Henry Wirz

[cash]

Just to clarify my earlier post for those who aren't familiar with the references:

The "Retaliatory Act" was passed by the Confederate Congress on May 1, 1863, and stated that USCT soldiers would not be treated as prisoners of war. The African American enlisted men would be re-enslaved and the white officers would be tried by military commission for "inciting servile insurrection" -- a capital offense. http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/39620

That same day the Confederate Congress incorporated the battle flag into the design for the Second National flag, which was hailed as the "white man's flag" -- http://www.thiscruelwar.com/william-thompson-the-confederate-cause-and-the-white-mans-flag/

The two acts taken together illustrate the profound racism at the heart of the Confederacy. The refusal to treat USCT soldiers of the United States Army as prisoners of war when captured was a principal cause of the breakdown of the Exchange Cartel and the major reason for the suffering of all POWs thereafter.

Any "shame" related to the treatment of prisoners on both sides -- as well as those murdered in the field in lieu of being taken prisoner -- can be directly tied to the official policy of the rebel government.

Yes.

And relevant OR messages can be seen here: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/henry-wirz.146671/#post-1829647

 

[Pat Young]

Were any of these deportees naturalized US citizens?

Naturalized citizens generally are not subject to deportation. They first have to be stripped of citizenship, typically for fraud in obtaining citizenship. However, in the reading I did on this last year there were cases of Massachusetts wrongfully deporting people who had naturalized. These were often people who had work productively in the US for years, naturalized, and then begun to suffer from mental illness. The deportations were illegal, but they did occur in small numbers.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

When the Civil War began, neither side expected a long conflict. Although there was no formal exchange system at the beginning of the war, both armies paroled prisoners. Captured men were conditionally released on their oath of honor not to return to battle. This allowed them to return to camps of instruction as noncombatants. It also meant that neither side had to provide for the prisoners' needs. An exchange system set up in 1862 lasted less than a year. North and South found themselves with thousands of prisoners of war.

In the South, captured Union soldiers were first housed in old warehouses and barns. As the number of prisoners increased following the end of regular exchanges in 1863, camps were built specifically as prisons in Florence, South Carolina, Millen and Andersonville, Georgia, and many other locations. Most were wooden stockades enclosing open fields. In the North, officials converted many Federal camps of instruction into prisons. Stockades were placed around Camp Butler in Illinois, Camp Chase in Ohio, and camps at Elmira, New York. Other Confederate prisoners were held at Fort McHenry in Baltimore and Fort Warren in Boston Harbor.

The confined soldiers suffered terribly. The most common problems confronting prisoners both North and South were overcrowding, poor sanitation, and inadequate food. Mismanagement by prison officials, as well as by the prisoners themselves, worsened matters. The end of the war saved hundreds of prisoners from an untimely death, but for many the war's end came too late. Of 194,732 Union soldiers held in Confederate prison camps, some 30,000 died while captive. Union forces held about 220,000 Confederate prisoners, nearly 26,000 of whom died.​

https://www.nps.gov/ande/learn/historyculture/cwprisons.htm

 

[cash]

Just to clarify my earlier post for those who aren't familiar with the references:

The "Retaliatory Act" was passed by the Confederate Congress on May 1, 1863, and stated that USCT soldiers would not be treated as prisoners of war. The African American enlisted men would be re-enslaved and the white officers would be tried by military commission for "inciting servile insurrection" -- a capital offense. http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/39620

That same day the Confederate Congress incorporated the battle flag into the design for the Second National flag, which was hailed as the "white man's flag" -- http://www.thiscruelwar.com/william-thompson-the-confederate-cause-and-the-white-mans-flag/

The two acts taken together illustrate the profound racism at the heart of the Confederacy. The refusal to treat USCT soldiers of the United States Army as prisoners of war when captured was a principal cause of the breakdown of the Exchange Cartel and the major reason for the suffering of all POWs thereafter.

Any "shame" related to the treatment of prisoners on both sides -- as well as those murdered in the field in lieu of being taken prisoner -- can be directly tied to the official policy of the rebel government.

More on this:

HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF VIRGINIA,Fort Monroe, June 14, 1863.

