The oath vs. the pardon

[K Hale]

Let's say a Confederate officer has been paroled at Appomattox, and then he goes home. At what point, and why, does he take the oath of allegiance? Does he have to take it in order to get the parole? If not, then what is the consequence of not taking the oath?

What about a pardon? What is the advantage of asking for one of those? Was it required? I've seen a letter from Fitz Lee warning somebody not to ask for a pardon, but he didn't say why. Too humiliating?

 

[cash]

Let's say a Confederate officer has been paroled at Appomattox, and then he goes home. At what point, and why, does he take the oath of allegiance? Does he have to take it in order to get the parole? If not, then what is the consequence of not taking the oath?

What about a pardon? What is the advantage of asking for one of those? Was it required? I've seen a letter from Fitz Lee warning somebody not to ask for a pardon, but he didn't say why. Too humiliating?

He takes the oath in order to get a pardon. Parole is only promising not to fight until you have been exchanged.

Regards,
Cash

 

[Severon]

My ggggrandfather was paroled on 31 May 1865. In his pension application dated 1903 one of the questions is "Did you take the oath of allegiance to the United States Government?" to which he answered "never have taken it."

Wow! What happened then?

 

[Lady Val]

At the war's end, when Confederate prisoners were released - starving, brutalized, half clothed and sick - from Camp Douglas in Chicago, they were informed that if they signed the oath, they would be given transportation South. If they refused, they would have to walk home. The vast majority chose to walk.

Most of the time the oath was not of that much importance for the rank and file, but it was a big deal for officers and other high-ranking members of the Confederacy. However, even then there were those - both high and low - who chose not to sign it. Naturally, failure to sign the oath permanently disenfranchised them, but for those who refused, most did not consider the United States their country anyway and so they were not all that fussed about it.

 

[prroh]

Let's say a Confederate officer has been paroled at Appomattox, and then he goes home. At what point, and why, does he take the oath of allegiance? Does he have to take it in order to get the parole? If not, then what is the consequence of not taking the oath?

He did not have to sign an oath as the parole clearly states that he is free to go home until properly exchanged. Lee pointed this oversight to Grant in the draft surrender terms. Grant inserted "or until..etc". After being exchanged the paroled soldier was free to rejoin the fight. I am sure that a Confederate who wanted to sign his name to an oath of allegiance so that he could join the Union Army or otherwise serve the Union cause, would find that the clerical staff of the multiple Union Hqtrs would find an oath to sign pretty quickly. otherwise, you needed an oath to vote until the amnesty was declared.

What about a pardon? What is the advantage of asking for one of those? Was it required? I've seen a letter from Fitz Lee warning somebody not to ask for a pardon, but he didn't say why. Too humiliating?

Higher ranking officers and office holders were exempted from the amnesty and had to apply for a pardon. lee applied (athough it was lost for 100 years) and Davis did not.

Pat

 

[prroh]

At the war's end, when Confederate prisoners were released - starving, brutalized, half clothed and sick - from Camp Douglas in Chicago, they were informed that if they signed the oath, they would be given transportation South. If they refused, they would have to walk home. The vast majority chose to walk.

.

The above cries out for a source
Pat

 

[prroh]

I am not sure but his pension was approved.

It was a State pension so a federal oath of allegiance was obviously not a show-stopper
Pat

 

[cash]

At the war's end, when Confederate prisoners were released - starving, brutalized, half clothed and sick - from Camp Douglas in Chicago, they were informed that if they signed the oath, they would be given transportation South. If they refused, they would have to walk home. The vast majority chose to walk.

Most of the time the oath was not of that much importance for the rank and file, but it was a big deal for officers and other high-ranking members of the Confederacy. However, even then there were those - both high and low - who chose not to sign it. Naturally, failure to sign the oath permanently disenfranchised them, but for those who refused, most did not consider the United States their country anyway and so they were not all that fussed about it.

Of course, the policy put in place by Stanton was less than smart. The oath was to be administered in front of all the rest of the prisoners. That's not a situation designed to get a lot of people to volunteer to take the oath.

