Cessation of exchanges

[gary]

Confederate refusal to treat black union soldiers as prisoner but as runaway slaves resulted in Lincoln stopping prisoner exchanges. This resulted in more crowding of prisons on both sides and in the south, the failing supply system meant starvation for which the Union responded by cutting rations for its Confederate prisoners?

Could there be other resolutions? Exchange prisoners on the basis that they're out of the war as soldiers and cannot serve in any capacity including militia for the duration of the war? Of course Davis would refuse because slaves were chattel property and had to be returned to their owners.

Can anyone come up with an equitable solution? Having men on both sides starving to death was horrible.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

in the south, the failing supply system meant starvation for which the Union responded by cutting rations for its Confederate prisoners?

Something to be aware of:

There was an outcry for revenge in the North for the rations to Confederate POWS to be cut after pictures and stories of the emaciated Union soldiers spread in the press, but it should be noted that while rations were in fact cut for Confederate prisoners, it was far from starvation level as is often implied. Cooler heads prevailed. As one commander wrote his superior, "If we were to do that, then we become the barbarians."

Up until that time, Confederate prisoners were getting the same rations as active Union troops in the field. The result of the reduction in rations, as may be read in table 3, page 83, of the thesis study (linked below) is that on June 20, 1864, for example, the pork or bacon ration at Camp Chase was reduced to 10 oz. for prisoners instead of the 12 oz. given to active Union personnel. The beef, flour, cornmeal, candles, salt, beans, rice, tea, sugar, vinegar, soap, coffee, molasses, and potato rations were also cut by a few ounces. These are not starvation rations.

The high mortality rate among Confederate prisoners in places like Elmira was due to the spread of disease, not from the effects of their diet as it was supplied by their captors.

The cause and treatment of diseases was not at all well understood at that time. Disease spread freely in both sides' army winter camps, north or south, when the soldiers were not on the move and confined in one place for any length of time. Federal prisoners in the south were often moved from camp, to new camp, to keep them out of the hands of an ever encroaching Union army. In many cases this kept these POW camps cleaner for a period of time.

Prison camps in the North, however, were fixed in place and the result of oftentimes inadequate drainage, accumulated filth, general poor sanitation, and crowding, caused diseases like measles, dysentery, pneumonia, etc. to run rampant once they were introduced.

Southern soldiers in the latter part of the war were likely to show signs of malnutrition at the time they were captured because of the diet provided to them by their own government. The personal actions of individuals on both sides not withstanding, there was no official decision by the Federal government to starve Confederate prisoners, or for that matter, to kill them with disease, just as there was no official decision by the Confederate authorities to starve Union prisoners.

Tragically, both sides were unprepared to deal with the new influx of prisoners and while problems were identified as they developed, the solutions took time to be worked out. This is a story of the dangers of unintended consequences.

Sources:

https://civilwartalk.com/attachments/camp-chase-columbus-ohio-1861-1865-a-study-of-the-unions-treatment-of-confederate-prisoner-pdf.431952/

 

[gary]

The Confederacy starved the yankees b/c of incompetence. It couldn't even get everything to its armies in the field. The Union put a RR man in charge of its RR and he had final say what got transported. Thus the war effort in the North went much more smoothly than in the South.

The Union starved its prisoners as retaliation. It was, in a sense, plain old meanness. To our nation's credit, we learned our lesson and didn't do it again in WW II where German PoWs (and Japanese) got the same amount of food as a GI at a camp. Butter, meat, milk, bread, fresh vegetables and fruit galore. American civilians were, by contrast, rationed. American GIs in German PoW camps were starved with thin soups and almost ersatz (replacement) bread that had, to a degree, "wood flour" (nice way to say sawdust) as a component to its ingredients. Don't have to discuss how the "guests of the Emperor" were cared for. We all know.

So on one hand you have incompetence and on the other retaliation. Neither were right and both were tragic.

Port Hudson's captured Confederate officers initially ate well, but at camp when the reduced rations were implemented, not so well. The enlisted men ate well until they were paroled. No more yankee rations then. BTW, when Miles got Stone to agree to feed the Confederates (surrender commission meeting), Banks didn't have enough food for both armies. Some Union soldiers were on reduced rations afterward.

 

[DaveBrt]

The Confederacy starved the yankees b/c of incompetence. It couldn't even get everything to its armies in the field. The Union put a RR man in charge of its RR and he had final say what got transported. Thus the war effort in the North went much more smoothly than in the South.

The Confederacy could not feed its troops because it lost most of its productive areas for food, it had no industrial base to support its railroads and it was very short of manpower for a host of needs.

The Confederacy had to carry ALL the freight and passengers in the country as well as supply the armies. The Union army railroads only had to carry the supplies from depot cities to the armies.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

The Union starved its prisoners as retaliation. It was, in a sense, plain old meanness. To our nation's credit, we learned our lesson and didn't do it again in WW II where German PoWs (and Japanese) got the same amount of food as a GI at a camp. Butter, meat, milk, bread, fresh vegetables and fruit galore. American civilians were, by contrast, rationed. American GIs in German PoW camps were starved with thin soups and almost ersatz (replacement) bread that had, to a degree, "wood flour" (nice way to say sawdust) as a component to its ingredients. Don't have to discuss how the "guests of the Emperor" were cared for. We all know.

With respect, the Union did not have a policy of starving prisoners in retaliation. I know it is a popular myth. I grew up being told that as well.

