Richmond, Kentucky: "desperate escape" or "sharp practice"

[dahenry]

Ran across two accounts of the same incident following the battle of Richmond, Kentucky (August 31, 1862); the first from Major Paul F. Hammond (on Kirby Smith's staff), and the other from a correspondent (Mack) of the Cincinnati Commercial. Both focus on the behavior of the 95th Ohio's Lt. Colonel, James B. Armstrong.
Hammond's version is from the "Southern Historical Society Papers", volume IX, pages 289- 290: "The next day-Sunday-the army remained in the vicinity of Richmond, and the day was occupied in paroling prisoners, burying the dead and taking care of the wounded. In this the Federals were given every facility, and treated with consideration and humanity...In the main they appreciated it, and conducted themselves very well. But one instance, a piece of "sharp practice" occurred, worth of notice, as illustrating the absurd and lying boastfulness of a large portion of the Northern press in this war...Early in the engagement at Mount Zion, Captain Freret, a young gentleman from New Orleans, attached to General Smith's staff, succeeded in capturing, unaided, three privates, with loaded muskets in their hands, and Lieutenant-Colonel Armstrong of Ohio. Armstrong rode a fine stallion, which, in acknowledgment of his gallantry, General Smith permitted Freret, who happened to be without a good horse, to keep for his own service. On Sunday, after Armstrong was paroled, he appealed to Freret to lend him the horse, stating that many of the wounded of his regiment had been left upon the battlefield, and he was anxious to see that they were properly cared for. This appeal of course, could not be resisted. Again on Monday Armstrong appealed for the horse on the same grounds, and Freret again readily complied. But Armstrong, instead of returning to the battlefield with his parole and written permission from Freret to use the horse, deliberately and in perfect safety rode away to Ohio...A few days subsequently an article appeared in a Cincinnati paper, headed "A Full Flight to Death," and giving a glowing account of Armstrong's audacity and desperate escape."
Mack's story is taken from "Ohio In The War", Whitelaw Reid, pages 528-529: "Lieutenant-Colonel Armstrong of the Ninety-Fifth Ohio, after his release on parole, performed what may well be classed among the daring feats of the battle, though but remotely connected with it. After manfully and heroically performing his duty in the three different engagements of the day, he was taken prisoner. His capture occurred either late on Saturday night or early Sunday morning, I have forgotten which. He had a favorite and valuable horse, which was fortunate to escape unhurt. Desirous of retaining this animal-still further endeared to him by dangers safely passed through-he applied to General Kirby Smith for permission to do so, and the General, who is the most courteous of Rebels, granted his request.
Before the Ninety-Fifth was ready to leave Richmond, General Smith had gone forward and General Heath (sic) was in command. The last-named individual countermanded the order of General Smith, and informed Colonel Armstrong that his horse was Confederate property. The Colonel was, of course, highly displeased with the fiat, and soon made up his mind to disobey it. Accordingly, he mounted his valuable charger...and riding through town with an air of one who has a right to do so, he started on the Lexington Pike for Cincinnati and intermediate points...Reaching the pike the Colonel put spurs to his horse, and away he dashed past Rebel guards and patrols."
Two very different versions of the same event; I would guess the important point is whether the horse was Confederate property or not, I'm inclined to think that it was and that the only way Armstrong passed safely through Smith's army was the piece of paper from Freret.

Dave

 

[Carronade]

The horse was captured in combat, so I would say it was Confederate property. The conflicting accounts are that it was given to Captain Feret, who loaned it to Armstrong, or that it was returned by Smith to Armstrong.

Regardless of the horse's ownership, Armstrong himself was on parole. Even if he had a legitimate argument about the horse, I don't see that excusing breaking his parole.

 

[dahenry]

I was wondering about the parole issue, but thought that as an officer (and already paroled) he could have gone north on his own; I admit to know next to nothing about how the system actually worked so appreciate your response.

Dave

 

[Mr. King]

I believe that when you were paroled, you went to a staging area, or home, until you had been exchanged by the cartel. In this case, whole units surrendered together. I have to imagine that they went to a camp in Cincinnati until they got exchanged.
What I don't understand is why they honored the paroles, and how often did they violate them.

 

[dahenry]

I think Col. Armstrong could go back to Ohio with or without his regiment after being paroled, however, I don't think he could take his horse with him, as the horse would have been C.S.A. property (after being captured). Here is an old thread that has some useful information in it - http://civilwartalk.com/threads/a-question-on-parole.26671/
Not really sure how often paroles were violated, the O.R. prisoner of war volumes might have some correspondence on the subject.

Dave

 

[Borderruffian]

I was wondering about the parole issue, but thought that as an officer (and already paroled) he could have gone north on his own; I admit to know next to nothing about how the system actually worked so appreciate your response.

Dave

That would depend on the Paroles terms often Paroles were granted,especially to Commissioned officers that restricted them to camp or the General area of Camp and required passes to go "out of bounds"put they still had to remain observent the conditions of parole