Officers shooting their soldiers if the retreat.

major bill

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
More than once during the Civil War officers threatened to shoot any soldier who fled from the battle. At times, soldiers were told to shoot any of their fellow soldiers who fled. Was this more of a threat than a real order? How common was it for an officer to kill their own soldiers if the fled from the battle or if they retreated?
 
Personally I would liken it to an expression for bolstering defiance in the face of an enemy. But I have read of instances where the broadside of a sword was used to persuade troops to stand and fight. In the heat of battle, an officer's command such as this is to exempt the regular soldier from any consequence, if it needs use. This is necessarily my opinion, and I can offer no foundation for proof.
Lubliner.
 
Well, Forrest would! At second Murfreesboro, when his troops began to falter and wouldn't rally, the color bearer began to run for the rear with the colors. Of course the men thought it was a retreat. Forrest yelled at the color bearer to stop but he wouldn't, so Forrest shot him dead and picked up the colors himself. Forrest's men thoroughly believed him when he said he would shoot them - he didn't make threats, just told them what was going to happen! Another battle - a soldier bolted right across Forrest's path, startling his horse. Forrest jumped down, grabbed a stick and whopped the tar out of the guy, then shoved him back toward the fight. "You might as well get killed up there as back here!" he yelled.
 
I can see where a battle would devolve into chaos if a color bearer bolted but admit to extreme sympathy for them! THE target. It'd have to get to you after awhile.

It's tough reading when this stuff happened but not as shocking as the executions for desertions. That always seemed insane- plenty of ways to make an example of a soldier without shooting them. Military discipline may be necessary, it's always seemed so extreme!
 
I can see where a battle would devolve into chaos if a color bearer bolted but admit to extreme sympathy for them! THE target. It'd have to get to you after awhile.

It's tough reading when this stuff happened but not as shocking as the executions for desertions. That always seemed insane- plenty of ways to make an example of a soldier without shooting them. Military discipline may be necessary, it's always seemed so extreme!
If a soldier fled from a battle and was put to trial, he avoided the battlefield no matter what verdict was pronounced upon him. If he ended up sitting in the stockade while others fought, it was detrimental to the morale of the rest. He misses the fight, spares his own self, and the rest suffer loss. So execution was established to benefit the soldiers that fought. To make them target and shoot the offender appears to me as the harshest punishment a soldier could bear.
Lubliner.
 
Although not an example of shooting one's own men, at least one Union report alludes to the possibility that bayonets were at least used to prod "men into the works and [hold] them there until they were enabled to contribute to the defense." Another report notes that "panic-striken" retreating black troops were wounding Union troops with their bayonets in an attempt to escape the crater. It doesn't take much of an imagination to figure out what one may do if faced with injury or death from his own retreating troops, especially troops made up of individuals not considered peers by many at the time.

"SIR: In comp1iance with your orders, I have the honor to report the action of my brigade in the battle before Petersburg, Va., July 30, 1864.
I left my position in the trenches near the Hare house at 10 p.m. July 29, and marched in rear of the division to a point in front of General Burnside’s headquarters, where the brigade halted and rested until ordered forward, at 3 a. m. July 30, to the high cleared ground in rear of the artillery of the Ninth Corps. At 7 a.m. I was ordered forward through the covered way leading to the right and the line in rear of the enemy’s fort, which had been blown up. In reaching this position I was obliged to march a greater part of the way in single file and found the road continually obstructed with stragglers and parties of men returning with the wounded, carried in blankets, and by from four to ten men to each wounded man. Having worked my way to the head of this passage, was ordered to form my brigade in column, by battalion, in rear of our advanced earthwork, and there await further orders. While executing this movement, and before the right battalion was in position, the charge then being made by our troops from the crater in our front was checked and the troops came rushing back to their late position, thence to the rear and over the works behind which I was forming. A greater
part of the line I had formed at the breast-works, as well as those occupying the line in advance, unaccountably gave way and broke through my troops to the rear. The retreating force became so great that I
placed at this time but two regiments, the One hundred and forty-second and One hundred and twelfth New York Volunteers, in the position first ordered. The remaining two regiments, the Third and One hundred and seventeenth New York Volunteers, were halted in the covered way,
with direction to stop the stragglers. The conduct of the officers and men of my command in attempting to stop the retreating mass and check the advancing enemy was most satisfactory. With fixed bayonets they forced officers and men into the works and held them there until
they were enabled to contribute to the defense....

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant
MARTIN N. CURTIS,
Colonel 142d New York Volunteers, Commanding Brigade.
O.R. Series I, Volume 40, Part I, pg.701


____________________________________________________________

CAPTAIN: I have the honor to submit the following report of the
part taken by the brigade under my command in the action of July 30
before Petersburg:
The brigade moved from the line of works at 11 p. m. July 29, and
marched through the line of works occupied by the Ninth Corps. At
2.30 the brigade was formed in column of regiments, deployed en masse
in an angle formed by the trenches. After the mine was sprung, in
obedience to orders, I moved the brigade to the line of works next the
works of the enemy, and very soon after again formed column of regi-
ments, deployed. I received an order to move forward to the line we had
taken from the enemy, gaining as much ground to the right as practi-
cable. On arriving at the works I put the brigade in line as well as I
could do it under the severe fire, holding one regiment in reserve.
After remaining at this place for some time I sent a staff officer for
instructions, and received orders to gain as much ground to the right
as I could, and to assault the battery on my right when the Ninth
Corps advanced. I directed the regiment held in reserve to form on the
right. On this regiment moving they were met by a severe fire. At
this moment all the colored troops in my front broke and came back,
dashing through my men with arms at a trail and bayonets fixed. The
officers and men of my command tried to resist the dash of those re-
treating but to no avail. Quite a number of my men were wounded by
the bayonets of the retreating troops, and the brigade was disorganized
by the large number of fugitives passing through it. After vainly at-
tempting to reform the brigade under a severe enfilading fire from both
the right and left, the enemy being near us in front also, I fell back
from this line to the one I had previously occupied, and after holding
this line some three hours was relieved by other troops and marched
to the rear. Had my command not been run over and confused by the
mob of panic-stricken negroes I could have held the position I occupied
against any force then visible, though I should have met with a severe
loss in doing so, owing to the sharp fire, almost enfilading my line from
both right and left.
I have the honor to be, captain, most respectfully, your obedient
servant,
LOUIS BELL,
Colonel, Commanding Brigade.
Ibid, pp.704-705
_______________________________________________________________________
 