Hon. ROBERT OULD, Agent for Exchange of Prisoners:
SIR: I assure you that you have not transgressed any propriety in your questions as to the purpose of the United States Government to execute its conscription act and as to the number of men who will be raised under its provisions. I have the honor to inform you in reply that the conscription act is now being executed and that a sufficient number of men will be raised under its provisions to bring this war to a speedy and successful conclusion.
My object in requesting from you a copy of the act of the Confederate Congress and information as to intentions to execute it was to know officially what disposition under the act was proposed to be made of officers and men captured in arms and who had been duly mustered into the service of the United States, and also that the issues thereby presented could be fully understood and promptly met.
Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of this act propose a gross and inexcusable breach of the cartel both in letter and spirit. Upon reference to the cartel you will find no mention whatever of what was to be the color of prisoners of war. It was unnecessary to make any such mention, for before the establishment of this cartel and before one single negro or mulatto was mustered into the U.S. service you had them organized in arms in Louisiana. You had Indians and half-breed negroes and Indians organized in arms under Albert Pike, in Arkansas. Subsequently negroes were captured on the battlefield at Antietam and delivered as prisoners of war at Aiken's Landing to the Confederate authorities, and receipted for and counted in exchange. And more recently the Confederate legislature of Tennessee have passed an act forcing into their military service (I quote literally) all male free persons of color between the ages of fifteen and fifty, or such number as may be necessary, who may be sound in body and capable of actual service; and they further enacted that in the event a sufficient number of free persons of color to meet the wants of the State shall not tender their services, then the Governor is empowered through the sheriffs of different counties to impress such persons until the required number is obtained.
But it is needless to argue the question. You have not a foot of ground to stand upon in making the proposed discrimination among our captured officers and men. I protest against it as a violation of the cartel, of the laws and usages of war, and of your own practices under them.
Passing events will clearly show the impracticability in executing the act referred to. In case, however, the attempt be made to execute it I now give you formal notice that the United States Government will throw its protection around all its officers and men without regard to color, and will promptly retaliate for all cases violating the-cartel or the laws and usages of war.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. H. LUDLOW,
Lieutenant-Colonel and Agent for Exchange of Prisoners.
[OR Series II Vol VI, pp. 17-18]
--------------------------
HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT TRANS-MISSISSIPPI, Shreveport, La., June 13, 1863.

Maj. Gen. R. TAYLOR, Commanding District of Louisiana:
GENERAL: I have been unofficially informed that some of your troops have captured negroes in arms. I hope this may not be so, and that your subordinates who may have been in command of capturing parties may have recognized the propriety of giving no quarter to armed negroes and their officers. In this way we may be relieved from a disagreeable dilemma. If they are taken, however, you will turn them over to the State authorities to be tried for crimes against the State, and you will afford such facilities in obtaining witnesses as the interests of the public service will permit. I am told that negroes found in a state of insurrection may be tried by a court of the parish in which the crime is committed, composed of two justices of the peace and a certain number of slave-holders. Governor Moore has called on me and stated that if the report is true that any armed negroes have been captured he will send the attorney-general to conduct the prosecution as soon as you notify him of the capture.
I have the honor to be, general, your obedient servant,
E. KIRBY SMITH,
Lieutenant-General, Commanding.
[OR Series II Vol VI, pp. 21-22]
------------------------------------
HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT TRANS-MISSISSIPPI, Shreveport, La., June 13, 1863.

Maj. Gen. R. TAYLOR, Commanding District of Louisiana:
GENERAL: In answer to the communication of Brigadier-General Hébert, of the 6th instant, asking what disposition should be made of negro slaves taken in arms, I am directed by Lieutenant-General Smith to say no quarter should be shown them. If taken prisoners, however, they should be turned over to the executive authorities of the States in which they may be captured, in obedience to the proclamation of the President of the Confederate States, sections 3 and 4, published to the Army in General Orders, No. 111, Adjutant and Inspector General's Office, series of 1862. Should negroes thus taken be executed by the military authorities capturing them it would certainly provoke retaliation. By turning them over to the civil authorities to be tried by the laws of the State no exception can be taken.
I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
S.S. ANDERSON,
Assistant Adjutant-General.
[OR Series II Vol VI, p. 22]
-----------------------
HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF VIRGINIA,Fort Monroe, June 22, 1863.

Hon. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War:
SIR: I have the honor to inclose copies of correspondence between Mr. Ould and myself and which I hope will meet your approval.
I have reason to believe that Mr. Ould avoided compliance with my demand for copy of an act of the rebel Congress for other reasons than the one stated by him.
The retention of Colonel Streight's officers under this act, the mustering into the U.S. service of Negroes and officers in command of them, and the pledge thereby implied of protection seemed to make it necessary and desirable that the issue should be promptly met.
I notice strong indications that this subject of so-called retaliation is getting unpopular among the Confederates.
I desire to effect exchanges of officers in accordance with the cartel and general principles, and not by special or individual arrangements, and I do not think that the public service will be benefited by making the latter.
I have the honor also to inclose a copy of a communication from Mr. Ould on the subject of parties going to the South and to which I have made no response.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. H. LUDLOW,
Lieutenant-Colonel and Agent for Exchange of Prisoners.
[OR Series II Vol VI, pp. 32-33]

 

[cash]

