Branded 'D' for Deserter

[Nathan Stuart]

During the Civil War, a range of punishments were administered by both sides, for soldiers prosecuted and convicted of desertion or cowardice. The type of punishment selected would partly depend on the particular circumstances and personalities involved.

The harshest penalty imposed was execution (usually by firing squad). But I understand there were various other punishments available too. Some of these included:

. flogging (by a number of lashes)

. branding (with the letter 'D')

. imprisonment in the stockade

. public humiliation (e.g. wearing a wooden sign, wearing an iron ball and chain)

. dishonorable dismissal (being drummed out of the Army).

And in some cases, pardons were also granted.

It's the punishment of branding that drew my attention. Apparently this form of punishment was used in the Pre-Civil War Union Army, but was abandoned by the military on both sides early in the war.

Wonder if there are any known cases or accounts of Civil War soldiers convicted for desertion or cowardice being branded with the letter 'D' as punishment for their crime.

 

[ErnieMac]

The subject was the subject of a thread in CWT a little over a year ago. A few examples were cited. I wonder (no evidence) if the punishment would have been more common in the regular units than volunteers?

Punishment: Branding | From Abatis to Zouave! (A to Z)

When did this type of punishment stop ? During the Mexican War branding with the letter D for "Deserter" was still done. (John Riley of San Patricios infamy for example) I want to say it was stopped or limited during the CW but ??? I've read where branding was done on the hip, back of the hand...

civilwartalk.com

 

[lelliott19]

Here's one from 1863 for the 16th NC ....from A&IGO Record of Courts Martial, 1862-1863, Record Group 109: War Department Collection of Confederate Records, 1825 - 1927, NARA.

Pvt. W F Dover, Co F, 16th NC Regt.
William F Dover, age 18, residence Buncombe County. Enlisted 7 May 1861 at Asheville for 12 months, Promoted to 1st Corporal 16 March 1864. Deserted 26 March 1865, pledged the Oath and furnished transportation to Columbus, Ohio.
Court Martial 11 February 1863
"To be branded on the left hip with the letter 'D' three inches in length."

 

[Nathan Stuart]

The subject was the subject of a thread in CWT a little over a year ago. A few examples were cited. I wonder (no evidence) if the punishment would have been more common in the regular units than volunteers?

Punishment: Branding | From Abatis to Zouave! (A to Z)

When did this type of punishment stop ? During the Mexican War branding with the letter D for "Deserter" was still done. (John Riley of San Patricios infamy for example) I want to say it was stopped or limited during the CW but ??? I've read where branding was done on the hip, back of the hand...

civilwartalk.com

Thank you for this reference.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Here's one from 1863 for the 16th NC ....from A&IGO Record of Courts Martial, 1862-1863, Record Group 109: War Department Collection of Confederate Records, 1825 - 1927, NARA.

Pvt. W F Dover, Co F, 16th NC Regt.
William F Dover, age 18, residence Buncombe County. Enlisted 7 May 1861 at Asheville for 12 months, Promoted to 1st Corporal 16 March 1864. Deserted 26 March 1865, pledged the Oath and furnished transportation to Columbus, Ohio.
Court Martial 11 February 1863
"To be branded on the left hip with the letter 'D' three inches in length."

Thank you for this specific information.

Given the frequency of desertions, especially by 1863, it would be interesting to know the gravity of the crime here – in other words, what was so peculiar or unique about these particular circumstances to warrant such an unusual punishment administered here. Also realize, that unit commanders inconsistently applied a range of punishments.

To me, the punishment of branding was designed to be a drastic and harsh punitive measure, by leaving a permanent reminder. It seems that branding a concealed part of the body, like the hip, rather than a visible area, like the face, is somewhat counter-productive and would not serve as much of a punitive punishment deterrent (if that was the intent).

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

I wonder if branding for desertion was more likely in Western and Southern armies than in the AOP or if the reverse was true?

Just my impressions from various readings - but it seems a lot had to do with whether it was a homesick soldier who left for home, a man who was going to visit a sick wife, or a soldier who threw down his rifle and ran for the rear when ordered to advance. And a lot had to do with how strict or inflexible an individual officer was or whether the officer was from the same community as the men, etc.

Again, just my impression, but in reading the testimony from the Wirtz trial, I don't think he was convicted of excessive cruelty in punishing the prisoners because officers North and South then used what we would today consider inhumane punishment pretty freely on their own men for sometimes minor sounding offences . Honestly, some of them sound like closet sadists. In the 19th century inflicting physical pain was often synonymous with "punishment."

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

It seems that branding a concealed part of the body, like the hip, rather than a visible area, like the face, is somewhat counter-productive and would not serve as much of a punitive punishment deterrent (if that was the intent).

