Prisoners giving too much information

[bankerpapaw]

I have found it odd that captured prisoners (Yanks and Rebs) when captured would "spill their guts"
to their captors. Were they not trained or instructed to keep their mouths shut in order to keep the
enemy "in the dark"?

 

[Lazy Bayou]

Could be both sides had some interrogation "techniques" that would make water boarding look like a walk in the park.

 

[ExNavyPilot]

I've never read about "enhanced interrogation" techniques being used back then. More likely, the captured soldiers didn't understand the need to maintain operational security (OPSEC) and were happy to brag about their unit's involvement. Say a soldier is captured just before Chickamauga and is asked what unit he's with, and he responds "I'm 4th Alabama, Law's Brigade, Hood's Division, just arrived with Longstreet and we're gonna whip you Yanks good come tomorrow..." In his mind, he's not giving up important information, he's bragging that his unit--of which he's very proud--just came all the way from Virginia to northern Georgia and is ready to fight.

 

[Red Harvest]

I've never read about "enhanced interrogation" techniques being used back then. More likely, the captured soldiers didn't understand the need to maintain operational security (OPSEC) and were happy to brag about their unit's involvement. Say a soldier is captured just before Chickamauga and is asked what unit he's with, and he responds "I'm 4th Alabama, Law's Brigade, Hood's Division, just arrived with Longstreet and we're gonna whip you Yanks good come tomorrow..." In his mind, he's not giving up important information, he's bragging that his unit--of which he's very proud--just came all the way from Virginia to northern Georgia and is ready to fight.

Yes. Folks tended to not be very closed lipped when captured, unless there were guerrillas or the like involved A factor in many of these instances could also be that the captured soldiers were often enough disaffected, deserters, conscripts, etc. And I'm just speculating on this part, but if captured in some areas scouting or the like, it might be best to give detail about what unit you served with to avoid being treated as a guerrilla, brigand, or deserter.

"Enhanced interrogation" was used in various forms by jayhawkers, guerrillas, and "vigilantes" from what I recall of various accounts. Typically it would be something like partially hanging someone to get them to reveal where a relative or associate was, or where their valuables were hidden.

 

[ole]

Granted, my reading is a bit light in this area, but I've read nothing about enhanced interrogation -- just that captives were quite proud to spill about their unit and involvement.

A possible contradiction is Sam Davis who wouldn't give up the name of his contact; so they hung him. But the difference is that he was engaged in espionage, so he knew not to talk.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

"Military secrecy" in general seems to have been a foreign concept to many on both sides. It's very odd, especially viewed from this end of history. The way Prentiss seems to have blabbed on after he was taken at Shiloh, for instance... and what's even stranger, there doesn't seem to have been much reaction, other than the gnashing of teeth and the occasional expulsion of a newspaper reporter.

Some specific people seem to have thought along these lines, but many did not.

 

[Dave Wilma]

I have never read about any instructions to Civil War soldiers in the event of capture. It stands to reason you shouldn't talk to the enemy, but if you are 1) scared, 2) untrained beyond loading your weapon, 3) oblivious to the impact anything they say might have on the battle or campaign, and 4) scared (I said that), I see little to prevent soldiers from talking. The good news is that there wasn't much in the way of intelligence gathering in this regard. I imagine that just questioning officers would be considered an insult to the prisoner.

Individual soldiers don't often know a lot, maybe not even where they are. As I understand it units often advertised their identity back and forth.

 

[Freddy]

I have never read about any instructions to Civil War soldiers in the event of capture. It stands to reason you shouldn't talk to the enemy, but if you are 1) scared, 2) untrained beyond loading your weapon, 3) oblivious to the impact anything they say might have on the battle or campaign, and 4) scared (I said that), I see little to prevent soldiers from talking. The good news is that there wasn't much in the way of intelligence gathering in this regard. I imagine that just questioning officers would be considered an insult to the prisoner.

Individual soldiers don't often know a lot, maybe not even where they are. As I understand it units often advertised their identity back and forth.

I think you nailed it! When my GGF was captured on May 24, 1864 at North Anna, Virginia what exactly was a company sergeant going to tell his captors? "Grant is marching south to Richmond", was something everyone knew. As if he knew Grant's next move after North Anna, but Lee likely did.

 

[Nathanb1]

The other thing I haven't seen mentioned is that these guys KNEW each other in many cases. Or their distinctive uniforms. "Yep, you're one of the PA Bucktails.....no other idiot would wear a deer's rear on his head." (Joke, PA folks!)

Or...."Hey, didn't I room with you for four years at West Point?"

Even worse, "Hi, Dad."

 

[K Hale]

I have never read about any instructions to Civil War soldiers in the event of capture.

There's a document from Stuart, either a general order or a letter to a higher-up, in which he states that people need to be instructed that if they are captured, to give nothing but their name and unit, or the like. He went on to say that he has told his men this and that it needs to be circulated throughout the army generally. When I first read it, I was amazed that this wasn't common knowledge already.

 

[diane]

There was also a system of disinformation. Forrest was always sending in a 'deserter' or letting someone be captured who would then give their captors a bum steer. Rucker, who was captured at Selma after a remarkable personal combat, shared the tent with the general who captured (and fought) him. He told him Forrest was personally on the field and they'd be knowing about it right clear soon enough. Forrest was miles away, nowhere near the battle, but just that bit of bragging from Rucker caused troops to be pulled back for a fight - which enabled Forrest to get the heck away with what was left of his command.

