BLACK FLAG! (not the bug spray)

[M E Wolf]

Southern Historical Society Papers
December, 1930. New Series, Vol. 9, Old Series, Vol. XLVI.
1st Confederate Congress--(Second Session)--Monday, September 29, 1862.
SENATE
The Senate met at 11 o'clock A. M.
The President, Mr. Stephens, in the Chair.
Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Woodbridge.

LINCOLN'S PROCLAMATION
Mr. Semmes, of Louisiana, introduced the following resolution [S. 17], which was ordered to be printed and laid upon the table:
Resolved by the Congress of the Confederate States of America, That the proclamation of Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America, issued at the city of Washington on the 22nd day of September, in the year 1862, wherein he declares that on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall be in rebellion against the United States, shall be thenceforward and forever free, is leveled against the citizens of the Confederate States, and as such is a gross violation of the usages of civilized warfare, an outrage upon private property and an invitation to a servile war, and therefore should be held up to the execration of mankind and counteracted by such severe retaliatory measures as, in the judgment of the
President, may be best calculated to secure its withdrawal or arrest its execution.

Mr. Clark, of Missouri, said the resolutions did not go far enough. He thought the President should be authorized immediately to proclaim, that every person found in arms against the Confederate Government and its institutions, on our soil, should be put to death, and that every citizen of the Confederacy be proclaimed a soldier, for the time being, to execute the proclamation upon the persons of every murderer, thief and scoundrel endorsed and acting under the proclamation of Lincoln. Our people have been murdered, our property destroyed, and now this last and atrocious measure is proclaimed. It is now a matter of life and death. Let us meet the exigency. The resolution was not sufficient. He moved its reference to a special committee.

Mr. Semmes, of Louisiana, considered the question of retaliation as an executive question, and to be left to the discretion of the Executive to carry out such measures of retaliation as circumstances may justify.

Mr. Henry did not think the resolution strong enough. The time had arrived when we should declare a war of extermination upon every foe that puts his foot upon our soil, no matter what may be the bloodshed it may cause. We should meet a foe of the character that menaces us, under the black flag, and neither ask nor receive quarter from this day henceforward. In Europe armies have been known to pause when they knew no quarter would be given; officers have deserted their commands when conscious of the fate that would meet them if they fell into the hands of the enemy whose territory they were invading. The way was to declare a war of extermination, and his life for it, we would not be troubled with invasion hereafter.

Mr. Phelan said the introduction of the resolution indicated the dawn of a better policy with reference to the future defense of our country. I am now and ever have been in favor of fighting this contest under the black flag. If it had been erected over the plains of Manassas, one year ago, in my opinion this war would ere this have been ended. I move it be made the special order of the day for 12 o'clock tomorrow.

After some further discussion, the resolution, on motion of Mr. Burnett, of Kentucky, was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

[end of excerpt - due to not germane to the black flag]

M. E. Wolf

 

[Poor Private]

I find all this interesting. I didn't know there were so many instances of the use of the "Black Flag" wether actually used or verbally used.

 

[KLSDAD]

Not literally. Does anyone have one? Does anyone have a picture of one?

Some of those many examples could have been figurative references to the "black flag" .... others are pretty clearly literal.

 

[Oxkern]

Some of those many examples could have been figurative references to the "black flag" .... others are pretty clearly literal.

That's the problem I've got: it just comes across as too common an expression. Why would someone draw attention to their planned forthcoming violations of the laws of war?

 

[rhp6033]

That's the problem I've got: it just comes across as too common an expression. Why would someone draw attention to their planned forthcoming violations of the laws of war?

Storming castle's (or fortifications) tended to be very costly in terms of casualties. The idea that someone could fight against such an attack and at the end surrender without penalty was repugnant to those doing the attacking. In such cases, the demand to "give no quarter" if the defender forced an assault was an old rule of warfare, going back hundreds of years. That is why you had demands such as that by Forest, where he called for the surrender of a fortress and promised to give no quarter if it were refused.

I recall a similar situation in WWII, where a G.I. explained that in Europe, no mercy was shown to snipers. The G.I.'s didn't like the idea of taking casualties as they attacked the sniper's nest, only to have him surrender just as he was cornered.

Of course, this is different from announcing your intent to give no quarter regardless of whether the enemy surrendered or not. In WWII in the Asian theatre very few prisoners were taken on either side - in effect both sides might as well have been flying a black flag, if they had one. The problem with such a policy is that it works both ways - once one side uses the "black flag", the other tends to do so as well.

 

[KLSDAD]

Storming castle's (or fortifications) tended to be very costly in terms of casualties. The idea that someone could fight against such an attack and at the end surrender without penalty was repugnant to those doing the attacking. In such cases, the demand to "give no quarter" if the defender forced an assault was an old rule of warfare, going back hundreds of years. That is why you had demands such as that by Forest, where he called for the surrender of a fortress and promised to give no quarter if it were refused.

I brought that up in a recent Ft Pillow thread having read of it in The Campaigns of Lieutenant General Nathan B Forrest , the "authorized" bio of Forrest by Jordon and Pryor. However the examples that they gave were a couple of hundred years prior to that incident. I haven't been able to find anything more recent to determine to what degree that was understood at the time.