Help Needed: Protocol Surrender Chancellorsville

[lelliott19]

Posting in this forum because you guys seem to know about tactics, maneuvers, protocol, and whatnot. There is not a forum specific to those kinds of questions, so Im posting where I think the question will be seen and addressed. Moderator @bdtex feel free to move if necessary.

Re: "rules of war" "protocol" or "etiquette" related to the rank of the officer who went in with flag of truce to secure a surrender? At Chancellorsville, a party of Hancock's division was captured in the trenches. The small force failed to receive the order to retire their line back behind the Chancellor House and were basically surrounded. The capturing brigade sent a Lieutenant under flag of truce to notify the officers in the trench that they were surrounded and should surrender.

Just wondering if sending a Lieut. was normal? or unusual? Thanks in advance for any information.

For anyone interested in reading the details, the events are described by Frank D Sloat (Capt Co A 27th CT) in History of the 27th Connecticut:

".....the charge to "maintain the position at all hazards" devolved upon the Twenty-seventh and small detachments of the One Hundred and Forty-fifth Pennsylvania and the Second Delaware--less than 400 men in all--and at the same time a large body of the enemy's infantry was observed making a wide circuit to the right, seemingly intent upon forcing the line at a point somewhat remote from that held by the Twenty-seventh. Immediately following this, a similar movement was made to the left. Suddenly unseen batteries in the rear opened fire, and shells shrieked through the trees and burst near the rifle-pits.......Soon the shelling ceased, and in the front a Confederate officer appeared, waving a flag of truce and slowly advancing, waiting for recognition. At this point the firing ceased, while for a short time the musketry was more brisk on the left flank. When the flag of truce had nearly reached the works, it was halted to await the presence of the officer commanding the entire line. As this officer could not be found, the responsibility of receiving the bearer of the flag of truce devolved upon Colonel Bostwick of the Twenty-seventh. The Confederate officer announced himself as Lieutenant Bailey of the--(unit designation absent in original) Georgia Regiment, and stated that he had been directed to inform the commanding officer of the Union picket-line that his forces were entirely surrounded, and that there was no possibility of escape; and therefore he summoned a surrender, to avoid the loss of life which would inevitably follow any resistance to the overwhelming force in the front and rear. Colonel Bostwick was at first disinclined to regard the situation as so precarious as Lieutenant Bailey seemed to indicate. Lieutenant-Colonel Merwin also questioned the necessity of surrender, and in order to better satisfy himself of the actual state of affairs, promptly decided upon a personal investigation. He went through the woods to the rear, only to find it too true that the enemy were posted there in strong force. Soon the enemy came pouring in on both flanks, and the desperate position of the little band of Union troops was then made apparent. The first impulse among the officers was to attempt to force their way through. A moment's reflection forced the conviction that such a course would result in great loss of life, while the survivors would inevitably fall into the hands of the enemy. After a hurried consultation among the officers, a surrender was agreed upon, the formalities of which were barely completed when a heavy line of the enemy's skirmishers swept out of the wood in the rear....."​

Thanks for locating the source for me @east tennessee roots

 

[chellers]

Laura, just a suggestion, have you tried googling "Protocols of Surrender"?

The following does not answer your question, but I found it an interesting snapshot from the surrender at Appomattox:

https://historylessons.net/the-army-of-northern-virginia-surrenders

Chellers

 

[lelliott19]

Laura, just a suggestion, have you tried googling "Protocols of Surrender"?

The following does not answer your question, but I found the following an interesting snapshot from the surrender at Appomattox:

https://historylessons.net/the-army-of-northern-virginia-surrenders

Chellers

Thank you so much. Maybe I should also change the title of the thread. EDIT TO ADD: I just did.

 

[chellers]

You are welcome.
Specifically, I googled "Civil War Protocols of Surrender."

 

[dlofting]

I'm certainly no expert on military protocol, but given what happened in other battles it would appear that this particular Confederate officer took it upon himself to try and negotiate a surrender rather than incur casualties in taking the position. This certainly happened when a military post, town, etc was under siege, but I'm not aware of it happening elsewhere in an "open" battle.

 

[lelliott19]

it would appear that this particular Confederate officer took it upon himself to try and negotiate a surrender rather than incur casualties in taking the position.

