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

Your assuming that a rebel movement is a legitimate enemy. The Confederacy is not a recognized nation it is merely a rebel group.
Did Leiber specifically state the Confederacy is a legitimate enemy which is allowed to conscript US citizens as it feels fit and execute them if they in turn join the US Army? Also Leiber is a legal scholarly but he is not a judge. Only judges can make case law.
Leftyhunter
No I am assuming general orders 100 was written to specifically address the war with the Confederacy..Because it was and was requested by Halleck for that reason

I assume the United States recognized the Confederacy as a belligerent, because once again it did with the blockade and POW exchanges

You on the other hand continue to distract and provide nothing that remotely supports your absurdity.

You can ask did Leiber say this or that when you know he didnt.....what we do know what Leiber said was the code he wrote, which at a time our only enemy, and the one he was asked to address with the code, had has much right to execute its deserters as the US does. And it stated it pretty clearly.

BTW still pretty glaring your lack of providing any law at all.................One of the problems of your position and then demanding case law, is case law would require actual prosecutions and convictions......So while you say the the Confederacy was illegal, oddly enough no one was prosecuted......neither was Pickett for executing deserters.... You need to prosecute some cases to establish case law.
 
Last edited:
The Kinston Hangings are covered in a chapter of my book, The Fight for the Old North State (Univ. Press of Kansas, 2019). In addition to Patterson’s book (which I found helpful), it is also worth checking out work on the topic by Lesley Gordon and Donald Collins.

As Waterloo50 noted, the second board in 1866 (report is here) focused on the service status of the prisoners before they enlisted with the federals. Legal questions aside, February 1864 was a tough time for Pickett. At Kinston, he was coming off a disappointing failure in front of New Bern only days before. In conducting operations in North Carolina in early 1864, Confederate officials (particularly Lee) had two goals in mind. First, they were seeking to gain supplies for Lee’s army in Virginia. Second, they hoped successful operations would quell growing unhappiness among many North Carolinians, an unhappiness taking form in a growing peace movement. Pickett’s decision to execute these men (poor locals who many viewed as victims of the conflict) may not have had the effect Confederate officials desired. In any case, the incident would follow Pickett until President Johnson's universal amnesty announcement in late 1868.

OldNorthState-LowRes.jpg
 
No I am assuming general orders 100 was written to specifically address the war with the Confederacy..Because it was and was requested by Halleck for that reason

I assume the United States recognized the Confederacy as a belligerent, because once again it did with the blockade and POW exchanges

You on the other hand continue to distract and provide nothing that remotely supports your absurdity.

You can ask did Leiber say this or that when you know he didnt.....what we do know what Leiber said was the code he wrote, which at a time our only enemy, and the one he was asked to address with the code, had has much right to execute its deserters as the US does. And it stated it pretty clearly.

BTW still pretty glaring your lack of providing any law at all.................One of the problems of your position and then demanding case law, is case law would require actual prosecutions and convictions......So while you say the the Confederacy was illegal, oddly enough no one was prosecuted......neither was Pickett for executing deserters.... You need to prosecute some cases to establish case law.
By your logic any group that declares itself in rebellion against the United States has the absolute right to conscript US citizens and if said conscripted US citizens join the US military and are recaptured by the revealed then said Rebels have the absolute right free from Judi punishment if executing said US citizens.
There is no case law because the US Government chose to give pardons to all Confederate soldiers or supporters except Col Wietz of Andersonville and Champ Ferguson.
Leftyhunter
 
By your logic any group that declares itself in rebellion against the United States has the absolute right to conscript US citizens and if said conscripted US citizens join the US military and are recaptured by the revealed then said Rebels have the absolute right free from Judi punishment if executing said US citizens.
There is no case law because the US Government chose to give pardons to all Confederate soldiers or supporters except Col Wietz of Andersonville and Champ Ferguson.
Leftyhunter
Again it's rather clear your sole attempt is to continuely to distract, this has nothing to do with any claim that executing deserters was illegal........yet another rabbit hole to no where..........when you know actual US code at the time clearly said it wasnt.........try to provide some substance, rather then endless distraction.