I can sure see how bayonets would be more effective than a gun - there's something about a slice that's somehow worse than a hole! The best psychological general of the war - Forrest - used his saber in this way. He could pull his guns with good effect, but there was something particularly terrifying about that gleaming saber flashing about that said death is not just on the way, but he's going to take his time about it!
 
Most companies were raised in the same areas. The men knew each other and frequently their officers were significant men in those home communities. As an officer, you are not going to shoot your relative, neighbor, neighbor's son. Also, these men knew that the war was going to end someday, and the leaders in the war were going to be distinguished leaders and political leaders in their home communities. This sounds a little calculating but: you are not going to shoot potential voters, or the brothers and sons of potential voters. I think drawing your pistol and proclaiming that you would "shoot the next man who turns" is bluster rather than fact, and honored more in the breach than the observance. In terms of prosecuting actual desertion, most Civil War commanders were surprisingly lenient. They understood that sometimes a man had more than he could stand. Many times, a man who broke on the line wandered back after a little while, and might be found assisting the ambulance staff. It was a way of convincing yourself that you weren't a coward; you were as brave as the next man but needed a break. The executions for desertion are shocking to read, and certainly did occur, but there is no way that every man who deserted was prosecuted, let alone convicted and punished. Commanders like Bragg who had a heavy hand when it came to executions were the exception not the norm. They understood they were civilians who were temporarily under arms and in uniform, not career soldiers.
 
That's a good point, 7th Wisconsin. At the beginning whole families - uncles, cousins, brothers, grampas - signed up together and the officers recruited friends and families. You could rely on kith and kin and weren't likely to have to shoot them! But it seems to me that most of the executions for desertions and threats about cowardice came when the troops were conscripts, deserters, skulkers and not exactly the prime soldier in the first place. Toward the end of the war, many generals were dealing with men they'd literally had to beat the bush for!
 
Didn't Meade issue an order just prior to Gettysburg stating something to the effect that men failing in their duty at this hour could be shot? I have been trying to find it but had no luck so far.

John
 
The rear line in a typical infantry battle array usually contained a line of "file closers" of sergeants or lieutenants whose job it was to preserve the battle line's integrity and to act as a guard against stragglers or deserters. I would think their presence acted as a greater deterrent to those who would be thinking of leaving the front ranks or if anybody did falter, the raised sword or revolver would be an additional threat to rejoin the line.
 
Meade 's order is in a circular quoted in Coddington, page 235 and his source is OR XXVll part 3, P. 415. In the circular Meade authorized all commanding officers to " order the instant death of any soldier who fails in his duty at this hour. "

Of course it's a threat, but there seems no doubt here at least, that the officer has the authority of the army commander to carry it out.

John
 
I once tested this theory at a reenactment of the Battle of Perryville many years ago. My friends and I of the 49th OVI decided to break and run from battle to give our newly elected captain a hard time. When the Rebs began pressing hard, I yelled, "Betrayed! Betrayed!" and broke and ran for the rear. Three or four of us tried to run like crazy for the safety of the rear, when a mounted officer rode up on his chestnut brown steed and pointed a revolver at one of my running comrades. "Back in line, you coward! Back in line or I'll shot you down like a dog!" My friend believed it and returned to his place in line.

As for me, I threw down my musket, tore off my leathers and haversack, and took to my heels like a rabbit. The spectators were amazed and called to one another, "Look! Look! He's running away!"

I thought it brought a bit more realism to the whole thing myself. :wink:

Unionblue
 
I once tested this theory at a reenactment of the Battle of Perryville many years ago. My friends and I of the 49th OVI decided to break and run from battle to give our newly elected captain a hard time. When the Rebs began pressing hard, I yelled, "Betrayed! Betrayed!" and broke and ran for the rear. Three or four of us tried to run like crazy for the safety of the rear, when a mounted officer rode up on his chestnut brown steed and pointed a revolver at one of my running comrades. "Back in line, you coward! Back in line or I'll shot you down like a dog!" My friend believed it and returned to his place in line.

As for me, I threw down my musket, tore off my leathers and haversack, and took to my heels like a rabbit. The spectators were amazed and called to one another, "Look! Look! He's running away!"

I thought it brought a bit more realism to the whole thing myself. :wink:

Unionblue

That's definitely a good touch! The descriptions of some of those fights - I can't blame some people for losing their grit!
 
A very good recreation of what went on in close order battle lines can be found in that much maligned movie, "Gods and Generals", in my humble opinion.

Standing in a line of battle and exchanging fire with an enthusiastic enemy, likewise engaged, took some kinda guts! I would imagine great discipline would be required to accomplish this.

John
 
Back
Top