War Crimes Against Southern Civilians

[trice]

In case anyone was wondering how the Confederate government treated civilians causing trouble in their territory, here is how Secretary of War Judah Benjamin ordered the Unionist bridge-burners in East Tennessee to be handled, almost a year before the "Palmyra Massacre".
=====
WAR DEPARTMENT, RICHMOND, NOVEMBER 25, 1861.
COLONEL W. B. WOOD: -
SIR: - Your report of the 20th instant is received, and I now proceed to give you the desired instruction in relation to the prisoners of war taken by you among the traitors of East Tennessee.

First. All such as can be identified in having been engaged in bridge-burning are to be tried summarily by drum-head court-martial, and, if found guilty, executed on the spot by hanging. It would be well to leave their bodies hanging in the vicinity of the burned bridges.

Second. All such as have not been so engaged are to be treated as prisoners of war, and sent with an armed guard to Tuscaloosa, Alabama, there to be kept imprisoned at the depot selected by the Government for prisoners of war.

Whenever you can discover that arms are concentrated by these traitors, you will send out detachments, search for and seize the arms. In no case is one of the men known to have been up in arms against the Government to be released on any pledge or oath of allegiance. The time for such measures is past. They are all to be held as prisoners of war, and held in jail to the end of the war. Such as come in voluntarily, take the oath of allegiance, and surrender their arms, are alone to be treated with leniency.

Your vigilant execution of these orders is earnestly urged by the Government.
Your obedient servant,
J. P. BENJAMIN,
Secretary of War. COLONEL W. B. WOOD, KNOXVILLE, TENN.
=====
Regards,
Tim

[Ozark Iron John]

Here's another one:

In September of 1861, Gen. James H. Lane and his Kansas Jayhawkers shelled and burned Osceola, Missouri, the county seat of St. Clair County, to the ground. They carted off over $1,000,000 worth of civilian belongings.

Please don't forget trice, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States puts limits on the National Government, NOT on the People.

I'd suffer 10 Lawrence, Kansas' rather than endure 1 Osceola, Missouri.

I'd suffer 10 Fort Pillow Massacres rather than endure 1 Palmyra Massacre. A few wild eyed Southern boys raising Cane is one thing; When the United States government sponsers terrorism against its own citizenry, we ought to all be up in arms and we ought to stay up in arms against it. Else we're not citizens any longer. We're .... Subjects to the Tyrant in Washington.

[OpnDownfall]

Many people are quick to volunteer their services in quantifying murder, sure of thier abilities to be able to carefully decide that such and such murder was more reprehensible than others. Many people are able to see where such acts of volunteerism eventually leads, but there are always some who seem to relish such responsibilities.

[trice]

Originally Posted by Ozark Iron John

Here's another one:

In September of 1861, Gen. James H. Lane and his Kansas Jayhawkers shelled and burned Osceola, Missouri, the county seat of St. Clair County, to the ground. They carted off over $1,000,000 worth of civilian belongings.

Yes, Lane's sacking of Osceola is a disgrace. I'm not sure about the property damage done, but I'd pay more attention to the nine murdered people there.

Of course, before that happened, we have on 9/3/1861 the Platte Bridge Railroad Tragedy. Secessionists deliberately sabotaged the bridge so it would fail when a train crossed, the westbound train from Hannibal to St. Joseph, carrying mail for the Pony Express connection. The locomotive flipped, fell 30 feet into the river, taking with it freight cars. baggage car, mail car, and 2 passenger cars with 100 men, women, and children. Between 17 and 20 people died; some 100 were injured.

Originally Posted by Ozark Iron John

Please don't forget trice, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States puts limits on the National Government, NOT on the People.

I'd suffer 10 Lawrence, Kansas' rather than endure 1 Osceola, Missouri.

I'd suffer 10 Fort Pillow Massacres rather than endure 1 Palmyra Massacre. A few wild eyed Southern boys raising Cane is one thing; When the United States government sponsers terrorism against its own citizenry, we ought to all be up in arms and we ought to stay up in arms against it. Else we're not citizens any longer. We're .... Subjects to the Tyrant in Washington.

No, John, I cannot agree with that. Governments exist for many reasons, and one of them is to protect the people against a "few wild eyed Southern boys raising Cane" -- or "Northern" or "Eastern" or "Western" ones.

