Deliberate Fratricide ("Fragging")

I don't know what to make of the author of the blog. I don't know enough about it, other than Stanton was a tough customer generally. I don't if Jonathan White is considered a trusted historian or not. I'm hoping @cash or @Bee or Eric Wittenberg will chime in here. I've read lots and lots of soldiers memoirs and they've mentioned voting as in, they set up voting for us - stuff like that, but I never heard about any dissent - not to say it might not be there - or any soldier writing that they thought anything was handled in an unfair manner.
 
@NH Civil War Gal Jonathan White was a guest speaker at this year's CWI2017, and I actually met and talked with him. That being said, there were others who spoke at the same conference with whom I did not agree with :smile: Others more knowledgeable than I will have to speak to Jonathan's allegations regarding the election.
 
I don't know what to make of the author of the blog. I don't know enough about it, other than Stanton was a tough customer generally. I don't if Jonathan White is considered a trusted historian or not. I'm hoping @cash or @Bee or Eric Wittenberg will chime in here. I've read lots and lots of soldiers memoirs and they've mentioned voting as in, they set up voting for us - stuff like that, but I never heard about any dissent - not to say it might not be there - or any soldier writing that they thought anything was handled in an unfair manner.

Jonathan is a good historian. Remember the 19th Century didn't have all the same laws and rules we have today. We've grown up in a very different time with very different ideas of what is appropriate. Back then it was accepted that the party in power would use all the power at its disposal to remain in power and the party out of power, though handicapped, would do what it could to gain power. Many of the rules and laws we have today came about because it was eventually felt that the accepted practices weren't fair. But that doesn't mean a party was wrong for following the accepted practice of the time.

Here's Jonathan talking about the 1864 election.

//www.c-span.org/video/?320732-1/discussion-union-army-reelection-abraham-lincoln
 
Thank you for explaining that. I wasn't reading it with the right understanding of 1864 practices.
 
Thank you for explaining that. I wasn't reading it with the right understanding of 1864 practices.

When we read history we have to keep these things in mind:

1. When we visit the past, we're visiting a foreign country where things are done differently.
2. Things change over time.
3. Everything has a context.
4. Everything has a cause, and everything usually has an effect.
5. Every outcome depends on things that came before it.
6. History is complex. So are people.

It's easy for us to forget those things, so we need to periodically remind ourselves.
 
Glorietta Pass 1862:
"Possibly the most memorable action of the day concerned the widely hated Col. [John Potts] Slough. At one point in the heat of the battle, his own men became so disgusted with him for keeping so far to the rear of the action that they turned a howitzer on him and opened fire, raking the hillside with shrapnel in am attempt to frag him; the colonel barely escaped with his life."
-Hampton Sides, Blood and Thunder

Did this actually happen?
 
I would suggest it may have been a matter of a different mind set at that time. Officers were indeed killed by their men, but not usually in a battle situation. Marmaduke killed Walker in a duel, J C Davis killed Bull Nelson in outright murder, Forrest was more or less ambushed and shot by his own lieutenant, Gould. These, though, were matters of offended honor - Gould, Walker and Davis believed they had been called cowards. Apparently honor could be satisfied by shooting an unarmed man dead - neither Nelson or Forrest had weapons (except Forrest was a weapon) - but for the most part back shooting or sneaky assassination would be deemed dishonorable and the yellow stain would never leave the perpetrator's back, even if he was the only one who knew about it.

From what I understand, people who lived in mountainous areas (such as the Applician chain), where members of multiple generations of "Societies of Honor". The land was too difficult to farm in the USA and the highlands of Great Britain. The men were mainly herders. You could steal a potato in the night and it is unlikely it would be missed but if you stole a goat, that could mean your family would not have as much food come dead of winter. So any slight to honor often led to bloodshed.

It did not begin and end with stealing animals, any slight to honor among highland people would often lead to bloodshed - consider the Hatfields and McCoys who lived in such societies and could not let any slight be ignored. Honor in the mountainous regions of the South and/or with immigrants from similar highland, rocky geography in Scotland and Ireland became an ingrained part of their character and to some extent still is.

I know I have digressed from this issue of fratricide but I think this was worth writing in terms of honor
 
Surely you rhetorical. For the peanut gallery, he's referring to the fragmentation hand grenade - but the concept could easily have been executed with a bullet, blade or arrow in someone's back (or front).

Here, here, Dilly Dilly!
 
Here, here, Dilly Dilly!

Just for you

Throughout the history of warfare, soldiers have turned against their commanding officers. The American armed forces prove to be no exception, with enlisted men attacking and killing their superiors as early as the Revolutionary War. But these episodes had been extremely rare leading up to the Vietnam War, and even during the first several years of that war fragging was almost unheard of.

