Andersonville Prison and Felix de La Baume

[JohnW in E.TN]

[quote=ole]

JohnW Ratfink:

Ole,

I'm sure there are a few on here who call me that for real, or maybe worse.

Oh well, who said everyone in life is going to like you?

Take care my friend, and have a good Saturday. Stay away from those books or you'll never get anything done!

John W.

[ole]

JohnW:

A cute but tired appelation. It's gone now.

Ole

[cash]

Originally Posted by 8thvacav

Maybe it's because ever time we give a source and it's from the South, it's no good.

Is it just a coincidence that they aren't professional historians? I already gave some examples of southern professional historians in another thread whose scholarship I believe is beyond reproach.

Originally Posted by 8thvacav

Some have made it plain that the truth is only in the north. There are two things that really offend. Being called a lost causer and a neo-confederate. What do we call you guys? Unionest. Is that bad?
8thvacav

I proudly wear the "Unionist" label and the "Abolitionist" label.

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Originally Posted by JohnW in E.TN

So, if it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions or it doesn't tell you what you want to hear, it's "Lost Causer" or neo-Confederate?

No. If it conforms with the lost cause mythology, then it's "lost cause." If it conforms with neoconfederate ideology, then it's "neoconfederate."

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Originally Posted by JohnW in E.TN

A Southern author, to me is either a writer born and raised in the South, or someone who writes about the South.

James I. Robertson
Charles Dew
Lee Kennett
Gary Gallagher - writes about the south
James McPherson - writes about the south

Care to talk about some others?

Regards,
Cash

[Alabaman]

In moving back to the original post:

Why wasn't the many witnesses to the defendent, Major Henry Wirtz, allowed to give their testimony? I've often pondered this after viewing a History Channel program which stated that large numbers of Wirtz's beneficial witnesses were denied their testimony in the trial

Also, apparently some Union leaders believed the charges levelled against Maj. Wirtz were false and wished him to be found guilty of a much lesser charge, escaping the gallows. Why were some Union officers (don't know their names) against Maj. Wirtz being found guilty & hanged?

I read a similar account of a Confederate private POW stating his "overhearing" a Union POW camp doctor "bragging he had killed more Confederates than men in the front lines had", (paraphrasing the CS private, but I'm pretty close.) This CS private stated that severely infirmed men intentionally denied "morning sick call" due to the realistic threat of 'legally' being murdered by this Union doctor. As a former R.N., I couldn't fathom killing Union POW's while they were sick and just because I had the opportunity or power to do so.
Why wasn't war crimes filed against this Union officer, or other Union POW camp Commandants, as well? CS POW Camps were not the only 'bad' ones utilized during the war.

Sincerely,
Rob Adams (Alabaman)

[samgrant]

Alabaman,

About bringing this back to the original post:

I hate to cite myself but apparently my earlier post was dismissed:

Originally Posted by samgrant

Mike,

I don't quite understand your post. The person referred to in the title, Felix de La Baume? According to the same web site that you cite:


Felix de la Baume

By far the most damaging testimony against Wirz was that of Felix de la Baume. De la Baume was the only witness who identified a victim by name who was alleged to have been directly killed by Wirz.

De la Baume, who claimed to be a Frenchman and descendant of Lafayette, was discovered after the trial, to actually be Felix Oeser. Oeser was born in Saxony, Prussia and lied in order to help conceal that he was a former member of the 7th New York Volunteers who had deserted during the war. He was a skilled orator and so impressed the commission that he was given a written commendation signed by all of the members regarding his testimony. He was also appointed to a position in the Department of the Interior before Wirz's trial ended. Once his true identify and status was discovered, only eleven days after Wirz had been hung, he admitted being Oeser and to having perjured himself in the testimony at Wirz's trial. Oeser subequently vanished into obscurity.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...Wirz/cont1.htm