 

[Red Harvest]

Disinformation, whether intentional or not, can backfire. If there is a 1000-2000 man raid going on, and a couple of the men from it are captured and say they are the vangaurd of a 5,000 man force several things begin to happen: indefensible areas are abandoned, stores are moved, transfers out of the dept. stop, militia are activated and weapons distributed. While isolated posts fall even more easily as a result, consolidated and growing forces pose a much larger hazard to the raiders. Alerted major depots become tough nuts to crack. It makes it much harder to hit core objectives. On the other hand, it also succeeds in greatly disrupting the enemy's offensive plans, sometimes across multiplie theaters.

 

[tmh10]

I agree that most of the soldiers captured knew little of value, that wasn't already known by their captors. The officers a bit more, but but in those days a good piece of intellegence was outdated by the time it reached anybody who could act upon it, after first verifying if it was fact or fiction. A classic example being Lee's captured order 191.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Wish I could remember where I read it, one of the zillion instances of soldiers on picket duty conversing included what the heck was planned for the other side the next day. It was in the same spirit as everyone has already said, the whole pride thing with ' We're going to stomp all over you '.

That's ok, Nathanb, I figure if Stonewall can wander into battle wearing carpet slippers, well heck, a couple dead, PA deer on one's head would have to improve the dress code. We have very nice deer.

 

[K Hale]

I think Longstreet was the carpet slipper guy, LOL! If Jackson had done it, he would've arrested himself for being out of uniform.

 

[diane]

Disinformation, whether intentional or not, can backfire. If there is a 1000-2000 man raid going on, and a couple of the men from it are captured and say they are the vangaurd of a 5,000 man force several things begin to happen: indefensible areas are abandoned, stores are moved, transfers out of the dept. stop, militia are activated and weapons distributed. While isolated posts fall even more easily as a result, consolidated and growing forces pose a much larger hazard to the raiders. Alerted major depots become tough nuts to crack. It makes it much harder to hit core objectives. On the other hand, it also succeeds in greatly disrupting the enemy's offensive plans, sometimes across multiplie theaters.

That's quite so - you can misjudge things and mess them up. It's a fine art. Forrest was really one of the best at this sort of thing - he wasn't a master poker player for nothing! (Found some articles on his games in some poker mags a while back - really surprised me. The places this general turns up! Too bad his wife disliked gambling on account of her religion, which he got. He might have made them a darn good living after the war as a gambler... )

 

[rhp6033]

Bragg used disinformation campaigns against Rosecrans, including having Confederate operatives "surrender" and be pretty talkative, or pose simly as deserters (if they said they were going home, Rosecrans would let them proceed - but they showed back up within Bragg's lines within a few days with lots of info on Rosecran's force). Bragg used this to convince Rosecrans that he was retreating south from Chattanooga towards Atlanta as fast as he could move, when he was actually turning around with the intent to cut Rosecrans off from his source of supply & communications at Chattanooga, the two armies met at Chickamauga.

But one of the big problems was simply that there wasn't a serial number system to keep track of prisoners. That meant that if word was to get back to his unit (and family) as to his fate, he had to identify his unit to his captors. This allowed his captors to contribute significantly to their understanding of the Order of Battle of the force facing them - which units, etc.

Hooker, in putting together the first "all sources" intelligence system, combined information gathered from prisoners, escaped slaves, unionists within Confederate lines, southern newspapers, etc. to create a remarkably accurate Order of Battle for the ANV which was used by Meade at Gettysburg to determine which units Lee had committed to combat and which were still left in reserve. With this information, he was confident that his troops could withstand any attack on the third day, rather than retreat. While interrogating prisoners, Union officers would sometimes tell the men about the relatively high wages they could earn in northern industry, and offer to release them to work for those high wages if they were "cooperative". For many who's families were suffering as a result of the war, this was a tempting proposition.

(Note: one American unit in WWII captured some German prisoners, who wouldn't talk. The unit commander ordered that these prisoners be fed before being transferred to headquarters. This also happened to be around Thanksgiving, I think, and the unit got it's first hot rations including turkey and dressing distributed to it, which they shared with the prisoners. A german-speaking guard reported that the prisoners all agreed that if the Americans could eat hot meals like this every day, then the war was already lost, and they may was well cooperate! )

 

[Nathanb1]

Hooker, in putting together the first "all sources" intelligence system, combined information gathered from prisoners, escaped slaves, unionists within Confederate lines, southern newspapers, etc. to create a remarkably accurate Order of Battle for the ANV which was used by Meade at Gettysburg to determine which units Lee had committed to combat and which were still left in reserve.

He could have used that at Chancellorsville, couldn't he?

 

[Nathanb1]

Wish I could remember where I read it, one of the zillion instances of soldiers on picket duty conversing included what the heck was planned for the other side the next day. It was in the same spirit as everyone has already said, the whole pride thing with ' We're going to stomp all over you '.

That's ok, Nathanb, I figure if Stonewall can wander into battle wearing carpet slippers, well heck, a couple dead, PA deer on one's head would have to improve the dress code. We have very nice deer.

You have enormous and very well fed deer. I was totally overwhelmed. Especially on dark roads.

 

[rhp6033]

He could have used that at Chancellorsville, couldn't he?

Yep, Hooker, like McClellan, was great at building an organization and then not using it properly when push came to shove.

You could argue that the first skirmishes in the Wilderness, when Hooker drew back his lines instead of pushing forward to open ground, was in terrible territory to identify the units engaged. But the real problem for Hooker's intelligence is a classic intelligence problem - it might reveal the situation at the time the intelligence was gathered, or the situation which existed a few days or weeks before that - but could change quickly. Hooker would not have any way of knowing that Lee had split his army - twice- in the face of a numerically superior foe. At Gettysburg, in contrast, there was real-time intelligence collecting efforts, so that they knew with a great deal of accuracy which ANV units were being engaged, and where. After that, it was just a simple exercise in subtraction.