File Closers Executing Shirkers - Reality or Myth?

[The Ninth Ohio]

In another thread it was brought up that file closers were authorized to kill those leaving the line of battle. Note. This is not about post-battle actions.

I'm curious to see what primary sources others have that this was an actual practice, let alone one sanctioned by either army.

My thought is that this rarely, if ever, happened, and certainly was not an implied function of file closers. My reasoning is that a colonel giving open orders to those several ranks below him who are not officers commissioned by the state or federal government, but rather citizen soldiers like those they served with, goes against the entire idea of having citizen soldiers.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

Never heard of such a policy. Certainly wouldn't be legal. Which isn't to say it never happened. Summary executions in the Union Army on the order of a commanding officer are known to have taken place as were executions ordered by regimental or other court-martial which were not legally authorized to dispense the death penalty. These killings were extra-judicial in nature. The killing of a shirker in battle by his own side without trial would be also extra-judicial in nature and likely never endorsed as an official policy in as you say, a citizen army.

 

[Jim in Wisconsin]

It was claimed that Braxton Bragg had soldiers shot for violating his orders, but maybe they were just stories.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

It was claimed that Braxton Bragg had soldiers shot for violating his orders, but maybe they were just stories.

Even if true, it's not quite the focus of this thread. This is the idea of line officers giving NCOs orders to shoot shirkers on sight during a battle.

 

[Mississippian1861]

Kautz "Custom of Service" paragraph 369, regarding Sergeant's duties:

"In time of battle, it is his duty to keep the men in ranks, not to allow them to fall out on any pretext, and to prevent them from misbehaving before the enemy. He is even required to shoot men down when they attempt to run away in times of danger."

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Kautz "Custom of Service" paragraph 369, regarding Sergeant's duties:

"In time of battle, it is his duty to keep the men in ranks, not to allow them to fall out on any pretext, and to prevent them from misbehaving before the enemy. He is even required to shoot men down when they attempt to run away in times of danger."

So that's an 1864 publication - it would be interesting to see anything published earlier than 3/4 of the way through the war establishing this as a practice.

I also am not clear whether this was a government publication or a manual written by someone and published privately.

Further, this would still require primary sources others accounts of this actually happening to establish whether this was a wide practice or not.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

So that's an 1864 publication - it would be interesting to see anything published earlier than 3/4 of the way through the war establishing this as a practice.

I also am not clear whether this was a government publication or a manual written by someone and published privately.

Further, this would still require primary sources others accounts of this actually happening to establish whether this was a wide practice or not.

I believe the Kautz work was an unofficial work, privately printed and not in any sense an official army manual.I looked up the book on Hathitrust. It is entirely lacking in a preface or foreword declaring that this is an official manual authorized by direction of the President, or by order of the Secretary of War or by command of the Lieutenant General Commanding the Armies of the United States. Official manuals and regulations will always cite the authority that issued them. Therefore, it seems obvious to me that Kautz's book was unofficial.

 

[Library Lady]

If this works, it should show the title page of the manual which might answer the question.

Customs of Service for Non-commissioned Officers and Soldiers, as Derived from Law and ... : August Valentine Kautz : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Book digitized by Google from the library of Harvard University and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.

archive.org

 

[JerryD]

I have heard of this supposed duty/obligation, and always assumed any officer that actually did so took his life into his own hands. I imagine fragging officers was not unknown in the Civil War, especially if shot comrade. But that is all supposition.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

For volunteer regiments, I strongly suspect this was rarely, if ever, enforced in practice, on either side. I imagine it would have been for something especially egregious.

For US Army regular regiments, where discipline was notoriously tougher and the NCOs were often grizzled lifers with rough reputations, I still expect it was rare but more plausible. I would look to memoirs from those units first.

 

[Mississippian1861]

Kautz was a very experianced officer: private in the 1st Ohio during the Mexican War, West Point grad, and plenty of service in the prewar Regulars. I'm sure he didn't just throw that in there casually.

It's not exactly an old idea in the US military either. Daniel Morgan advised Nathaniel Greene to put picked men behind the front line of Militia to shoot down the first men who ran from the British.

I'm pretty sure Edward Cross of the 5th New Hampshire ordered his file closers to shoot men who ran. I think there is another example from Stone's River but I will have to find it.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Kautz was a very experianced officer: private in the 1st Ohio during the Mexican War, West Point grad, and plenty of service in the prewar Regulars. I'm sure he didn't just throw that in there casually.