For the Peanut Gallery at large -

Rhetorical question: in the heat of battle, how would a pre-Forensic Science oriented society ever know that someone was slain by one of their own? When corpses rotted where they fell, where tumbled into mass graves or, at best, tossed in their very own hole, how would anyone know what actually killed them?

Something to ask yourself, if you ever research a historical figure who was obviously a toxic leader and who falls in battle.

"'The enemy,' retorted Yossarian with weighted precision, 'is anyone who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on.." Joseph Heller, CATCH-22.
 
I used this term recently in a WW2 military game and not one person in 1o knew what I was talking about. I know I have not seen much at all about fragging in the ACW, actually Vietnam was where I read about it first and most, but I am sure as others have mentioned, that the practice must be as old as the hills.
I have read that in WWI more than one British officer was fragged, because the troops were tired of being ordered forward in useless charges rather than because of personal vedetta. I have no references, but apparently it was happening then.
 
Here, here, Dilly Dilly!


I think fragging is a very common term and has little or nothing to do with fragmentation grenades. I think it happened often in the pre modern era but people did not have the ability to put one personal weapon to one kill.
 
I have read that in WWI more than one British officer was fragged, because the troops were tired of being ordered forward in useless charges rather than because of personal vedetta. I have no references, but apparently it was happening then.

I dont doubt it has happened since the dawn of mankind but it happening and proving that it did are two very different things. I am pretty sure if a soldier got fragged in the Middle East it would be figured out...Vietnam ( and there are many many stories of fragging in Vietnam, perhaps if it was an officer, it would be somewhat figured out, but prior to that, Im not saying it was impossible, but it was very difficult...not only because of the state of technology, but also because of expense, and a host of other factors). How many times were crime scenes trampled because no one knew any better?

When people bring modern technology to bear, sometimes history is re-written - Little Big Horn - a forensics team went out in the past 10 years and concluded that the Indians were as well or better armed than the USC . Who knows what the future holds?
 
...That said, does anyone know of a commander they suspect became a casualty (with help from Friendly Forces)?

It's been suggested Jackson was a "target of deniable opportunity" for some soldiers in the unit of North Carolina troops that shot at him; several times; and hit him; more than once. That's been generally and roundly rejected right out of the box, as will anything remotely disparaging to Jackson or Lee. But anyway, the idea is that very NC unit had in fact seen Jackson on his horse earlier that same day so they should have at least recognized his profile through the haze and trees as the Jackson contingent was returning from the reconnoiter (for one thing Jackson generally wore a kepi instead of an officer's slouch hat). NC troops' wives back home had recently been involved in some sort of bread riot against Confederate rule, so that offense and being so recently intensely marched by Jackson in the Chambersburg conflict might have given a tired confederate trooper or two an itchy trigger finger when an order to fire (or cease fire?) was overheard nearby, contributing to a ready-made "fog of war" defense as the opportunity presented itself.

I admit it seems like too much of a construct, but since the question came up...
 
Last edited:
Thomas Williams was in command of the Union troops at the Battle of Baton Rouge. Supposedly he was shot and killed by his own men. There was even one story which said he was tied to a cannon which was was then fired.

It has been allergies that John Reynolds was shot by a member of the Iron Brigade at Gettysburg.
 
It's been suggested Jackson was a "target of deniable opportunity" for some soldiers in the unit of North Carolina troops that shot at him; several times; and hit him; more than once. That's been generally and roundly rejected right out of the box, as will anything remotely disparaging to Jackson or Lee. But anyway, the idea is that very NC unit had in fact seen Jackson on his horse earlier that same day so they should have at least recognized his profile through the haze and trees as the Jackson contingent was returning from the reconnoiter (for one thing Jackson generally wore a kepi instead of an officer's slouch hat). NC troops' wives back home had recently been involved in some sort of bread riot against Confederate rule, so that offense and being so recently intensely marched by Jackson in the Chambersburg conflict might have given a tired confederate trooper or two an itchy trigger finger when an order to fire (or cease fire?) was overheard nearby, contributing to a ready-made "fog of war" defense as the opportunity presented itself.

I admit it seems like too much of a construct, but since the question came up...

There is a whole lot of interesting back stories around this, starting with an org chart of sorts:
The shooters belonged in TJ Jackson's Corps, AP Hill's Division, Lane's Brigade, and 18th NC Vol. Inf.

AP Hill had a standing feud with Jackson, being arrested by him several times and asked Lee to move him away from Jackson and/or court-martial him to clear his name without success. Recently promoted BG James Lane (graduate of VMI in 1854) severely disliked Jackson since he was his teacher. Major John D. Barry of the 18th NC was promoted to Colonel by Lane and Hill, right after his men shot Jackson. There are stories that indicate that both Hill and Lane at different times were on horseback with Jackson that night, as well as stories indicated that some of the 18th NC men suggesting to stop shooting because they were shooting at their own men and were over-ruled by their soon-to-be-Colonel Major.

There is a pretty good back drop for this one :smile:
 
Back
Top