Still no example of any law from you suggesting execution of deserters was illegal, or anything that refutes article 48............I will note yet again you provide nothing, so will assume you have nothing or something would have been presented

I won't respond further unless you provide something that actually address actual laws concerning deserters at the time, because this look here, or over there, or anywhere but the actual subject of desertion for the Union, the CSA, or in the Union's case where they clearly say our enemies.......of whom there was only one, have every right to execute it's deserters as well......

Because it's rather pointless when one provides actual laws, and you provide nothing at all.
 
Last edited:
this thread is going all over the place. Get it back to the author's original purpose or offending members will disappear with warning points.

Posted as moderator
 
Us that your opinion or is it based on case law?
Leftyhunter

The United States Supreme Court recognized the protections that belligerent status bestowed on the common rebel soldier:

"A war may exist where one of the belligerents claims sovereign rights as against the other. Insurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government. A civil war is never solemnly declared; it becomes such by its accidents—the number, power, and organization of the persons who originate and carry it on. When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a certain portion of territory, have declared their independence, have cast off their allegiance, have organized armies, have commenced hostilities against their former sovereign, the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest a war. They claim to be in arms to establish their liberty and independence, in order to become a sovereign State, while the sovereign party treats them as insurgents and rebels who owe allegiance, and who should be punished with death for their treason. The laws of war, as established among nations, have their foundation in reason, and all tend to mitigate the cruelties and misery produced by the scourge of war. Hence the parties to a civil war usually concede to each other belligerent rights. They exchange prisoners, and adopt the other courtesies and rules common to public or national wars. 'A civil war,' says Vattel, breaks the bands of society and government, or at least suspends their force and effect; it produces in the nation two independent parties, who consider each other as enemies and acknowledge no common judge. Those two parties, therefore, must necessarily be considered as constituting, at least for a time, two separate bodies, two distinct societies. Having no common superior to judge between them, they stand in precisely the same predicament as two nations who engage in a contest and have recourse to arms. This being the case, it is very evident that the common laws of war–those maxims of humanity, moderation, and honor—ought to be observed by both parties in every civil war. Should the sovereign conceive he has a right to hang up his prisoners as rebels, the opposite party will make reprisals, &c., &c.; the war will become cruel, horrible, and every day more destructive to the nation. As a civil war is never publicly proclaimed, eo nomine, against insurgents, its actual existence is a fact in our domestic history which the Court is bound to notice and to know."
Excerpt from Justice Grier's written majority opinion in the Prize Cases
 
By this line of reckoning, George Washington's army illegally killed British subjects on the field of battle during the first war for independence, Lee's army in the second war for independence and any people who fought wars for self-determination before or since.
Only if they lost.
Winning changes everything, including "legality".
 
Again it's rather clear your sole attempt is to continuely to distract, this has nothing to do with any claim that executing deserters was illegal........yet another rabbit hole to no where..........when you know actual US code at the time clearly said it wasnt.........try to provide some substance, rather then endless distraction.

Still no example of any law from you suggesting execution of deserters was illegal, or anything that refutes article 48............I will note yet again you provide nothing, so will assume you have nothing or something would have been presented

I won't respond further unless you provide something that actually address actual laws concerning deserters at the time, because this look here, or over there, or anywhere but the actual subject of desertion for the Union, the CSA, or in the Union's case where they clearly say our enemies.......of whom there was only one, have every right to execute it's deserters as well......

Because it's rather pointless when one provides actual laws, and you provide nothing at all.
At no time did you cite case law.All I asked for was a citation. @Copperhead-mi actually provided a citation.
Leftyhunter
 
Only if they lost.
Winning changes everything, including "legality".
Apparently not in this case, the Union won, and didn't prosecute Pickett, which isn't all that surprising considering the orders they issued during the war that expressly acknowledged our enemies right to prosecute their deserters.

