Pickett Justice or Atrocity: Gen. George Pickett and the Kinston, NC Hangings.

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Does the NC Archives claim that the board of inquiry was mickey mouse?
No, they are too serious, they do explain how the creation of the 66th N.C Infantry creation and Governor Vance initial objection. The Governor's objection was to send more troops out of state would leave the state vulnerable not that there something illegal about combination in state battalions into a state regiment. Actually, the 66th spent most of its existence in southeastern North Carolina. The captured deserters were only found out when they were seen by officers and men of their former regiment. The Governor had no objection when the 68th Regiment, North Carolina State Troops (7th NC Cavalry) was created in January 1865.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I imagine they had a lot of things to worry about during that period, rather than finding ten or so deserters from state service.

If you think this is relevant to the discussion, you should come up with evidence that the state was aware of their desertion and chose not to charge them.
Why? I have no issue with accepted version that the Confederate deserters were convicted and executed by a Confederate military tribunal, the preponderance of the actual accounts and evidence I've seen supports it.

As I said three governmental entities all concluded the same. If you are alleging some conspiracy or alternate history, the burdon is on you to prove some "alternate history" which you haven't done at all.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
No, they are too serious, they do explain how the creation of the 66th N.C Infantry creation and Governor Vance initial objection. The Governor's objection was to send more troops out of state would leave the state vulnerable not that there something illegal about combination in state battalions into a state regiment. Actually, the 66th spent most of its existence in southeastern North Carolina. The captured deserters were only found out when they were seen by officers and men of their former regiment. The Governor had no objection when the 68th Regiment, North Carolina State Troops (7th NC Cavalry) was created in January 1865.
Yes, their former state unit.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Why? I have no issue with accepted version that the Confederate deserters were convicted and executed by a Confederate military tribunal, the preponderance of the actual accounts and evidence I've seen supports it.

As I said three governmental entities all concluded the same. If you are alleging some conspiracy or alternate history, the burdon is on you to prove some "alternate history" which you haven't done at all.
I have presented evidence and links. And ErnieMac presented a link as well.

Your description of your opinion being the "accepted version" is obviously wrong, as the event is still debated today.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
What about their state unit?

So can you refer me to a statute or law that made it illegal then but not now?
Now I'm just reposting the same evidence I posted earlier in the thread:

State of North Carolina, Executive Department,​
Raleigh, N. C, November 23, 1865.​
Colonel : Your communication to the governor of yesterday's date, making inquiry relative to the organizations of State troops in this State during the late rebellion, is to hand, and I have the honor, in answer, to state that there were two classes of troops belonging to and retained by the State during the rebellion, to wit : " North Carolina State troops," about twenty-two hundred (2,200) in number, consisting of a battalion of artillery commanded by Major Alexander MeRoe, one regiment of infantry commanded by Colonel James W. Hinton, one battalion of infantry commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Whit-ford, and two or three detached companies in eastern North Carolina, kept regularly in service, paid, clothed, and subsisted by the State, (except when temporarily under the command of so-called confederate general officers,) and took no oath except allegiance to the State authorities. These were entirely under the command of the governor of the State and subject to no other authority except by his order, temporarily. He could not transfer them. The other class was the entire militia of the State consolidated into an organization called "a guard for home defence." These, by the act of the legislature, consisted of every white male person not enrolled in con- federate service, between eighteen and fifty yeai-s, except the executive, judicial, and legislative departments of the State, and were liable to be called into active service by the governor for a term not exceeding ninety (90) days, not to go beyond the limits of the State and not qualified by oath at all. They were not transferable to any other authority.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,​
EUGENE GRISSOM, Aide- de- Camp.​
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I have presented evidence and links. And ErnieMac presented a link as well.

Your description of your opinion being the "accepted version" is obviously wrong, as the event is still debated today.
No that Confederate deserters were tried and convicted is what I consider widely accepted as every account I have ever have read says so.

And that no jurisdiction ever found or charged anyone but the deserters guilty of a crime is indeed accepted and the actual record. I have no need or desire to advance fantasy over the actual facts and events.