[begin quote]
HDQRS. CAVALRY, HOLCOMBE LEGION, March 6, 1864.
Brigadier-General HUNTON :
GENERAL: I send up four negro soldiers captured by Lieutenant Hume on the advance of the enemy from Williamsburg. In a conversation with General Elzey's assistant adjutant-general some months since in the presence of General E., I think, it was suggested and sanctioned by General E. that the best disposition of such soldiers was to sell them and give the proceeds to the command capturing them. If such a proceeding is admissible you will allow the guard with the prisoners to proceed with them to Richmond, as they are instructed what to do with them, or you can let the guard go with them to General E. in case you do not feel authorized to act in the matter. I have directed Lieutenant Hume not to report any more such captures to me. I wrote you some days since that I had two men sentenced to hard labor on the public works, and asking you if you had any use for them at Chaffin's farm, or where I should send them. Please answer me on this subject.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
W. PINKNEY SHINGLER,
Colonel, &c.
[end quote] [OR Series 2, Vol 6, pp. 1022-1023]

 

[wausaubob]

Wirz' conduct was a violation of the rules or war because basic sanitation necessary for the maintenance of life was denied to the prisoners of Andersonville. Although the exact relation between poor sanitation and illness was not known at the time, Wirz knew that the conditions he tolerated would lead to widespread death. A person can be held responsible for the logically predictable consequences of their decisions.

 

[wausaubob]

At the same time, singling out Wirz for his neglect of the United States prisoners, deflected blame from the Confederate civilian and military leadership for inflicting 5 1/4 additional months of Civil War on their own people, as well as the United States, with no reasonable chance of success.
Although the death rate of United States prisoners at Andersonville was high, the death rate at the battle of Franklin was high also. Death rates probably were in the 3-4% range in a matter of hours. For what purpose?

 

[wausaubob]

@cash has been helpful here, but I wonder if he can clarify whether other POW commandants in the Confederacy faced with the same dilemma as Wirz made the opposite choice and began to release their prisoners or simply loosened security to a degree that widespread escapes followed?

 

[Schwallanscher]

At the same time, singling out Wirz for his neglect of the United States prisoners, deflected blame from the Confederate civilian and military leadership for inflicting 5 1/4 additional months of Civil War on their own people, as well as the United States, with no reasonable chance of success.
Although the death rate of United States prisoners at Andersonville was high, the death rate at the battle of Franklin was high also. Death rates probably were in the 3-4% range in a matter of hours. For what purpose?

i don't see any connection whatsoever between the two

 

[wausaubob]

As far as the situation in United States prisoner of war camps, the neglect is clear. The wide variation in death rates at the various camps shows that there were many variables involved. The pre surrender health of the Confederates probably varied from region to region and even as time went on. It does not appear at first blush that anyone bothered to check on what was working and what was not working, though Sec'y Stanton may have had information not cited so far.

 

[wausaubob]

It is my contention that the real war crime was the continuation of the war past November 1864. However this was not actionable under any provision of the Lieber code, and would have had to have been tried as a part of a treason trial. That was politically untouchable. Therefore people like Wirz were tried instead.

 

[cash]

It is my contention that the real war crime was the continuation of the war past November 1864.

The only "crime" there was not being able to see into the future.

 

[unionblue]

Unlike Hoseman, you never even claimed oral history for your assertion. Just pure assumption.
Edited.

Just a second there, friend Viper.

You stated:

"Again, no diary or letters stating such? Your ancestor didn't leave a written record to his motivation for fighting?...

Having a slave schedule doesn't determine ones personal motivation to join the military. Still sounds like an assumption on your part, based on circumstantial evidence, not hard evidence." -- Viper21, post# 488, June 10, 2018, PragerU thread.

I disagree with your assertion I based my belief on "just pure assumption, as I had documentation on my GGGrandfather's ownership of slaves and his voluntary enlistment in the Confederate army.

Now, am I to understand that oral history, passed down through the generations, is now considered 'hard evidence' of service or experiences experienced during the Civil War?

I thought you and @contestedground had agreed with his post on the very same thread that stated in reply to your above comment:

"Good enough. Then let's establish that without additional evidence we can't speculate about the motives of one's ancestor, which puts to rest forever the claim that "My greatgranddaddy fought for ther CSA, and he didn't own no slaves, so it wasn't about slavery." --contestedground, post# 489, June 10, 2018, PragerU thread.


Confused,
Unionblue

 

[cash]

Just a second there, friend Viper.

You stated:

"Again, no diary or letters stating such? Your ancestor didn't leave a written record to his motivation for fighting?...

Having a slave schedule doesn't determine ones personal motivation to join the military. Still sounds like an assumption on your part, based on circumstantial evidence, not hard evidence." -- Viper21, post# 488, June 10, 2018, PragerU thread.