Thanks for your reply. No, the Union troops at this position had not received the order to retire back with the rest of the line and were surrounded. (See below) There was legitimate cause for surrender - as evidenced by the decision made to comply with the Lt.'s request. So what I am trying to determine is if it was typical for a Lieut to be sent forward with flag of truce to request a surrender during a battle - or if this is an unusual occurrence.

Here is the next paragraph from the History of the Twenty-Seventh Connecticut:

History has established the fact that the reverses of Saturday and subsequent operations of Sunday morning compelled the formation of a new line of battle. The surging conflict had gradually crowded Hooker back, and late in the afternoon the army retired, by his order, to a position some distance in the rear of Chancellor House. The situation of the Twenty-seventh, in a ravine surrounded by dense woods, rendered it impossible to observe the movements going on in other parts of the extended field. The enemy, aware of Hooker's withdrawal, and knowing the situation of the little band thus left exposed, immediately formed a skirmish line, and were crowding forward with all possible speed, certain of their prey. General Hancock subsequently stated that orders were sent to the Twenty-seventh to fall back when Hooker established the new line of battle, but such an order was never received; hence the regiment still remained at the extreme front of the old line, entirely unconscious of this change of position.
​

 

[dlofting]

So what I am trying to determine is if it was typical for a Lieut to be sent forward with flag of truce to request a surrender during a battle - or if this is an unusual occurrence.

I think this was an unusual occurrence.

 

[AUG]

I would think whichever officer was able, volunteered or chosen for the job.

In thinking of other incidents, Forrest's offer of surrender to the garrison at Fort Pillow comes to mind. Forrest experts correct me if wrong, but I read that Gen. James Chalmers sent his adjutant general, Capt. Walter A. Goodman, along with Capt. Thomas Henderson and Lt. Frank Rogers to carry Forrest's message under a flag of truce.

In another incident, at the battle of Fair Oaks & Darbytown Road (aka Williamsburg Road) outside Richmond, Oct. 27, 1864, Capt. Joseph Banks Lyle of the 5th South Carolina Infantry single-handedly captured a large group of Federal troops who were pinned down in a depression in front of the Confederate line. He ran out on his own accord and demanded their surrender. The story as told by Brig. Gen. John Bratton can be read Here.

 

[lelliott19]

Thanks @AUG351 I appreciate your reply. This was just a regular offer of surrender - from what I gather the rest of the (capturing/Confederate) brigade was sent on and one regiment left to effect the surrender/capture. I'm just wondering why the Col, Lt Col, Major, or Capt (at least) wouldn't have been the one to go out with the flag of truce and offer the option of surrendering instead of a Lieut?

 

[rpkennedy]

Thanks @AUG351 I appreciate your reply. This was just a regular offer of surrender - from what I gather the rest of the (capturing/Confederate) brigade was sent on and one regiment left to effect the surrender/capture. Im just wondering why the Col, Lt Col, Major, or Capt (at least) wouldn't have been the one to go out with the flag of truce and offer the option of surrendering instead of a Lieut?

Looies are a little more expendable than colonels.

Ryan

 

[rpkennedy]

In all seriousness, it was probably availability which led the lieutenant to be the messenger. As long as he was an officer, it would be acceptable.

Ryan

 

[lelliott19]

In all seriousness, it was probably availability which led the lieutenant to be the messenger. As long as he was an officer, it would be acceptable.

Thanks Ryan. I'm guessing he had proper insignia since they recognized him as an officer on his approach.
Soon the shelling ceased, and in the front a Confederate officer appeared....

 

[AUG]

Thanks @AUG351 I appreciate your reply. This was just a regular offer of surrender - from what I gather the rest of the (capturing/Confederate) brigade was sent on and one regiment left to effect the surrender/capture. I'm just wondering why the Col, Lt Col, Major, or Capt (at least) wouldn't have been the one to go out with the flag of truce and offer the option of surrendering instead of a Lieut?

I think part of it was the actual act of carrying the message during a truce - just not the job for a field-grade officer or general officer when someone lower down the chain could do it. As to why a lieutenant rather than a captain in this case, perhaps he volunteered for the task or was chosen for another reason.

 

[chellers]

Yesterday, while searching for protocols of surrender, I had opportunity to read the accounts of numerous surrenders, North and South. I came away with the impression that it could be most any officer who was available at the time.