Myth: You Starved Our Prisoners and We Took Care of Yours - Andersonville National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)

Myth: You Starved Our Prisoners and We Took Care of Yours

www.nps.gov

 

[gary]

Also from the NPS site on the Immortal 600:

For a little over a month, the Confederate prisoners at Fort Pulaski were placed on a starvation diet in retaliation for mistreatments of US prisoners in Confederate camps. This diet lacked any meat, fruit, or vegetables, which led to an increase in diseases like scurvy, diarrhea, and dysentery. The prisoners were given no blankets or additional clothing. Many had to huddle together for warmth in the cold Savannah winter. Though they had been provided with stoves for cooking and heating, they were only given enough fuel for one, maybe two, fires a day.

"Hunger drove our men to catching and eating dogs, cats, and rats," wrote Captain J. Ogden Murray. "Our men became as expert as cats at catching rats." Captain George W. Nelson also recalled eating cats during this time. He also recalled an interaction with one of the US guards: "The last was a kitten—was tender and nice. A compassionate Yankee soldier gave it to me. I was cooking at the stove by the grating which separated us from the guard. This soldier hailed me: 'I say, are you one of them fellers that eats cats?' I replied, 'Yes!' 'Well, here is one I'll shove thro' if you want it.' 'Shove it thro',' I answered. In a very few minutes the kitten was in frying order."

By January 1865, a surgeon was brought in. He quickly ordered that the prisoners be given full rations and proper medicine, an order which probably saved many of their lives. For thirteen of the men, however, it was too late. Disease had claimed them, and they were buried in a small cemetery just outside the fort. For the remaining prisoners, life at Fort Pulaski continued with no end in sight.

link

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

Also from the NPS site on the Immortal 600:

For a little over a month, the Confederate prisoners at Fort Pulaski were placed on a starvation diet in retaliation for mistreatments of US prisoners in Confederate camps. This diet lacked any meat, fruit, or vegetables, which led to an increase in diseases like scurvy, diarrhea, and dysentery. The prisoners were given no blankets or additional clothing. Many had to huddle together for warmth in the cold Savannah winter. Though they had been provided with stoves for cooking and heating, they were only given enough fuel for one, maybe two, fires a day.

"Hunger drove our men to catching and eating dogs, cats, and rats," wrote Captain J. Ogden Murray. "Our men became as expert as cats at catching rats." Captain George W. Nelson also recalled eating cats during this time. He also recalled an interaction with one of the US guards: "The last was a kitten—was tender and nice. A compassionate Yankee soldier gave it to me. I was cooking at the stove by the grating which separated us from the guard. This soldier hailed me: 'I say, are you one of them fellers that eats cats?' I replied, 'Yes!' 'Well, here is one I'll shove thro' if you want it.' 'Shove it thro',' I answered. In a very few minutes the kitten was in frying order."

By January 1865, a surgeon was brought in. He quickly ordered that the prisoners be given full rations and proper medicine, an order which probably saved many of their lives. For thirteen of the men, however, it was too late. Disease had claimed them, and they were buried in a small cemetery just outside the fort. For the remaining prisoners, life at Fort Pulaski continued with no end in sight.

link

These unfortunate men did in fact have to endure a starvation diet for a little over a month, until a surgeon was brought in that immediately countermanded the order by Union commanders in Charleston in retaliation for the starving of Union prisoners. I also note in the article you quote that the commander at Ft. Pulaski initially refused to obey this order to put the prisoners on a starvation diet and only acquiesced when he received a second order.

I stand by my statement in my first post, however, that - "The personal actions of individuals on both sides not withstanding, there was no official decision by the Federal government to starve Confederate prisoners, or for that matter, to kill them with disease, just as there was no official decision by the Confederate authorities to starve Union prisoners."

The four + weeks these men were abused in this way was wrong by all moral beliefs, but it was not a policy of the Federal government to starve prisoners. The actions of the Charleston officers, like those of Confederate officers who exceeded their orders, are another discussion.

Below is an order sometimes referred to when claiming that Confederate prisoners were deliberately starved. This order specifically states that the prisoners should not be deprived of food necessary for health. In drafting it, it was argued that men at rest in a prison do not require the same amount of food (calorie count we would call it today) as those actively engaged in the field.

Office Commissary-General of Prisoners

Washington, D.C., May 19, 1864

Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War, Washington, D.C.

Sir: I have the honor to suggest that the rations as now issued to prisoners of war may be

considerably reduced without depriving them of the food necessary to keep them in health,

and I respectfully recommend that hereafter the ration be composed as follows, viz: Hard bread, 14

ounces, or 16 ounces of soft bread; corn-meal, 16 ounces; beef, 14 ounces; pork or bacon, 10

ounces; beans, 6 quarts per 100 men, or rice, 8 pounds per 100 men; sugar, 12 pounds per 100

men; coffee, 5 pounds ground or 7 pounds raw per 100 men, or tea, 1 pound per 100 men; soap,

4 pounds per 100 men; salt, 2 quarts per 100 men; vinegar, 3 quarts per 100 men; molasses, 1

quart per 100 men; potatoes, 15 pounds per 100 men. I also recommend that ration of sugar and

coffee, as above fixed, be issued only every other day.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

W. Hoffman

Colonel Third Infantry and Commissary-General of Prisoners


Sources:

Prisoner of War Experience (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3-euw1-ap-pe-ws4-cws-documents.ri-prod/9780415833370/Reducing_Rations.pdf

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

With hindsight, I wonder if it would have shortened the war if there were never any paroles or prisoner exchanges. If it shortened the war by six months that might have saved lives overall.

Can anyone come up with an equitable solution? Having men on both sides starving to death was horrible.

One side refusing to treat captured soldiers as soldiers seems kind of insurmountable.