Is the Platte Bridge Railroad Tragedy just more "wild eyed Southern boys raising Cane"?

But more to the point, the Confederacy was a "government" too, at least in their own eyes. These secessionists supposedly were fighting for that government. Many of these acts were committed by men the Confederate government called its soldiers, citizens, or agents, armed by that government, trained by that government,, supported by that government. You cannot have it both ways here: you must condemn both sides if you want to hold the position you claim. Otherwise, all you are doing is showing us you wanted a Confederate Tyrant, and that you will excuse anything that government did because you like them.

What do you think, for example, of the Confederate Governor Baylor of Arizona issuing an order to "exterminate" the Apaches in 1862? From his letter to General Magruder in Texas (italics are my emphasis):
=====
Upon the arrival of General Sibley's brigade these Indians stole from his troops 100 head of horses and mules. Accompanied by many native-born citizens of Arizona and New Mexico I followed the robbers' trail, which led me to the town of Carretas, Chihuahua. I thought myself justifiable in killing the Indians and recovering the animals, the Mexican alcalde acknowledging that the Apaches habitually stole property from the whites in Arizona and run it into Mexico, and that his Government could not and did not afford him protection.

So soon as the Indians found that I was after them with a formidable force and determination to punish them severely they went to the mines which they had but a short time previously attacked, and with a flag of truce proposed to make a treaty. Then it was that I issued the order to exterminate them. I had just read an article published in the Charleston Courier or Mercury, sent me by Col. A. B. O'Bannon from Fort Bliss, and which stated that our Congress had declared a war of extermination against all those wild and hostile Indian tribes who had shown an utter disregard for all treaty stipulations. Presuming from such an important statement in such well-known responsible journals that it indicated the policy of our Government, and feeling convinced (as I do still) that such a policy was the only one suitable to the hostile and treacherous tribes, I acted on it.
=====

Aren't the Apaches just another example of wild-eyed boys raising Cain? Are you prepared to tell us that you'd rather have 10 wagon trains massacred by Apaches instead of a "government" acting this way? Or is it more true that bad is bad, and all those who act that way should be criticized for it?

Just to be clear, bad is bad and evil is evil, but everyone who does such things needs to be evaluated by the same rules. You seem to be handing out "get-out-of-jail-free" cards to secessionists as you castigate Unionists.

Regards,
Tim

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by trice

What do you think, for example, of the Confederate Governor Baylor of Arizona issuing an order to "exterminate" the Apaches in 1862? From his letter to General Magruder in Texas (italics are my emphasis):
=====
So soon as the Indians found that I was after them with a formidable force and determination to punish them severely they went to the mines which they had but a short time previously attacked, and with a flag of truce proposed to make a treaty. Then it was that I issued the order to exterminate them. I had just read an article published in the Charleston Courier or Mercury, sent me by Col. A. B. O'Bannon from Fort Bliss, and which stated that our Congress had declared a war of extermination against all those wild and hostile Indian tribes who had shown an utter disregard for all treaty stipulations. Presuming from such an important statement in such well-known responsible journals that it indicated the policy of our Government, and feeling convinced (as I do still) that such a policy was the only one suitable to the hostile and treacherous tribes, I acted on it.

Baylor was not the Confederate Governor of Arizona when he issued those orders.

Whatever he (supposedly) read in the "Charleston Courier or Mercury" the Confederate Congress had passed no such legislation or act to exterminate any Indian tribes.

[matthew mckeon]

"What amazes me is that the secessionists thought their actions were lilywhite, while the proUnion were black as Hell"

Why does it amaze you? People on this forum, far removed from the strife of war, do the same, on both sides of the question.

My interest is why was it so vicious in these areas? Why did people who were neighbors turn so quickly on each other?

What was the goal of CS partisan bands? What was their organization? What were their ties to the CS government in Richmond?

What was the policy of Union occupation forces? What were their actions? To what degree was it the initiative of local commanders, and to what degree was it policy set in Washington, and what supervision did local officers experience?

[trice]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Baylor was not the Confederate Governor of Arizona when he issued those orders.

Why don't you think so?

