August 18th, 1864, Grant refuses the second Confederate request to exchange POW’s.

Joined
Oct 3, 2005
We seem to have wandered off the topic of POW exchanges. If no one has anything further to say on the subject, maybe its time to move on to other threads.
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
Yes... The Confederacy was honest, unlike the Union.
Check Virginia's first, then rather quick second secession vote and tell me how honest they were. Ask those confederate soldiers who signed up for months of fighting only to have their service converted to years how honest the confederacy was. Also ask those soldiers how they enjoyed losing those states' and individual rights they were fighting for during the war to a strong central government....the confederacy...how honest the confederacy. How about a number of generals, soldiers and descendants who blame everyone else but Marse Robert for Gettsburg...honest??? No.
 
Last edited:

Carronade

Captain
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Location
Pennsylvania
Be assured that Lee and Davis were far more interested in solving the rapidly growing POW problem than Grant or Lincoln. :confused:

If so, it's because they had more to gain from a one-for-one exchange. They were desperate to prolong their resistance; Grant and the Union were trying to bring the war to a successful conclusion.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
If so, it's because they had more to gain from a one-for-one exchange. They were desperate to prolong their resistance; Grant and the Union were trying to bring the war to a successful conclusion.

I agree, the man for man exchange of a Confederate POW for a Federal POW was definitely not in best interest of Lincoln and the unionists. :smug:
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
I have to laugh sometimes during discussions like this. It is always thousands here and thousands there when there were 4 million slaves. thousands freed don't amount to nothing more than spit in the ocean.
The outnumbered the white population. Why wasn't there a revolt? There was no revolt even tried during the civil war.

Perhaps someone can explain that. And based on the figures you can't say they were guarded and couldn't leave.
They had every opportunity most didn't take because the South just happened to be home for them!

Your question deserves a separate thread, as it is way off topic for this one. I will note a few things:

(a) For the enslaved, the South was indeed their home. But that doesn't mean "home" was positive thing. Recall the case of the three women from Cleveland who were imprisoned in the home of Ariel Castro, one for over 1o years. Castro's residence was their "home," but that doesn't mean they liked it. The fact that they took so long to escape doesn't mean they liked it; it means that Castro took effective steps to keep the women in captivity. There are analogies to be drawn from this to the situation of enslaved Southerners in the Civil War.

(b) Slaves did outnumber whites in some parts of the Confederacy, but certainly not in all; the Confederacy was majority white.

(c) Freedom for hundreds of thousands of slaves during the war was a big deal to the slaves themselves.

(d) Southerners did, in fact, see the actions of slaves as something of an uprising and insurrection. This story has been starved for attention in our history book and public memory. But primary records reveal the depth of the problem. For example, in the summer of 1862, a group of whites in coastal Georgia sounded the alarm over the massive number of slave escapes, and they threat the freedom-seeking blacks posed to the Confederacy:

We allude to the escape of our slaves across the border lines landward, and out to the vessels of the enemy seaward, and to their being also enticed off by those who, having made their escape, return for that purpose, and not infrequently attended by the enemy. The injury inflicted upon the interests of the citizens of the Confederate States by this now constant drain is immense.

Independent of the forcible seizure of slaves by the enemy whenever it lies in his power, and to which we now make no allusion, as the indemnity for this loss will in due time occupy the attention of our Government from ascertained losses on certain parts of our coast, we may set down as a low estimate the number of slaves absconded and enticed off from our sea-board at 20,000, and their value at from $12,000,000 to $15,000,000, to which loss may be added the insecurity of the property along our borders and the demoralization of the negroes that remain, which increases with the continuance of the evil, and may finally result in perfect disorganization and rebellion.

The absconding negroes hold the position of traitors, since they go over to the enemy and afford him aid and comfort by revealing the condition of the districts and cities from which they come, and aiding him in erecting fortifications and raising provisions for his support, and now that the United States have allowed their introduction into their Army and Navy, aiding the enemy by enlisting under his banners, and increasing his resources in men for our annoyance and destruction. Negroes occupy the position of spies also, since they are employed in secret expeditions for obtaining information by transmission of newspapers and by other modes, and act as guides to expeditions on the land and as pilots to their vessels on the waters of our inlets and rivers. They have proved of great value thus far to the coast operations of the enemy, and without their assistance he could not have accomplished as much for our injury and annoyance as he has done; and unless some measures shall be adopted to prevent the escape of the negroes to the enemy, the threat of an army of trained Africans for the coming fall and winter campaigns may become a reality.​

That was happening in just one portion of the South, in 1862. Things got worse as the war went on. Consider this from a communication by Patrick R. Cleburne, dated January 2, 1864 (almost one year, to the day, after the issuance of the emancipation proclamation):

Moved by the exigency in which our country is now placed we take the liberty of laying before you, unofficially, our views on the present state of affairs. The subject is so grave, and our views so new, we feel it a duty both to you and the cause that before going further we should submit them for your judgment and receive your suggestions in regard to them... In this state of things it is easy to understand why there is a growing belief that some black catastrophe is not far ahead of us, and that unless some extraordinary change is soon made in our condition we must overtake it.

