Henry Wirz

[Viper21]

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

Lets be clear UB. You did leave a little out of your post here... I'll post the entire exchange for clarification.

I just cannot bring myself to have my Confederate ancestors called liars or being seen as too ignorant to understand what brought on the war.

Slavery.

Unionblue

To this post JonnyReb asked you a question...

Do you actually have a record of what your personal ancestor said? Just curious.

You didn't answer his question but replied with this....

Jacob Lee Hambleton, of Nelson County, Virginia, formally of the 19th Virginia Infantry of the ANV, owned seven slaves, ranging from 6 months to 60 years, male and female. His father owned 200 slaves who upon his death, willed them to Jacob and his other three sons. All four brothers served in the Confederate army. I have the records and documents stating such.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was about slavery for my Confederate ancestor. His owning them pretty much says it all for me.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

I wanted to clarify your answer to JonnyReb, which is why I asked the following....

Sooooo..... no diary or letter stating such ?

"pretty sure", & "pretty much"....... sounds like assumptions.

It begs the question. Could a person have been a slave owner, also against secession, & or war..? Seems many were.

Your reply after being asked directly to clarify your previous statement.....

If it makes you fell any better, I am "absolutely sure" my ancestor enlisted to keep his property, as it was his heritage, along with his three brothers. I have a list of the seven slaves he owned by age and gender.

Still didn't get a direct answer so, thought I'd try one more time for a direct answer, & clarification....

I don't feel one way or the other about it. Although, "absolutely sure" is pretty confident.

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.

I just asked for clarification, as I have been asked by you, & witnessed you ask of others for their assertions. You've poo poo'd many an assertion that didn't have such (even some that did). I thought it was only fair to ask of you, what you ask of others.

Your ancestor could've very well been motivated by exactly what you assert. I've just seen you declare assertions by others as "wishing upon a star", or making the statement that, "belief is not historical fact". Seems assumptions are ok for some, & not for others....

If you wanna connect dots, fine. I just think you should say your doing so, when you are so critical of others' assertions.

I hope we can still be friends

 

[unionblue]

Lets be clear UB. You did leave a little out of your post here... I'll post the entire exchange for clarification.

Appreciate you doing so.

To this post JonnyReb asked you a question...

Correct.

You didn't answer his question but replied with this....

I replied with the records and documentation I had and gave exactly what I did have with no purpose of evasion, just giving evidence and documentation that I felt supported my view.

I wanted to clarify your answer to JonnyReb, which is why I asked the following....

You wanted a direct quote from my ancestor so I took it to mean my evidence I had, his record of his seven slaves, his voluntary enlistment in the Confederate army, meant nothing without a direct statement in a diary or letter from him saying he wanted to protect his property and his way of life, could not be inferred from the evidence and documentation I had.

Your reply after being asked directly to clarify your previous statement.....

And I felt, based on my documentation, that I had based my opinion on evidence and that I was absolutely sure slavery had a lot to do with his choice to enlist in the CSA army.

Still didn't get a direct answer so, thought I'd try one more time for a direct answer, & clarification....

And I feel you did get a direct answer from me but you set a standard that my evidence was not satisfactory.

I just asked for clarification, as I have been asked by you, & witnessed you ask of others for their assertions. You've poo poo'd many an assertion that didn't have such (even some that did). I thought it was only fair to ask of you, what you ask of others.

It was fair and I thought I had brought enough evidence to support my view with you. I have yet to see responding documentation as I had presented in my replies by others, just their belief that their ancestors had not fought for slavery, etc. I have yet to see a bill of sale or slave schedule or research on the history of slave ownership my direct ancestors had from any other member on this forum, as mine did.

Your ancestor could've very well been motivated by exactly what you assert.

That is my assertion.

I've just seen you declare assertions by others as "wishing upon a star", or making the statement that, "belief is not historical fact". Seems assumptions are ok for some, & not for others....slavery

Those assumptions that offer nothing in the way of documentation or source documents and simply present a "belief" are going to get the same questions and concern when they present only a belief. In my case, I feel I presented the fact that my own ancestor had a vested interest in slavery and was willing to protect it by fighting for it, hence his record of enlisting in the Confederate army. I feel my assertion is quite a bit stronger with that evidence vice a simple statement of "I believe" with no other evidence or source other that that belief.

If you wanna connect dots, fine. I just think you should say your doing so, when you are so critical of others' assertions.

I believe I did say so in my previous replies. If it comes across to you otherwise, that's your assumption and not mine.

I hope we can still be friends

Honest disagreement is not threat to me nor should you wanting to know more be a disagreement to me. As long as we talk, discuss, compare, and remain honest with one another, I would be proud to count you as one of my most trusted friends here.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[Viper21]

You wanted a direct quote from my ancestor so I took it to mean my evidence I had, his record of his seven slaves, his voluntary enlistment in the Confederate army, meant nothing without a direct statement in a diary or letter from him saying he wanted to protect his property and his way of life, could not be inferred from the evidence and documentation I had.

Not really. I just wanted to know whether or not you had direct quotes or not. I took your original post the same way JonnyReb did. Meaning, I read it the same way, implying such.