It's not exactly an old idea in the US military either. Daniel Morgan advised Nathaniel Greene to put picked men behind the front line of Militia to shoot down the first men who ran from the British.

I'm pretty sure Edward Cross of the 5th New Hampshire ordered his file closers to shoot men who ran. I think there is another example from Stone's River but I will have to find it.

I've heard these things as well. But never beyond postwar accounts, which can easily be put down as bluster. I'm looking for contemporary accounts of this actually happening. The sheer number of incidents of citizen soldiers rising up against more trivial slights—such as not being paid—makes the claim of a noncommissioned officer being deputized to execute shirkers rather unbelievable.

 

[John Winn]

As with just about anything having to do with humans: never say never. But I doubt file closers would have shot their own men. First, there would have been at least semi-personal connections. On top of that, you want your men to stay in line and to shoot them would have just done the enemy a favor (and it would have been unlikely such shootings would have been motivating if, in fact, any of the men in line would have even known what happened). And as has been noted by others, giving an ordinary soldier that authority just seems unlikely.

I say show me the evidence if you really believe such happened more than once or twice and was actually an expected duty of file closers.

 

[Mississippian1861]

A late war CS order from Lee:

GENERAL ORDERS No. 4.HEADQUARTERS ARMIES OF THE C. S.,February 22, 1865.I. The experience of our own and other armies having established that the safety, no less than the efficiency, of troops requires that order be maintained and every man kept in his propel position in action, the following instructions will be immediately carried into effect:A thorough examination by competent officers selected by the corps commander, or officer commanding detached troops, will be made as to the qualifications and character of the commissioned and non-commissioned officers of each company. Such of the former as shall be reported deficient in intelligence, coolness, and capacity will be brought before examining boards, and those of the latter so reported will be reduced to the ranks. Appointments to fill vacancies among the non-commissioned officers will be made from those soldiers of the company most distinguished for courage, discipline, and attention to duty. II. The file-closers will be carefully instructed in their duties by the regimental commanders, and vacancies will be filled as they occur among the non-commissioned and lance officers from the best and most tried soldiers of the company. On the march they will be required to prevent straggling and be held responsible for the presence of their respective squads of ten. In action they will keep two paces behind the rear rank of their several squads, the non-commissioned and lance officers with loaded guns and fixed bayonets. They will be diligently instructed to aid in preserving order in the ranks and enforcing obedience to commands, and to permit no man to leave his place unless wounded, excused in writing by the medical officer of the regiment, or by order of the regimental commander. For this purpose they will use such degree of force as may be necessary. If any refuse to advance, disobey orders, or leave the ranks to plunder or to retreat, the file-closer will promptly cut down or fire upon the delinquents. They will treat in the same manner any man who uses words or actions calculated to produce alarm among the troops. Justice to the brave men who remain at their posts, no less than the success to our arms, demands that this order be rigorously executed, and it will be enjoined upon file-closers that they shall make the evasion of duty more dangerous than its performance.III. The value of the foregoing order will depend upon the character of the file-closers and the diligence with which they are instructed. None should be selected but such as can understand and appreciate the importance of their duties, and possess the necessary coolness and determination to perform them faithfully.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Absent accounts of executions actually being carried out, orders to do so (to me at least) carry the same historical weight as orders to do anything else—that is, to prevent something from happening that was already a problem, and with mixed efficacy.

So here we have two late war orders, which, good finds, by the way. Still looking for evidence that a) this was common, long standing practice, and/or b) was actually carried out at any level.

 

[Mississippian1861]

Onward to Chattanooga is the Cry: With Sheridan’s Provost Guard at Stones River

B y 7 o'clock on the morning of December 31, 1862, the fighting at Stones River had already turned seriously awry for the Federal army. As R...

dan-masters-civil-war.blogspot.com

Here is a 1863 letter from the 44th IL describing that the provost guards of the Army of the Cumberland were authorized to cut down retreating men at Stones River.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Excellent account. Still though, this was the provost guard, not individual NCOs. I would also be curious if there were other accounts of the same or if this is just what one enlisted man heard.