In a branch of my family tree I have Swiss pacifist sect members that came to America in the early 1700s because they refused to join the army and the punishment for that was to be branded on the ear or on their face.

 

[Sheltowee]

Thank you for this specific information.

Given the frequency of desertions, especially by 1863, it would be interesting to know the gravity of the crime here – in other words, what was so peculiar or unique about these particular circumstances to warrant such an unusual punishment administered here. Also realize, that unit commanders inconsistently applied a range of punishments.

To me, the punishment of branding was designed to be a drastic and harsh punitive measure, by leaving a permanent reminder. It seems that branding a concealed part of the body, like the hip, rather than a visible area, like the face, is somewhat counter-productive and would not serve as much of a punitive punishment deterrent (if that was the intent).

Well…… placing a red hot iron on any part of my body (concealed or no) would serve as a deterrent- to me.
The pain would be enough, but then gangrene is a real possibility. And we all know how that often went.

 

[lelliott19]

Given the frequency of desertions, especially by 1863, it would be interesting to know the gravity of the crime here – in other words, what was so peculiar or unique about these particular circumstances to warrant such an unusual punishment administered here. Also realize, that unit commanders inconsistently applied a range of punishments.

Several years ago, I was reading the A&IGO Record of Courts Martial, 1862-1863, Record Group 109: War Department Collection of Confederate Records, 1825 - 1927, NARA. I admit I sometimes read some unusual primary source records. Anyway, I was appalled by the severity of sentences among the men of the 16th North Carolina -for all kinds of offenses. Especially compared to the sentences handed down to the men of my regiment (16th Georgia.) So I did a brief study of the records of Courts Martial related to the 16th North Carolina and posted some of the findings here which may help to answer your question.

Severity of Sentences: Confederate Court Martial Records 16th North Carolina | Regimental Histories

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/31772/old/files/relative.htm#linkimage-0034 Has anyone else encountered a Confederate regiment with as many Court Martials resulting in such severe sentences as the 16th North Carolina Infantry? Certainly doesn't seem like a good way to build morale to me. :nah...

civilwartalk.com

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

Anyway, I was appalled by the severity of sentences among the men of the 16th North Carolina -for all kinds of offenses.

Wow. Just speculation on my part but wasn't North Carolina one of those southern states with pockets of Union sentiment scattered about? I don't know the history of the regiment, but maybe they were conscripted, or for another reason their hearts just weren't in this fight and the officers felt they had to crack down hard to keep discipline? Or as my psychiatrist friend once told me, some people in society just enjoy inflicting physical pain on other people. Since societies have become enlightened though, there aren't as many career choices available to those kind of people!

 

[archieclement]

Here's one from 1863 for the 16th NC ....from A&IGO Record of Courts Martial, 1862-1863, Record Group 109: War Department Collection of Confederate Records, 1825 - 1927, NARA.

Pvt. W F Dover, Co F, 16th NC Regt.
William F Dover, age 18, residence Buncombe County. Enlisted 7 May 1861 at Asheville for 12 months, Promoted to 1st Corporal 16 March 1864. Deserted 26 March 1865, pledged the Oath and furnished transportation to Columbus, Ohio.
Court Martial 11 February 1863
"To be branded on the left hip with the letter 'D' three inches in length."

Shouldn't they have branded him somewhere more visible then the hip?

Like branding recaptured runaway slaves, you'd want it visible so if they ran away again it would be easy to see he's likely a runaway and people could collect reward for turning em in.

 

[Sheltowee]

I think the branding was intended to produce a painful, permanent mark of scorn- not so much a visual identifier for others.

Likely, the punishment was performed in front of the entire regiment. So they already would know their mess mate was a deserter. What more would be gained by marking him in a more visible location?

I wonder if someone so brutalized ever tried deserting a second time?

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Well…… placing a red hot iron on any part of my body (concealed or no) would serve as a deterrent- to me.
The pain would be enough, but then gangrene is a real possibility. And we all know how that often went.

Yes, placement on the concealed hip would be a permanent reminder (and likely discourager) for oneself, but not necessarily for anyone else (if it was designed to humiliate and deter others). I suppose, though, any public exercise of the punishment would be sufficient humiliation and news would have spread in the unit, damaging the reputation of the individual among his comrades. That sounds harsh enough.

Think that's a relevant point too about the risks of infection.

 

[debwallsmith]

During the Civil War, a range of punishments were administered by both sides, for soldiers prosecuted and convicted of desertion or cowardice. The type of punishment selected would partly depend on the particular circumstances and personalities involved.

The harshest penalty imposed was execution (usually by firing squad). But I understand there were various other punishments available too. Some of these included:

. flogging (by a number of lashes)

. branding (with the letter 'D')

. imprisonment in the stockade

. public humiliation (e.g. wearing a wooden sign, wearing an iron ball and chain)

. dishonorable dismissal (being drummed out of the Army).

