Opposition to the Halt of Prisoner Exchange

No, the Grant quote is from 1864. Subtract a year and that would be 1863.
So Grant was still giving the same reason in 1864.

"On August 18th, however, General Grant wrote to General Butler, who was still corresponding with Colonel Ould, saying: "It is hard on our men held in Southern prisons not to exchange them, but it is humanity to those left in the ranks to fight our battles. Every man we hold, when released on parole or otherwise, becomes an active soldier against us at once either directly or indirectly. If we commence a system of exchange which liberates all prisoners taken, we will have to fight on until the whole South is exterminated. If we hold those caught, they amount to no more than dead men. At this particular time to release all rebel prisoners in the North would insure Sherman's defeat and would compromise our safety here."
 
So Grant was still giving the same reason in 1864.

"On August 18th, however, General Grant wrote to General Butler, who was still corresponding with Colonel Ould, saying: "It is hard on our men held in Southern prisons not to exchange them, but it is humanity to those left in the ranks to fight our battles. Every man we hold, when released on parole or otherwise, becomes an active soldier against us at once either directly or indirectly. If we commence a system of exchange which liberates all prisoners taken, we will have to fight on until the whole South is exterminated. If we hold those caught, they amount to no more than dead men. At this particular time to release all rebel prisoners in the North would insure Sherman's defeat and would compromise our safety here."
Again, your quotes from Grant are from 1864, not from 1863.
 
No. There was nothing preemptive about it. It was a response to the announcement by the Confederate government before any large number of black soldiers had been captured that the Confederates would not treat them, or their officers, as prisoners of war.

If, in any conflict, one side unilaterally announced that a portion of the enemy's captured would be executed or enslaved and not included in a cartel, would the other power be inclined to wait until such had actually happened before it took action?

The US government must have been desperate. Does anyone seriously believe the US government would have subjected tens of thousands of their white soldiers to such an ordeal prolonged prison of war confinement based on something the Confederates might do in the future?
 
The US government must have been desperate. Does anyone seriously believe the US government would have subjected tens of thousands of their white soldiers to such an ordeal prolonged prison of war confinement based on something the Confederates might do in the future?
Whites may have been the only people of importance to the Confederacy, but you should not impose that assumption on the Union leaders. They were trying to recruit tens of thousands of black soldiers, so yes African American men were important to them. If the Lincoln administration took no action, Black recruitment would have been suppressed.

Your statement that the Lincoln administration was reactiong "to something the Confederates might do in the future?" is fatuous. The Confederates had already done something. They had announced that blacks would not be treated as prisoners of war and would not be exchanged.

The Confederate announcement of black exclusion from exchanges was not just something that the Confederates were contemplating, it was was something they had done. It was an act.
 
The US government must have been desperate. Does anyone seriously believe the US government would have subjected tens of thousands of their white soldiers to such an ordeal prolonged prison of war confinement based on something the Confederates might do in the future?
You might ask why the Confederates were willing to subject their soldiers to such a prolonged ordeal over the issue of re-enslaving blacks. Was it because the Confederacy's root was slavery and the lives of thousands of white Southerners imprisoned in the North paled in comparison to the principle that the cornerstone of the Confederate Republic was slavery?
 
Whites may have been the only people of importance to the Confederacy, but you should not impose that assumption on the Union leaders. They were trying to recruit tens of thousands of black soldiers, so yes African American men were important to them. If the Lincoln administration took no action, Black recruitment would have been suppressed.

Your statement that the Lincoln administration was reactiong "to something the Confederates might do in the future?" is fatuous. The Confederates had already done something. They had announced that blacks would not be treated as prisoners of war and would not be exchanged.

The Confederate announcement of black exclusion from exchanges was not just something that the Confederates were contemplating, it was was something they had done. It was an act.

I see, tens of thousands of POWs die began to die or confined in prolonged misery once the Confederate government made an announcement. You would have thought the Lincoln administration would have waited to see if the Confederate government actually carry through with the threat. If his government was trying to make some moral or political statement why didn't that government completely stop the exchange?
 
You might ask why the Confederates were willing to subject their soldiers to such a prolonged ordeal over the issue of re-enslaving blacks. Was it because the Confederacy's root was slavery and the lives of thousands of white Southerners imprisoned in the North paled in comparison to the principle that the cornerstone of the Confederate Republic was slavery?[/QUOTE]

The topic is prisoner exchange not thoughts about slavery.
 
I see, tens of thousands of POWs die began to die or confined in prolonged misery once the Confederate government made an announcement. You would have thought the Lincoln administration would have waited to see if the Confederate government actually carry through with the threat. If his government was trying to make some moral or political statement why didn't that government completely stop the exchange?
“Tens of thousands” did not begin to die upon suspension of the cartel. There were no orders to kill prisoners en masses on either side. Conditions for prisoners were still months away from the sort of deteriorization we see in 1864. There was still ample time for the Confederate government to change course. In the short term, the suspension of the cartel had little deliterious impact on prisoners. The Confederates refused to take any legal action to ameliorate their abuse of Black prisoners until a year and a half after the cartel’s suspension.
 
“Tens of thousands” did not begin to die upon suspension of the cartel. There were no orders to kill prisoners en masses on either side. Conditions for prisoners were still months away from the sort of deteriorization we see in 1864. There was still ample time for the Confederate government to change course. In the short term, the suspension of the cartel had little deliterious impact on prisoners. The Confederates refused to take any legal action to ameliorate their abuse of Black prisoners until a year and a half after the cartel’s suspension.
Right as long as the prisoner exchange stayed in effect.
 
The Confederacy's policy of not taking black prisoners or selling them as slaves was horrific. However, the Union was mainly using that as a pretext. The Confederacy had fewer soldiers, so the Union did not want to exchange prisoners and allow them to continue fighting.
Hmm, The Federals saw fewer Confederate soldiers as a threat.
 
If the Confederacy would have gotten more POWs than the Union would depend on when it occurred. I believe after Vicksburg the Confederacy would come out ahead, before Vicksburg the Union would come out ahead.

The holding of returned Union soldiers being at former POW camps in the North was becoming an issue. The Union had to guard the returned POWs while they awaited being matched by Confederates.
 
What did the Emancipation Proclamation have to do with prisoner of war exchange? I'm not aware that either side sent agents to the other side's POW camps to pick and choose who they wanted in exchange for an enemy POW.
Didn't know I was responding to you, it was Viper 21's posting I responded to.

Kevin Dally
 
Back
Top