Henry Wirz on History Channel

[MKotyk]

The History Channel had a really good documentary on Henry Wirz, the commandant of Andersonville Prison, and his subsequent trial.

Some interesting notes from the show:

• Over 140 witnesses testified against Henry Wirz. Interestingly, though, several of them were found guilty of perjury after the trial and some, were never in Andersonville.
• The night before his execution, Henry was approached by 3 members of Congress (members of the Radical Republicans) who offered Henry amnesty in exchange for testimony against Jefferson Davis, then imprisoned at Fort Monroe. These Congressmen wanted to blame the poor conditions at Andersonville on Jefferson Davis Henry, however, declined the offer refusing to lie in exchange for his freedom.

Does anyone know the names of the Congressmen who visited Henry while incarcerated?

Also, Henry stood firm on not being responsible for the poor condition of the camp and mistreatment of prisoners. The documentary hinted that the Union's refusal to exchange prisoners, initiated by Ulysses S. Grant, may have been responsible for overcrowding of the prison therefore putting a strain on the camp's supplies.

Could the North's refusal to exchange prisoners be one of the reasons for the camps poor conditon?

Interestingly, Henry Wirz was the only high ranking Confederate to be executed for his actions during the war. Jefferson Davis was set free in 1867 and allowed to return home to Mississippi.

Mike Kotyk
Virginia

[rivrrat]

I think that the historical record shows that Henry got the short end of the stick. Conditions in Northern POW camps wern't any better and the Union certainly had more resources to make them better than the CSA did.

[cpl_lewis]

in english this passed year we watched this documentary and also one on elmira called "hellmira" and had to write an essay on whether we thought henry wirz was guilty or not......... out of a class of 96 i was the only one to not take a side( no one actually said he wasn't guilty either)...... there are facts that support both sides of the arguement...... I mean, henry wirz was taking direct orders from his superiors, most people in my class said he shouldn't have followed the orders, but we all know if he disobeyed them he would have been court-martialed and hanged........Yet would you kill thousands of people or risk your life to save the lives of others??? hard question to answer...............

Henry wirz was in a lose-lose situation, either way he was bound to be killed..........

[ole]

Cpl_Lewis:

Agree. Someone had to pay for something. Wirz was a convenient and obious contender for that dubious award.

History is replete with examples of scapegoats. One thing you might deduce is that when the mob is stirred, something or someone must be sacrificed to send them home satisfied. From firing a coach for a thought non-PC by a certain group, to killing for purposes of "example," it's common and outragious. But "it" happens and some poor soul is caught in the downhill flow. We can deplore it now, and we can deplore that it happens, but it does and will continue to be a sad fact of life.

[ole]

An added thought:

Andersonville was not the only atrocious prison camp in existence -- just the most notorious (I'm not saying "worst" to avoid disturbing some of our members.).

Wirz was convicted under dubious circumstances. That the prisoners were starving can easily be passed over by acknowledging that the entire south was starving. Whether he personally and with malice aforethought instigated murder or other atrocities, or intended maltreatment has not been convicingly proven. As mentioned: wrong place, wrong time, too bad.

[sgtcsa]

Ole,
Thanks for using the word 'notorious' instead of 'worst'. Excellant reasoning, and bravely spoken.

SgtCSA

[ole]

SgtCSA:

Thank you for the kind acknowledgement. I am not one to claim that "they" were all wrong and "we" were all right. A quandary, to be sure.

I still think the CSA fouled up, big time, but I'm struggling to understand "why." OK. I know why, but understanding it eludes me. There is no simplicity in it. It seems that it started with slavocracy resentment of the growing abolitionist sentiment. It also appears that this paranoic response was a fear of slave rebellion (I'd guess the massacres in the Caribbean area was a major factor.). It's almost comical that the declarations of "causes" and documents of secession frequently complain that the government did not act to suppress the agitation.

I read a small bit in a book I was evaluating for sorting and assigning a place in the library. In effect, the author stated something like "democracy had nothing to do with it (secession) as democracy was not a factor in their state government(s) which was (were) controlled by the slavocracy." It was a compelling statement and I put a marker on that page. Unfortunately, I don't remember which book, and where I put it.

I become more and more convinced that everyone involved was just reacting, instinctivey or with purpose, to whatever happened. That Jeff Davis did his polital thing, the South believed they could get away with it, that Lincoln was just as confused as Jeff Davis was, and then they all were swept into the maelstrom.

Here's a nice cold beer for you and me to get to the bottom of this.
Ole

[gary]

I do not believe that Wirz deliberately starved his prisoners. He wrote asking for more food explaining that what they gave him was insufficient for the number of inmates. However, his inhumanity showed when he permitted the wanton killing of PoWs who got too close to the dead line. He encouraged it with furloughs too. The guards shot all too freely and for that Wirz is guilty. As one Union prisoner wrote, Wirz was scared of an uprising and so he kept a tight reign on the place.

About the only good thing Wirz did was allow the Raiders to be rounded up and six of them hung. Wirz did supply the rope to capture them and the wood for the scaffolds.

Northern prisons are equally guilty of starving PoWs and Elmira comes to mind. The decision not to parole PoWs and exchange them also caused a sudden overcrowding that taxed the limited supply system of the South. Let's not forget the Confederate jailing of Union prisoners in Charleston to deter bombardment during the siege of that city as well as the Union response of imprisoning 600 Confederate officers on Morris Island. Both sides are guilty of mistreatment of prisoners. Wirz paid because he was on the losing side.

[sgtcsa]

Ole,
By golly sir, believe me, it is 'refreshing' to see someone who actually has gone into this conflict with his eyes wide open. At least you don't condemn us without a trial, and put down the Southerners for every move they made, and they (we) actually made some. I am intelligent enough to realize that the South was not all 'right' either, but I sure as heck know that they were not all wrong, as well. I believe that we'll probably still have those 'differences', if you will, but at least I can feel better about those differences knowing that you at least, have looked at the situation(s), and made an honest pronouncement on them, sometimes, to the point of being brutally honest.

Now, as far as forgetting where you put that bookmark?..........I think it's called..'Old age? However, I hasten to add, that I suffer from the same malady, so I understand. As for that statement, it is rather compelling, for I've not looked at some of the causes, quite that way. From all I've read, or listened to, or learned from, I'm afraid that slavery did play a major part in beginning that war, although I still maintain, that it was not the sole reason. I'm a Southerner, and I'm proud of it, and I will probably stand by my (former) state, much as Lee did, even though some of the things that, that government did, were not exactly, the 'right' things.

Therein lies one of the reasons for this great conflict. It wasn't so much that they 'stuck up' or supported slavery, as has been alluded to on this board, but that their state was the foundation of their lives, along with the families. Honor, is what they had, and honor is what they fought for, and with. Too bad, sometimes governments seem to override the averege man's ideals, and tells him some things that it shouldn't, or it doesn't tell him, the 'real' reason for something as terrible as war. So, I guess it's governments that start wars, and the population has to fight them. Sometimes, those people 'trust' their government to do right by them, but it doesn't always work that way, does it!

I will take you up on that beer, but seeing as how I don't drink, I'll have a pop with you. And, here's to finding some mutual ground on which to work with, and get to the bottom of it all.

With respect,
SgtCSA