And in some cases, pardons were also granted.

It's the punishment of branding that drew my attention. Apparently this form of punishment was used in the Pre-Civil War Union Army, but was abandoned by the military on both sides early in the war.

Wonder if there are any known cases or accounts of Civil War soldiers convicted for desertion or cowardice being branded with the letter 'D' as punishment for their crime.

Adding to this: what happened to men who were reported as deserters but were actually captured and imprisoned? The Millen POW database contains the names of a number of men who, according to Andersonville records were imprisoned but were listed as having deserted by their regiments/states. It appears that their status may not have been corrected after the war. How was this viewed by locals? by the government? It would appear that if they were reported as deserters, they could not apply for a pension.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Anyway, I was appalled by the severity of sentences among the men of the 16th North Carolina -for all kinds of offenses.

Dug the below out, which might go some of the way towards explaining the punishment of branding imposed on North Carolina deserters (like Pvte. William Dover) around this time.

In response to commanding officer reports of rising rates of desertion among North Carolina regiments in early 1863, Secretary of War Seddon requested North Carolina Governor Vance, to take urgent actions to curb these undesirable developments occurring in units from the latter's state.

Consequently, Governor Vance promptly issued the following Proclamation, dated 11th​ May 1863, regarding North Carolina soldiers, which read in part:

…"I have learned ……that there have been latterly numerous desertions from the ranks of our gallant army……

….Unless desertion is prevented, our strength must depart from our armies; and desertion can never be stopped while, either through a false and mistaken sympathy or downright disloyalty, they receive any countenance or protection at home. I therefore appeal to all good citizens and true patriots in the State to assist my officers in arresting deserters, and to frown down all those who aid and assist them. Place the brand upon them, and make them feel the scorn and contempt of an outraged people."…

('OR' : Series 1, Vol. LI, Part II, at pp 706-08)

After reading the entire wording of Vance's Proclamation above, it would appear that the public-spirited Governor supported any notion of drastic punishment for North Carolina deserters that subjected the convicted offender to everlasting contempt and detestation of all fellow citizens back at home. Vance seemed to openly espouse the punishment of deserters by branding and was intent on permanently damaging the reputation of such offenders in their own communities. (The brand mark would serve as an enduring reminder and message to everyone).

 

[Sheltowee]

"Papaw, tell me about your army days in the War for Southern Independence. What does the big 'D' on your butt mean?"

"Dashing…….. now that's enough for tonight. Git on to bed"'

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

Dug the below out, which might go some of the way towards explaining the punishment of branding imposed on North Carolina deserters (like Pvte. William Dover) around this time.

In response to commanding officer reports of rising rates of desertion among North Carolina regiments in early 1863, Secretary of War Seddon requested North Carolina Governor Vance, to take urgent actions to curb these undesirable developments occurring in units from the latter's state.

Consequently, Governor Vance promptly issued the following Proclamation, dated 11th​ May 1863, regarding North Carolina soldiers, which read in part:

…"I have learned ……that there have been latterly numerous desertions from the ranks of our gallant army……

….Unless desertion is prevented, our strength must depart from our armies; and desertion can never be stopped while, either through a false and mistaken sympathy or downright disloyalty, they receive any countenance or protection at home. I therefore appeal to all good citizens and true patriots in the State to assist my officers in arresting deserters, and to frown down all those who aid and assist them. Place the brand upon them, and make them feel the scorn and contempt of an outraged people."…

('OR' : Series 1, Vol. LI, Part II, at pp 706-08)

After reading the entire wording of Vance's Proclamation above, it would appear that the public-spirited Governor supported any notion of drastic punishment for North Carolina deserters that subjected the convicted offender to everlasting contempt and detestation of all fellow citizens back at home. Vance seemed to openly espouse the punishment of deserters by branding and was intent on permanently damaging the reputation of such offenders in their own communities. (The brand mark would serve as an enduring reminder and message to everyone).

You know you've got serious trouble with troop morale when you have to resort to measures like this....

 

[Sheltowee]

So I am not familiar with how the CS government functioned.
Why would the the War Dept request the governor's assistance?
If in the service of the CSA, I would think it his issue- not Vance?

 

[archieclement]

You know you've got serious trouble with troop morale when you have to resort to measures like this....

Certainly, but most these measures were a continuation of prewar policy, desertion was higher in peacetime then during the war.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

So I am not familiar with how the CS government functioned.
Why would the the War Dept request the governor's assistance?
If in the service of the CSA, I would think it his issue- not Vance?

I think it was a deferral to the ideal of states rights and a weak central government, which of course makes it difficult to function as a country. Hopefully some of the experts on this forum (which I am not) will clarify this.