Regards,
Cash

 

[K Hale]

Thanks, everyone!

 

[Lady Val]

The above cries out for a source
Pat

There are quite a few books on Camp Douglas, but for ease and rapidity, I suggest "80 Acres of Hell" put out by the History or the Military Channel - I cannot remember which. When I come across the book I have on Douglas, I'll post the name.

Of course, Douglas was only one. Then you had Point Lookout, Camp Merton, Elmira (Hellmira) and a bunch of other concentration camps whose names I cannot recall. I also remember someone posting somewhere (I will see if I can locate it) that the largest mass grave in North America was found at Camp Douglas.

 

[ole]

Oh, oh. Changing the subject to throw in some rabbit punches?

Read the topic of the thread.

Ole

 

[prroh]

There are quite a few books on Camp Douglas, but for ease and rapidity, I suggest "80 Acres of Hell" put out by the History or the Military Channel - I cannot remember which. When I come across the book I have on Douglas, I'll post the name.

Of course, Douglas was only one. Then you had Point Lookout, Camp Merton, Elmira (Hellmira) and a bunch of other concentration camps whose names I cannot recall. I also remember someone posting somewhere (I will see if I can locate it) that the largest mass grave in North America was found at Camp Douglas.

I look forward to your source as a THC or maybe Military Channel show is simply not credible

By calling a POW camp a concentration camp is impressive, but not the way you intended.

Pat

 

[ole]

One more time: read the topic of the thread. There are more than a few on POWs and Camp Douglas and Elmira and Andersonville.Take the asides over there.

Ole

 

[prroh]

One more time: read the topic of the thread.

Since the Topic concerned oaths and paroles and the post I responded to concerned support requested for comments about how they were handled at Camp Douglas. This request for credible support seems to have been appropriate.

I assume that the diversion about treatment of POWs was topic of the post quoted.

 

[ole]

The topic of the post to which you responded was off-topic and was obviously intended to elicit a negative response.

We are all guilty of following a fresher scent. The mod's job is to try to keep the subject in line with the title so a search for "oaths" brings up "oaths" and not a diatribe on the treatment of POWs.

And "80 Acres of Hell" was a production of THC.

 

[prroh]

The topic of the post to which you responded was off-topic and was obviously intended to elicit a negative response.
.

The Camp Douglas stuff was IMO on topic but was indeed intended to elict a negative reponse. The other POW stuff was clearly an off-topic diatribe. A tough call for a partially off-topic post. Maybe waiting a bit to see how far this was drifting might have been in order. I doubt if the post was going anywhere far.
.[/quote]

And "80 Acres of Hell" was a production of THC.

Which I would not consider a credible source for specfiic detailed information. These shows are not throughly vetted by THC when they purchase them from the independent producers.

Just a suggestion for, an admittedly, tough call.
Pat

 

[ole]

The longer they wander, the harder they are to pull them back.

 

[prroh]

The longer they wander, the harder they are to pull them back.

As I said, a tough call. Validity on both sides, just a matter of personal choice on how much is "longer".

I look forward to your opinion on using a THC production as a credible source. I find the productions by Ms. Donna Lusitiana as of a high order, but find others of uneven levels. I find this to as an on-topic subject as it was used to support a summary of the handling of oaths and paroles at Camp Douglas.

Pat

 

[ole]

THC is generally considered to be interesting and entertaining, but not quotable as a source. Although you might hear that THC said it so it must be true, few take it seriously and some will descend into spasms of frothing.

Ole

 

[cash]

As I said, a tough call. Validity on both sides, just a matter of personal choice on how much is "longer".

I look forward to your opinion on using a THC production as a credible source. I find the productions by Ms. Donna Lusitiana as of a high order, but find others of uneven levels. I find this to as an on-topic subject as it was used to support a summary of the handling of oaths and paroles at Camp Douglas.

Pat

Check out these four posts by Brooks Simpson.

http://warhistorian.org/wordpress/?p=394

Regards,
Cash