison population was to place inmates with smallpox in barracks or tents with "well" prisoners. Malnourishment, exposure to extreme heat in the summer, extreme cold in the winter, and water contaminated with sewage helped take its toll.
At Camp Douglas, in particular, prisoners wore lightweight clothes, even during the biting Chicago winters, to reduce escape attempts. Many Confederate prisoners froze to death.
Some of the Union prisons also became sources of entertainment. Enterprising businessmen built tall wooden towers near the prison fences. They charged civilians up to 10 cents a head to climb up and watch the prisoners in the stockades, on display like animals in a zoo.
The bathroom facilities often were no more than latrines -- trenches out in the open. Everything was sport for the spectators. This kind of unseemly entertainment was available for Northerners at Camp Douglas and Elmira.
But perhaps one of the most villainous individuals at the prison was a Union Army doctor, Major Eugene Francis Sanger, the hospital chief and a "brute" in Keiley's estimation. By some accounts, Sanger failed to provide even minimum attention to those under his care, and some of his activities rivaled those of Josef Mengele during a later war.
As Keiley wrote, Sanger's "systematic inhumanity to the sick" was apparently a response to the rumors of alleged Andersonville atrocities. "I do not doubt that many of those who died at Elmira perished from actual starvation," reflected Keiley with bitter irony, who believed himself to be "in a country where food was cheap and abundant." Union Army medical officers at Elmira and at Camp Douglas would likely have been brought up on war crimes charges had the
South won the war.
On July 19, 1866, Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War for the Federal
government, published a report about prisoners held during the war. Figures in Stanton's report belie the cruelty often associated with Confederate prison camps. From the first to the last, Confederate armies captured and held in prisons 270,000 men. The Federal armies held 220,000 men. Of the Federal prisoners in Confederate hands, 22,576 died. Conversely 26,576 Rebels died in "Yankee captivity" -- six times the number of Confederate dead at the battle of
Gettysburg, and twice that for the Southern dead of Antietam, Chickamauga, Chancellorsville, Seven Days, Shiloh and Second Manassas combined.
The Confederates, with 50,000 more prisoners, had 4,000 fewer inmate deaths.
Bill Ward is a writer, historical researcher, and public speaker living in
Salisbury. Contact him at _wardw-@bellsouth.net_
(mailto:wardwr-@bellsouth.net) .
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