This is a case where the US position had remained consistent.
At no time did you cite case law.All I asked for was a citation. @Copperhead-mi actually provided a citation.
Leftyhunter
As i have repeatedly asked you to cite law, US or confederate, that made executing deserters illegal, you have repeatedly provided none

If you wish me to extend the courtesy, you need to start to doing the same,because in this thread I provided numerous examples of US law where it was legal, and you have still provided zilch for illegal.........so I see little reason to extend any courtesy that you dont extend
 
Last edited:
Apparently not in this case, the Union won, and didn't prosecute Pickett, which isn't all that surprising considering the orders they issued during the war that expressly acknowledged our enemies right to prosecute their deserters. This is a case where the US position had remained consistent.
I was talking about what Pickett had a right to expect, what might have been his fate, and legally could have been. That in his case, as with other leaders of the insurrection, the government chose not to prosecute does not mean that they could not have. The government showed an admirable forbearance in its decision not to prosecute Pickett -- as Pickett failed to show in his decision to execute his prisoners. He was lucky.

The Lieber Code does not say the Confederates have the right to execute uniformed U. S. soldiers, whether they are former Confederates or not.
 
I was talking about what Pickett had a right to expect, what might have been his fate, and legally could have been. That in his case, as with other leaders of the insurrection, the government chose not to prosecute does not mean that they could not have. The government showed an admirable forbearance in its decision not to prosecute Pickett -- as Pickett failed to show in his decision to execute his prisoners. He was lucky.

The Lieber Code does not say the Confederates have the right to execute uniformed U. S. soldiers, whether they are former Confederates or not.
Actually it does, and pretty clearly.

The Leiber code was requested because of the unusual aspects of a civil war by Halleck, so there was only one enemy it was being written to address. Its not really remarkable forbearance to follow the laws that they themselves had wrote.........it would be simply justice.

We have actual military instructions issued by the President as General orders specifying it is not a breach against the law and usages of war, requiring redress or retaliation." And we know as fact the US didn't prosecute it as a breach against the law or usages of war.

Your "right to expect", "might have been", or "legally could have been" is speculation and opinion, certainly not supported by the Leiber code which made a point to say specifically it didn't extend any protection to enemy deserters who seeked shelter in the US Army, or the actual events which was no prosecution......which is what happens when something wasn't against the law in the first place
 
Last edited:
Actually, I believe what Pickett conducted was allowed, according to Lincoln's "Codes of war"


48. Deserters from the American army, having entered the service of the enemy, suffer death if they fall again into the hands of the United States, whether by capture, or being delivered up to the American army; and if a deserter from the enemy, having taken service in the army of the United States, is captured by the enemy, and punished by them with death or otherwise, it is not a breach against the law and usages of war, requiring redress or retaliation.

John Fabian Witt. Lincoln's Code: The Laws of War in American History (Kindle Locations 7539-7542). Free Press. Kindle Edition.

If those hung by Pickett were deserters from the Confederate Army, which IIRC they were.

Respectfully,
William
 
Pickett was a very lucky man. He survived the Charge and the US chose not to prosecute him for the hangings (legalities aside, any trial board of US officers would surely have convicted him). He also had a beautiful charming wife and was a celebrity for the rest of his life. Not bad for a treasonous rebel...
 
or he was worried about a govt. looking for revenge.
I can only assume that he firmly believed that he’d be severely punished and made an example of, of course it’s easy to understand why retribution/revenge would be sought for Kinston but any court handing down a sentence of death would have been widely viewed as nothing more than vengeance which would ultimately do more harm than good. I think that Pickett was smart enough to know that he just had to bide his time and lay low for a while, he contacted the right people and pulled the right strings which eventually worked in his favour, had he stuck around to face his accusers then he may not have been so lucky, Grant called Pickett an ‘honourable gentleman’, I think ‘Wily’ would have been a better description.
 
The men hanged at Kinston, id wondered what the reasons for enlisting were, according to Donald E Collins in his article ‘War crimes or Justice’, ‘Demanding special attention, Peck wrote, was the use of "virtual impressment and fraudulent enlistment," including the use of threats of violence against men who did not want to enlist. "Mere boys, children, some of them weak, puny, scrofulous, have been enlisted, passed by the surgeon, and mustered in by the mustering officer. And again, old men, eaten by disease or utterly incapacitated by old age and general infirmity, have been enlisted, fed, and accepted into the service as able-bodied soldiers." 23 In their eagerness to bring North Carolinians into Union service, recruiters even searched local jails and traveled to prisoner-of-war camps in Virginia and Maryland for Confederate prisoners willing to take the oath of allegiance. 24’.
I wonder how much truth there is in the allegation that the condemned men had been forced into fighting for the Union.
 