It seems rather pointless as its rather mute. One isn't going to try dead people, cross-examine dead witnesses, or get a conviction on a fantasy charge from a long dead jury......So I indeed accept the period opinions, conclusions, and events as they are the actual history, and rather unchangeable.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
No that Confederate deserters were tried and convicted is what I consider widely accepted as every account I have ever have read says so.

And that no jurisdiction ever found or charged anyone but the deserters guilty of a crime is indeed accepted and the actual record. I have no need or desire to advance fantasy over the actual facts and events.
That's false. It's not widely accepted that the men were confederates. That's why it is still debated.

Your second assertion just avoids the subject. The topic is not whether or not someone was punished after the fact, but whether the execution was justice or an atrocity.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Now I'm just reposting the same evidence I posted earlier in the thread:

State of North Carolina, Executive Department,​
Raleigh, N. C, November 23, 1865.​
Colonel : Your communication to the governor of yesterday's date, making inquiry relative to the organizations of State troops in this State during the late rebellion, is to hand, and I have the honor, in answer, to state that there were two classes of troops belonging to and retained by the State during the rebellion, to wit : " North Carolina State troops," about twenty-two hundred (2,200) in number, consisting of a battalion of artillery commanded by Major Alexander MeRoe, one regiment of infantry commanded by Colonel James W. Hinton, one battalion of infantry commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Whit-ford, and two or three detached companies in eastern North Carolina, kept regularly in service, paid, clothed, and subsisted by the State, (except when temporarily under the command of so-called confederate general officers,) and took no oath except allegiance to the State authorities. These were entirely under the command of the governor of the State and subject to no other authority except by his order, temporarily. He could not transfer them. The other class was the entire militia of the State consolidated into an organization called "a guard for home defence." These, by the act of the legislature, consisted of every white male person not enrolled in con- federate service, between eighteen and fifty yeai-s, except the executive, judicial, and legislative departments of the State, and were liable to be called into active service by the governor for a term not exceeding ninety (90) days, not to go beyond the limits of the State and not qualified by oath at all. They were not transferable to any other authority.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,​
EUGENE GRISSOM, Aide- de- Camp.​
That was pretty much Governor Vance's attitude until late 1863 and certainly by 1864 when he ran for reelection on the Confederate Party ticket. Vance had been elected governor in 1862 as the Conservative Party candidate. The Conservative Party was often critical of President Davis and the government policies while the Confederate party was more supportive. There came a time when the governor came to realise that obstinacy his state's security and national survival.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
That was pretty much Governor Vance's attitude until late 1863 and certainly by 1864 when he ran for reelection on the Confederate Party ticket. Vance had been elected governor in 1862 as the Conservative Party candidate. The Conservative Party was critical of President Davis and the government policies while the Confederate party was more supportive. There came a time when the governor came to realise that obstinacy his state's security and national survival.
So you're claiming that the state policy changed over time. That supports the evidence that these men considered the transfer a violation of the terms of their enlistment. So they refused to muster into confederate service.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
W
That does not seem to be the case, as some of the period opinions considered this event a crime. You ignore those.
Which jurisdiction considered it a crime and pursued charges?

US?.....no
CS?.....no
NC?......no

No I'm am not the one who chooses to ignore the consensus opinion at all, and that none of the three concluded charges warranted. That is indeed the actual record.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Again it doesn't seem to me from what I've seen and read.

And the 2nd point avoids nothing as it notes history is the actual events, outcomes, and opinions of the time...ones modern conspiracy theory is not actual history
"Modern?" Not hardly. It was first investigated in 1864.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
So you're claiming that the state policy changed over time. That supports the evidence that these men considered the transfer a violation of the terms of their enlistment. So they refused to muster into confederate service.
Why not, some of y'all claim Lincoln's racial policies over time. A policy is not set in stone it can change over time especially during a time of crisis.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
W
Which jurisdiction considered it a crime and pursued charges?

US?.....no
CS?.....no
NC?......no

No I'm am not the one who chooses to ignore the consensus opinion at all, and that none of the three concluded charges warranted. That is indeed the actual record.
So this angle of yours, that lack of charges and prosecution proves that there was no atrocity.

Would you say that every person who committed an atrocity against anyone, be it against Native Americans, or Black Americans, or whoever, has always been charged and prosecuted? If not, then that angle is meaningless in determining whether this was an atrocity.
 
Top