We can see three great causes operating to destroy us: First, the inferiority of our armies to those of the enemy in point of numbers; second, the poverty of our single source of supply in comparison with his several sources; third, the fact that slavery, from being one of our chief sources of strength at the commencement of the war, has now become, in a military point of view, one of our chief sources of weakness.

Our single source of supply (of soldiers for the Confederate army) is that portion of our white men fit for duty and not now in the ranks. The enemy has three sources of supply: First, his own motley population; secondly, our slaves; and thirdly, Europeans whose hearts are fired into a crusade against us by fictitious pictures of the atrocities of slavery, and who meet no hindrance from their Governments in such enterprise, because these Governments are equally antagonistic to the institution.

In touching the third cause, the fact that slavery has become a military weakness, we may rouse prejudice and passion, but the time has come when it would be madness not to look at our danger from every point of view, and to probe it to the bottom. Apart from the assistance that home and foreign prejudice against slavery has given to the North, slavery is a source of great strength to the enemy in a purely military point of view, by supplying him with an army from our granaries; but it is our most vulnerable point, a continued embarrassment, and in some respects an insidious weakness.

Wherever slavery is once seriously disturbed, whether by the actual presence or the approach of the enemy, or even by a cavalry raid, the whites can no longer with safety to their property openly sympathize with our cause. The fear of their slaves is continually haunting them, and from silence and apprehension many of these soon learn to wish the war stopped on any terms. The next stage is to take the oath to save property, and they become dead to us, if not open enemies. To prevent raids we are forced to scatter our forces, and are not free to move and strike like the enemy; his vulnerable points are carefully selected and fortified depots. Ours are found in every point where there is a slave to set free. All along the lines slavery is comparatively valueless to us for labor, but of great and increasing worth to the enemy for information. It is an omnipresent spy system, pointing out our valuable men to the enemy, revealing our positions, purposes, and resources, and yet acting so safely and secretly that there is no means to guard against it. Even in the heart of our country, where our hold upon this secret espionage is firmest, it waits but the opening fire of the enemy's battle line to wake it, like a torpid serpent, into venomous activity.​

These men speak of a reality that was well understood by Civil War southerners, but ignored in later renderings of the War (such as post-war k-12 history textbooks): that freedom seeking slaves had become a serious military and social threat to the Confederacy.

While some may laugh at this today, it was clearly no laughing matter to Rebels and slaveholders during the War.

- Alan
 

KeyserSoze

Captain
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Location
Kansas City
Be assured that Lee and Davis were far more interested in solving the rapidly growing POW problem than Grant or Lincoln. :confused:
Be assured because you say so? Or be assured because there is actually some solid evidence that they tried to do something to prevent the starvation and mistreatment?
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
Be assured that Lee and Davis were far more interested in solving the rapidly growing POW problem than Grant or Lincoln. :confused:

I see no evidence of that. They could have solved it very easily in a single day by simply agreeing to exchange soldiers without regard to race.
 

dvrmte

Major
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Location
South Carolina
Reading comprehension problem of your own? Your own source does not say it transported troops, it said it was part of a floatilla that did.. Its job was to guard the White River while the bombardment and storming occured, then the wounded were loaded...And if you actually take a look at the ship its pretty obvious that she wasn't meant for offensive operations, and even for the job of guarding a river, it would be more of a scouting mission, then to hold the river against enemy ships...And as for calling them bush wackers and partizans I'm calling them as they are labeled in the OR's, per the type of enemy that were firing on ships in the river..

You're correct on that one point, that the Red Rover was part of the floatilla that transported troops, my bad on confusing the placement of the semicolon. You can party tonight.

Wheeler's men were doing much towards harassing the river traffic.

I want continue disrupting this thread, however I'm fixin to ice the cake in this one:

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/hos...ents-ambulances-military-targets.87098/page-5
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
You're correct on that one point, that the Red Rover was part of the floatilla that transported troops, my bad on confusing the placement of the semicolon. You can party tonight.

Wheeler's men were doing much towards harassing the river traffic.

I want continue disrupting this thread, however I'm fixin to ice the cake in this one:

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/hos...ents-ambulances-military-targets.87098/page-5

Yeah, might want to try some new frosting, because that cake is far from done....
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Yes... The Confederacy was honest, unlike the Union.


Stefany,

I agree, far more honest than some of the people who try and defend it today.

They honestly said they were seceding over the issue of slavery.

They honestly said they would preserve the institution forever in the Confederate constitution.

Their leaders made these points clear, over and over again, in an honest and forthright manner, in words, and in deeds, for all to see and for history to record.

No emotional outbursts, no frantic explanations, just honest words for all to see.

Honesty, the best policy.

For history, anyway.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Top