A Question About Parole Oaths

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

When either a southern or a northern POW was paroled on condition that he swore never again to take up arms against his captors, did that oath have any legal or moral standing back in the released prisoner's home state? Could a man be excused from compulsory conscription on account of such an oath? How much did either side, or the men directly involved, respect such oaths in general? Opinions, please.

 

[TerryB]

The parole only required them to refrain from hostilities until properly exchanged. The penalty for violation could be death.

 

[TerryB]

 

[Patrick H]

John McCorckle speaks to this very question in his memoir. He had fallen ill while with Price's Missouri State Guard. He was left behind, captured and paroled in southern Missouri. When he recovered from his illness, he walked home. He said he fully intended to live by the oath he swore. Missouri state militias began using him to drive mail wagons into Independence, on the theory that guerrillas wouldn't harass the wagon if a southern man was driving. He was forced to walk home from this chore several times a week. He continued to engage in farming with his uncle the rest of the time. Then the Missouri Enrolled Militia (different from the MO State Militia) was formed and every able bodied man was required to join. McCorckle's parole did not protect him from this obligation. He stated that he would have lived quietly and peacefully and obeyed his parole oath, but he could NOT in good conscience take up arms against the very army to which he had formerly belonged. He was threatened with execution if he didn't join the militia. He says this was the quandary that drove him to the bush and into Quantrill's band.

 

[AndyHall]

Terry B is correct. Paroles issued during the conflict -- as opposed to those issued in 1865 when entire armies were laying down their arms -- generally required men to stay out of the military until they were "duly exchanged" by the authorities designated by each side. By the middle of the war this had become largely an administrative procedure, but it took time, during which those men were officially barred from any military activity (see example above, from the surrender at Vicksburg.) One reason that prisoner exchanges were cut off by the United States was due to the belief that exchanged Confederate prisoners were going right back into military service, in violation of the terms of their parole.

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

Thanks to everyone for all the knowledgeable responses.

 

[sflickinger]

Terry B is correct. Paroles issued during the conflict -- as opposed to those issued in 1865 when entire armies were laying down their arms -- generally required men to stay out of the military until they were "duly exchanged" by the authorities designated by each side. By the middle of the war this had become largely an administrative procedure, but it took time, during which those men were officially barred from any military activity (see example above, from the surrender at Vicksburg.) One reason that prisoner exchanges were cut off by the United States was due to the belief that exchanged Confederate prisoners were going right back into military service, in violation of the terms of their parole.

Terry B and Andy Hall thanks so much for posting these documents. The parole system is very confusing and these sure helped me to understand better. My guess would be that lack of food and the difficulty guarding them were the main reason for this system, yes? Thanks again.

 

[AndyHall]

My guess would be that lack of food and the difficulty guarding them were the main reason for this system, yes?

The overall logistical headaches involved, yes.

BTW, that's my g-g-grandfather's parole from Vicksburg.

 

[34thovib]

BTW, that's my g-g-grandfather's parole from Vicksburg.

How did you obtain this? Service records, fold3, family heirloom? There is a POW memorandum in my Union ancestor's service file, but I haven't come across anything else

 

[AndyHall]

Fold3. I have no idea what happened to the original documents like this, from either side of the family.