So I have a question about the term "parole".

[tweezybird]

My ancestor's records, Co. K, 42nd Ga, shows paroled in the field. What I've learned is that they are just taking an oath not to return to the field until they've been exchanged. So this is different than taking an oath of allegiance to the United States? Thanks

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

My ancestor's records, Co. K, 42nd Ga, shows paroled in the field. What I've learned is that they are just taking an oath not to return to the field until they've been exchanged. So this is different than taking an oath of allegiance to the United States? Thanks

I believe this is different. A person taking the oath of allegiance to the United States would be expected to refrain from taking up arms against the Union. Any person caught fighting for the South after swearing such an oath would be in danger of being tried by military commission and sent to prison or even executed.

 

[Mississippian1861]

Yes, it's different, when you are a paroled prisoner, you are essentially in "time out", and cant get back into military activities until exchanged. The Oath of allegiance means you are loyal again to the Union. Many ex CS soldiers who took the oath were allowed to travel north to sit out the rest of the war and find work to support themselves.

 

[BuckPvt]

Paroled men are soldiers who were captured.

For various reasons, armies didn't always want to hold prisoners. They don't want to feed enemy POWs, they don't want to dedicate resources to transporting or guarding POWs, they don't want to build camps to hold POW's that they'll probably exchange in a month or two anyway. They want those POWs to continue to be a drain on the resources of their enemy.

So in these cases instead of holding a captured soldier as a POW they can parole them. When the soldier is paroled the army that captured them turns them loose (or hands them over to the opponent's lines if they're nearby). Once paroled the soldier isn't supposed to take part in any sort of military activity. They aren't supposed to fight, to stand guard, or to even dig a latrine. Theoretically there can be severe consequences to violating a parole, such as if you're paroled and captured again in another battle.

Eventually both sides end up with a bunch of parolees and an exchange will take place where each side agrees to releasing 1,000 (or whatever) parolees back into military service.

The oath of allegiance wouldn't allow someone to ever take up arms against the US again, regardless of any sort of exchange.

 

[JeffBrooks]

The expectation that men would observe their parole - that they would do the honorable thing and keep their sworn oath - shows one way in which American society has degenerated considerably in the last century-and-a-half.

 

[gary]

Parole is from the Italian word, parola, meaning "word" (no surprise there). You're giving your word that you will not engage in combat or military activities until you are notified that you are exchanged. In theory a parole violator could be executed (though I've never read of any executions). For an officer who violated parole, it meant that their honor had been stained and this happened to one of Patton's ancestor who was misinformed that he had been exchanged. He was outraged when he learned of it. Forgot the outcome. Formally the two sides get together and agree to exchange Col. _____ for four captains or # of privates for equal # of privates. The agreement is drawn up, names are identified and then the officer/soldier is ordered to return to his unit.

Oath means no more fite'n. Best way to get out of the war is to take the oath and then stay on the side that you took the oath on. Go work in a store/factory or farm and end the war with all your limbs.

 

[Stryker65]

The expectation that men would observe their parole - that they would do the honorable thing and keep their sworn oath - shows one way in which American society has degenerated considerably in the last century-and-a-half.

Agree with this. Consider, as well, the fact that many Confederate soldiers deserted rather than violate their parole after Vicksburg, although one could assume that the primary reason for doing so would be fear of retribution, rather than adherence to honor.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

The expectation that men would observe their parole - that they would do the honorable thing and keep their sworn oath - shows one way in which American society has degenerated considerably in the last century-and-a-half.

Paroles weren't exclusive to the American Civil War and were sometimes violated during the war. When everyone formed lines with regimental battle flags it was a lot easier to recognize a unit that hadn't been exchanged yet.

Mind you these honor-bound paroles occurred during the same era when every ship at sea seemed to have a handful of different national flags. False flags were the norm.

I question whether the entire parole system, and the prisoner exchange in general, was a serious mistake during the Civil War. Considering the limited manpower pool the Confederates had to draw from it may have prolonged the war.

 

[East Tennessee Roots]

After Vicksburg's surrender, some East Tennesseans of Vaughn's Brigade (60th, 61st, and 62nd regiments) claimed their paroles were taken from them. Thus, when they returned to East Tennessee, they had no proof they had been paroled. So few of them actually reported to parole camps, Vaughn requested that they be mounted and serve as mounted infantry. Many joined the newly formed Union Mounted Infantry units.

 

[gary]

BTW, at Harper's Ferry the ranger who was playing Provost Marshal demanded to see my loyalty oath. I told him I was a Union man, carried a medal of our beloved President and offered to show him the medal. He wanted to see it. I showed him a penny and he was NOT impressed and demanded that I raise my right hand and take the oath. I still have that paper somewhere.

 

[Saphroneth]

An interesting example of an oddity involving parole (or, rather, not involving it) from the American War of Independence was the Convention Army. The British army at Saratoga was placed in an unfortunate situation - perhaps not an unwinnable one, but an awkward one - and they negotiated a surrender which did not involve giving their parole. Instead, under the terms of the surrender, they would be shipped back to Europe, and would not be prevented from taking up arms once more.

The relatively generous terms involved show the extent to which the British army still "had some fight" in it - if they'd been in a worse situation then the American commanders could have insisted on terms of surrender which included the British force giving their parole.

What actually happened, however, was that once the British force had already stacked arms the Continental Congress revoked the terms of surrender - specifically, revoking the bit about shipping them back to Europe. So they remained prisoners until the end of the war.



Parole exists for a number of reasons, among them including the convenience of the victor, but also the ability of the vanquished to continue resisting. It would of course be a much more final way of not having to fight an enemy again to just kill the lot, or to keep them prisoner (inevitably under poor conditions), but the reason why "kill the lot" so rarely happens in history is that the worse surrender is then the more willing people are to keep fighting - and if "surrender" isn't an option, then they'll fight to (or close to) the bitter end.