And I feel you did get a direct answer from me but you set a standard that my evidence was not satisfactory.

Not my intent.

It was fair and I thought I had brought enough evidence to support my view with you. I have yet to see responding documentation as I had presented in my replies by others, just their belief that their ancestors had not fought for slavery, etc. I have yet to see a bill of sale or slave schedule or research on the history of slave ownership my direct ancestors had from any other member on this forum, as mine did.

I understand your point of view. If someone owned a slave, & wore grey, it was to protect slavery period. I'm of the opinion it's more complicated than that but, believe it or not, I do respect your opinion.

Those assumptions that offer nothing in the way of documentation or source documents and simply present a "belief" are going to get the same questions and concern when they present only a belief. In my case, I feel I presented the fact that my own ancestor had a vested interest in slavery and was willing to protect it by fighting for it, hence his record of enlisting in the Confederate army. I feel my assertion is quite a bit stronger with that evidence vice a simple statement of "I believe" with no other evidence or source other that that belief.

I can appreciate that. Connecting dots usually makes sense. Unfortunately, there is much without record, or source material to pull from. There's plenty of things we could never prove 100% regardless of what side of a coin is being debated. The real issue arises in allowing dots to be connected on one side of a coin but, not the other. It happens. Frequently from some posters.

Honest disagreement is not threat to me nor should you wanting to know more be a disagreement to me. As long as we talk, discuss, compare, and remain honest with one another, I would be proud to count you as one of my most trusted friends here.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

I agree 100% with this paragraph. As a side, I think the 1st sentence belongs in your "original quotes" thread.
Thanks for clarifying. Believe it or not, I appreciate civil discussion.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

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

The first prisoners, 3,200 Confederates, arrived at Camp Douglas on February 21, 1862 and over the next few weeks another 3,259 prisoners arrived. By most reports, the camp handled the men with no problems and there were 167 cases of sickness and 34 deaths between between the first day of arrival and mid-April when another 1,500 Confederate prisoners began arriving as a result of the battles of Pittsburg Landing and Island No. 10 when sickness more than doubled and deaths quadrupled.

"When Camp Douglas was first established," reported prisoner Thomas A. Head, 16th Tennessee Volunteer Regiment, 'the prisoners had kitchens supplied with stoves and cooking utensils, and were supplied with more provisions than they were able to consume. They were also allowed as much clothing as they pleased.' R. T. Bean, Company I, 8th Kentucky Cavalry, exclaimed that 'a good sutler's store was running in full blast and we could buy many luxuries that Uncle Sam failed to furnish.'23"
Portals to Hell - Military Prisons of the Civil War, Lonnie R. Speer, pg. 72

"The Union victories at Pittsburg Landing, Tennessee, and Island No. 10 the following April brought nearly 1,500 more POWs into Prison Square. By the late summer of 1862, the compound held nearly 9,000 captives, and conditions deteriorated. Reverend Henry Bellows of the U.S. Sanitary Commission found the barracks and grounds in general disorder during his inspection in mid-1862, with large amounts of standing water, foul sinks, and the soil around the barracks 'reeking with miasmatic accretions, of rotten bones and the emptying of camp kettles.'26"
ibid.

 

[19thGeorgia]

The first prisoners, 3,200 Confederates, arrived at Camp Douglas on February 21, 1862 and over the next few weeks another 3,259 prisoners arrived. By most reports, the camp handled the men with no problems and there were 167 cases of sickness and 34 deaths between between the first day of arrival and mid-April when another 1,500 Confederate prisoners began arriving as a result of the battles of Pittsburg Landing and Island No. 10 when sickness more than doubled and deaths quadrupled.

34 deaths in 54 days (Feb 21-Apr 15 = 54 days) - an average of only one death every few days.

167 cases of sickness.

Something ain't right somewhere.

I started checking the Chicago Tribune today. This was the first article found.
It shows 12 dead in a three day period and over 300 in the hospital at that time.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

34 deaths in 54 days (Feb 21-Apr 15 = 54 days) - an average of only one death every few days.

167 cases of sickness.

Something ain't right somewhere.

I started checking the Chicago Tribune today. This was the first article found.
It shows 12 dead in a three day period and over 300 in the hospital at that time.

View attachment 192419

View attachment 192420

This probably explains it:

"Prison officials then received notification that forts Henry and Donelson had been captured in Tennessee, which would add another 15,000 Confederate prisoners to the Union's rolls. Frantically, Colonel Hoffman looked around for anyplace with room to distribute the overwhelming number of captives.

"On February 20, 1862, the first steamboats arrived in St. Louis with many of those prisoners. Most of the new arrivals were in poor physical condition and 250 sick men were immediately placed into the hospital, filling that facility beyond capacity. During the following days more boats arrived and continued to arrive in a seemingly never-ending procession.19

"Hoffman ordered that contingents of five hundred to several thousand each be trained out to sites around Illinois and Indiana, after ordering a number of former training camps to be converted over for prison use immediately."
Portals to Hell - Military Prisons of the Civil War, Lonnie R. Speer, pg. 71