As an end result to have been different, as in the idea of local citizens petitioning the Governor for some clear judgment against Pickett for hanging their own within a community, while he (the general) was exerting undue force of judgement and not belonging to that community; it could possibly have been brought to a State trial, after the war. Or not?
Thanks,
Lubliner.
 
As an end result to have been different, as in the idea of local citizens petitioning the Governor for some clear judgment against Pickett for hanging their own within a community, while he (the general) was exerting undue force of judgement and not belonging to that community; it could possibly have been brought to a State trial, after the war. Or not?
Thanks,
Lubliner.
I’ve been thinking about this for a while now, I’m not sure how the legal system worked back then but it’s clear to me that Pickett was guilty of exerting undue force of judgement especially given the fact that those accused of desertion were in fact Union soldiers whom had never previously sworn an oath of allegiance to the confederacy. I was reading an interesting article written by ‘Philip Gerard’, he claims that the Home Guard and Railroad Guard are state organizations and as such are not subject to the military law of the Confederacy, as far as the state of North Carolina is concerned, desertion is not a crime. If a man has not been duly sworn in to the ranks of a Confederate regiment, then he, too, is exempt from the rules of war that apply to soldiers who take the oath.

The fact that those hanged at Kinston we’re for the most part home guard and railroad guard should have excused them from the death penalty even though they’d been accused of desertion, the same goes for those who had served in line companies but had never been sworn in. So, here’s my thinking, Pickett was guilty of hanging men that were in fact legitimate Union soldiers, the fact that they had served in militia units was neither here nor there especially as none of those hanged had sworn any official oath of allegiance to the confederacy. If the people of those communities wanted to petition for Pickett to face trial, What reason could they give!
Was Pickett guilty of hanging Union soldiers who had committed no military crime or was he guilty of hanging citizens who had enlisted within the Union? My point being that those communities where the men originated from were focused on the fact that it was their men whom had been executed but those from the union point of view could argue that their previous service under the confederacy was irrelevant, the fact was that Pickett had hung Union soldiers for no good reason.
 
Last edited:
I’ve been thinking about this for a while now, I’m not sure how the legal system worked back then but it’s clear to me that Pickett was guilty of exerting undue force of judgement especially given the fact that those accused of desertion were in fact Union soldiers whom had never previously sworn an oath of allegiance to the confederacy. I was reading an interesting article written by ‘Philip Gerard’, he claims that the Home Guard and Railroad Guard are state organizations and as such are not subject to the military law of the Confederacy, as far as the state of North Carolina is concerned, desertion is not a crime. If a man has not been duly sworn in to the ranks of a Confederate regiment, then he, too, is exempt from the rules of war that apply to soldiers who take the oath.

The fact that those hanged at Kinston we’re for the most part home guard and railroad guard should have excused them from the death penalty even though they’d been accused of desertion, the same goes for those who had served in line companies but had never been sworn in. So, here’s my thinking, Pickett was guilty of hanging men that were in fact legitimate Union soldiers, the fact that they had served in militia units was neither here nor there especially as none of those hanged had sworn any official oath of allegiance to the confederacy. If the people of those communities wanted to petition for Pickett to face trial, What reason could they give!
Was Pickett guilty of hanging Union soldiers who had committed no military crime or was he guilty of hanging citizens who had enlisted within the Union? My point being that those communities where the men originated from were focused on the fact that it was their men whom had been executed but those from the union point of view could argue that their previous service under the confederacy was irrelevant, the fact was that Pickett had hung Union soldiers for no good reason.

The 66th North Carolina Infantry Regiment on October 3, 1863. It was created mostly by combining the 8th Battalion and the 13th Batallion. 28 men deserted and joined the 2nd NC Union after transfer to the 66th infantry; a regiment that saw action in North Carolina and Virginia.
 
Back
Top