I disagree with your assertion I based my belief on "just pure assumption, as I had documentation on my GGGrandfather's ownership of slaves and his voluntary enlistment in the Confederate army.

Now, am I to understand that oral history, passed down through the generations, is now considered 'hard evidence' of service or experiences experienced during the Civil War?

I thought you and @contestedground had agreed with his post on the very same thread that stated in reply to your above comment:

"Good enough. Then let's establish that without additional evidence we can't speculate about the motives of one's ancestor, which puts to rest forever the claim that "My greatgranddaddy fought for ther CSA, and he didn't own no slaves, so it wasn't about slavery." --contestedground, post# 489, June 10, 2018, PragerU thread.


Confused,
Unionblue

UB, you just don't understand. Anything that says the United States is bad is considered hard evidence. Anything that even suggests the confederacy was not a multicultural paradise is pure assumption.

 

[unionblue]

I had an ancestor in the same unit. Mine was in Co B 45th VA Inf.

His family was from Wytheville, VA

That is remarkable. My GGGrandfather walked home too. I would bet that they traveled in groups. Perhaps they made the trip together?

You've got it all wrong Hoseman. YOUR ancestor, just like mine, & all the other Confederates who were pow's were treated with the utmost respect, & the most humane conditions possible. All these stories of inhumane treatment are mere slandering of the Union, in an attempt to defer blame for scapegoats like Wirz.

Got a diary or letter that supports your story? I hear it was not near as nice as you opine.

The Union was above reproach when it came to the treatment of Confederate POW's. They couldn't possibly have tried to conceal the numbers of dead, or the inhumane conditions. Honest Abe would've disapproved of such...

Rather thin on evidence, but heavy on sarcasm and opinion.

By the way, my GGGrandfather was with the 19th Virginia Infantry Regiment and was captured at the Angle at Gettysburg, 1863, and was sent to Fort Warren, where he remained a prisoner until he took the Oath of Allegence and walked back home to Nelson County, VA.

Unionblue

 

[19thGeorgia]

The death rates for the major Northern prison camps are:
Alton 11.8%
Camp Chase 8.7%
Camp Douglas 12.4%
Camp Morton 10%
Fort Delaware 7.6%
Johnson's Island 2.7%
Point Lookout 5.6%
Rock Island 15.8%
Elmira 24.3%

Now I see the problem with this. He's using the OR. That's fine except the record in the OR begins in July 1862.
Camp Douglas and other Union prisons had already been in operation several months prior to that date.

Elmira: Death Camp of the North-

 

[cash]

Now I see the problem with this. He's using the OR. That's fine except the record in the OR begins in July 1862.
Camp Douglas and other Union prisons had already been in operation several months prior to that date.

Elmira: Death Camp of the North:
View attachment 192359

Your favorite, Levy, says the first confederate troops arrived on February 20, 1862 and were housed with United States troops there. Most United States troops left three days later. He also says it was pretty easy for the confederates to escape in these early days.

Are you claiming that around 2,000 confederates died between February 20 and July of 1862?

 

[Schwallanscher]

Your favorite, Levy, says the first confederate troops arrived on February 20, 1862 and were housed with United States troops there. Most United States troops left three days later. He also says it was pretty easy for the confederates to escape in these early days.

Are you claiming that around 2,000 confederates died between February 20 and July of 1862?

when they die in three shifts a day that's roughly half a dozen per shift - sounds doable

 

[wausaubob]

The only "crime" there was not being able to see into the future.

By November 1864 the uncertainties about the willingness of the United States to fight had been adequately resolved. The chance that a political upheaval would cause the United States to abandon the war was passed.
From the situation that existed in November 1864 the odds that the Confederates, whom you have frequently described as traitors, would win another battle were poor. In fact many ordinary Confederates concluded the war had been decided.
All that honor required had been done, except admission of defeat.
But all of that is beside the point. I believe that many Confederate commanders relaxed POW security to the extent that POWs were in open, unfenced fields by 1865, but admittedly I am not running a bibliography on the issue.

 

[cash]

By November 1864 the uncertainties about the willingness of the United States to fight had been adequately resolved. The chance that a political upheaval would cause the United States to abandon the war was passed.

Too bad they couldn't see into the future to see that.

From the situation that existed in November 1864 the odds that the Confederates, whom you have frequently described as traitors, would win another battle were poor. In fact many ordinary Confederates concluded the war had been decided.
All that honor required had been done, except admission of defeat.

Again, too bad they couldn't see into the future to see that.

But all of that is beside the point. I believe that many Confederate commanders relaxed POW security to the extent that POWs were in open, unfenced fields by 1865, but admittedly I am not running a bibliography on the issue.

So no basis for this belief. Did it come in a dream?