My point being: if you're requiring the provost guard to execute stragglers, it seems a preemptive order because your NCOs aren't doing their jobs. In my opinion (considering I don't believe it was within the purview of NCOs to summarily kill shirkers, even with an officer's blessing), it's at best a last ditch effort to keep men on the field of battle, but nothing close to a standard, supported policy.

 

[Mississippian1861]

According to the 1866 New Hampshire Adjutant General's report, Col. Cross of the 5th New Hampshire gave orders for his file closers to shoot any man who ran at the Battle of Antietam.

 

[RedRover]

My thought is that this rarely, if ever, happened, and certainly was not an implied function of file closers. My reasoning is that a colonel giving open orders to those several ranks below him who are not officers commissioned by the state or federal government, but rather citizen soldiers like those they served with, goes against the entire idea of having citizen soldiers.

I also doubt many incidents of men actually killed outright by file closers in the 1860s, but don't doubt there were some given the scale of the war. But the platoon officers and NCO's had the authority to do it where warranted. And even if they did it, it was not something to talk about. The deceased was just classed as killed in action.

The 1860s Volunteer Troops, once mustered into service they were in the Army, and subject to the Rules and Articles of War (of 1806) and the Regulations, etc. And Article of War no. 52 noted for misbehavior in battle, "shall suffer death,"... Or, by court-martial such other sentence as shall be ordered...

Ergo, one's life was forfeit, whether sentence was delivered by court-martial, or "instant" by a file closer, if at all. The Volunteer and Militia troops of the USA from 1861 were specifically by law placed under the authority of the Rules and Articles of War... just like the Regulars, etc.

Not any different in the Confederacy particularly.


In the 1700s, the authorities were clear about the subject of instant death at the hands of file-closers or platoon officers in action for misbehavior... From 1755, General Wolfe's instructions...

General Washington had called for "instant death" to those who misbehaved. At Trenton...

At Stony Point too...

General Zebulon Pike's orders for the assault upon York, Upper Canada, in 1813:

Most of the accounts from the 1860s that give the dirty details of discipline, mention the officers just whacking the men with their swords, or threatening with pistols, or the sergeants prodding some, here and there, with their bayonets.

George Evray with the 16th Michigan was familiar with the rules...

From Vicksburg...

Lt. Hydorn of the 72nd New York at Chancellorsville...

In 1861 Gen. J.E. Johnston of the Confederate Army ordered instant death to any man who quit the ranks in action without permission, particularly in claiming to assist the wounded...

Sergeant Drewry Easley of the 14th Virginia was a file closer, and bashed a shirker with his gun during Pickett's charge...

Col. Oates of the 15th Alabama...

"bosh" as in empty words, poppycock, etc.

Regarding Chickamauga, Oates recalled...

General Forrest shot down men who turned their face from the foe, and instructed his officers etc. to do likewise...

General Meade approved of instant death to deal with any misbehavior in battle, from June 30, 1863:

The veterans of the 155th Pennsylvania recalled on the reading of this Order from the Commanding General before marching that day, that some of the soldiers felt concern for their comrades who had straggled in the previous days and not yet caught up....

The veterans of the 13th Massachusetts grumbled about the orders of the new Army commander:

Regardless the orders stood, and some subordinates made use of the authority given. General Gibbon on July 2 gave direct orders for instant death at Gettysburg to shirkers... The veterans of the 1st Minnesota noted:

In the wake of Meade's standing orders, etc., Elizabeth Blair Lee, daughter of Lincoln's advisor Francis P. Blair, and sister of Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, and General Frank Blair, who commanded a division under Grant at Vicksburg, wrote her naval officer husband that it was considered a great turnaround in affairs...

General E.M. Lewis of the US Army, in the late 19th Century, noted that the basic discipline of instilling mortal fear of the officers and NCOs, by no means the best, it was yet necessary to be able to threaten use of the authority behind it, even though by then almost universally employed in extended order in action (capable of taking cover)...

 

[Dan Kohli]

It is my opinion that the NCOs of volunteers and militia were less likely to shoot shirkers on the spot than the U.S. Regular Army. Although I can't support it particularly well with primary sources. I'm thinking that they don't do it much due to knowing each other before the War. I think it can be mildly supported by Leander Stillwell's memoir of the Civil War. I can't recall the exact location in the book, but one of the soldiers in his company ended up being a serial shirker.