Baylor proclaimed himself Provisional Governor of the Arizona Territory on 8/1/1861, and was also commander of the District of Arizona (10/1-12/12/1861) before being confirmed as Military Governor of Arizona Territory on 3/20/1862. When is it you think he issued the order, and why don't you think Baylor was the Confederate Governor? If you think it was someone else, who?

His order, by the way, told his commanders to: "...use all means to persuade the Apaches or any tribe to come in for the purpose of making peace, and when you get them together kill all the grown Indians and take the children prisoners and sell them to defray the expense of killing the adult Indians. Buy whiskey and such other goods as may be necessary for the Indians and I will order vouchers given to cover the amount expended. Leave nothing undone to insure success, and have a sufficient number of men around to allow no Indian to escape."

Originally Posted by Battalion

Whatever he (supposedly) read in the "Charleston Courier or Mercury" the Confederate Congress had passed no such legislation or act to exterminate any Indian tribes.

I never said that they had, but you can drop the "(supposedly)" unless you want to get into conspiracy theories. Colonel O'Bannon said he had indeed sent the newspaper clipping to Baylor, and General Magruder, the commander of all the Confederate forces in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, backed Baylor up in the endorsement to Baylor's letter on the matter:
=====
HEADQUARTERS DISTRICT OF TEXAS, &c.,
February 6, 1863.
Without expressing any opinion as to the policy or propriety of Governor Baylor's letter, I testify with pleasure to his devoted gallantry at the recapture of Galveston, where he served as a private of artillery in the most exposed and dangerous position and rendered most important services, and I respectfully but earnestly recommend him as the most suitable officer for the command of the troops raised by him for Arizona and known as the Arizona Brigade.

I beg leave to ask a perusal by the Secretary of War of the within statement. Colonel O'Bannon informed me that he gave the information to Governor Baylor that our Congress had passed laws for the extermination of these Indians, whom I happen to know well as being not better than wild beasts and totally unworthy of sympathy.
J. BANKHEAD MAGRUDER,
Major-General, Commanding.
=====

Baylor was relieved from the Army over this by Jeff Davis, and replaced as Military Governor. He was then elected to the Confederate Congress, and restored to his rank of Colonel in March of 1865. Can't say he suffered too much by his action.

The "Charleston Courier or Mercury" appears to refer to 1 of 2 different and competing newspapers in those days. The Courier was founded in 1803, is one of the oldest papers in the South, and still survives today as The Post and Courier.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by trice

"What amazes me is that the secessionists thought their actions were lilywhite, while the proUnion were black as Hell"

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

"Why does it amaze you? People on this forum, far removed from the strife of war, do the same, on both sides of the question.

It just amazes me when anyone does it, on any subject. I understand it happens, and this was happening right here on this forum. I just think it is unreasonable.

Regards,
Tim

[ole]

This is going nowhere. For each indescretion, error, or atrocity commited by either side against whomever, there is an equal or more outrageous one committed on the other. KInda like, "Your side was populated by bastards." And, "Oh yeah, well, your bastards were worse than ours." And, it has nothing to do with anything.

Both sides had elements that acted badly, to put it mildly. To ascribe such actions to governmental policy or, at best, to consider them typical, is to plunk yourself into the same "us and them" foolishess that got the ball rolling in the first place.

None of us was involved. Those who had ancestors in that unpleasat fracas have no reason to crow over their victory of defend their defeat. Not much sense in taking anything personally -- not much any of us had to do with it.

I can understand a certain resentment when the southron is depicted as all wrong, or the Yankee was all right, or vice versa. But how much does all that matter? Today? My interest is not in right or wrong, but in understanding what was. Makes me no never mind that Quantrill or Hurst were class A buttheads. Or that Sherman might have excercised better control over his 62,000 thoroughly honked-off troops. It all was. It's all chaff.

I'd prefer to get a glimpse into what was going on in the collective heads of the leaders at the time. What did they intend to gain? Why? But we seem to want to find bad guys and good guys. Why? Where there any of either? Lots of missteps, miscalculations and political posturing. What was the point? I get confused.

Ole

[samgrant]

I'm looking forward to the sequel, "War Crimes by Southern Civilians", which might include indiscriminate firing at ships on the Mississippi, partisan reprisals against Southern Unionists, and frequent civilian guerrilla (bushwhacking) activities. It was these that largely contributed to the change in Union tactics from a "soft" to a "hard" war.