When to surrender a fort?

[SpanishFort]

Soldiers today have the military code of conduct as a guide line to when it is time to surrender a fort. In the Civil War, what was the general expectation? Hold out to the last extremity? Hold out as long as you have the ability to resist?

Any input on the subject is appreciated.

 

[Library Lady]

I'm going to recommend that you read Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War by David Silkenat. It covers many forms of surrender, including forts, and how the attitude toward surrender changed over the course of the war. This review gives you a very good description of what you will find in the book. It is a very interesting read.

Review - "Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War" by David Silkenat

Non-fiction Civil War book reviews, commentary, publishing news, author interviews, and profiles

cwba.blogspot.com

 

[JackADriscoll]

It's easy for an area commander who isn't there to tell people who are there to not give up the ship under any circumstances

 

[Library Lady]

And then there's the people who light out because they're too special to get captured and leave someone else to deal with their mess. Rightly or wrongly, I've always felt sorry for Simon Bolivar Buckner.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Doctor Howard! Surrender could resemble the plot of a Three Stooges Movie. Read more here.

Link

Where Is Pillow? - Grant and Buckner at Donelson - Emerging Civil War

161 years ago today, the Confederate garrison at Fort Donelson surrendered to U.S. forces under General U.S. Grant. This was the first major Confederate army to surrender, and first of three Grant would capture during the war. Fort Donelson’s commander was Simon Bolivar Buckner, a prewar friend...

emergingcivilwar.com

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

And then there's the people who light out because they're too special to get captured and leave someone else to deal with their mess. Rightly or wrongly, I've always felt sorry for Simon Bolivar Buckner.

Gideon Pillow and John Floyd would probably down vote this post. I kind of feel sorry for Buckner but not THAT sorry.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Vicksburg surrendered when it ran out of supplies.

Most forts it seemed to be a matter of when resitence became hopeless, which varied a lot.

Fort Pulaski was being penetrated repeatedly by heavy artillery from a range at which it could not respond.

Fort Morgan surrendered when the Union besiegers had completed approaches with batteries, ready to breach the fort with heavy artillery at short range. The defenders could have attempted a forlorn hope in the night to disable the guns. However, with no relief coming from Mobile, Fort Gaines captured, CSS Tennessee captured, and Farragut in the bay what was the point?

 

[atlantis]

Only the USCT had reason to fight to the death.
There is the issue of threat of mutiny which we saw at one of the forts protecting New Orleans.

 

[gary]

In a siege it's when supplies either run out (Vicksburg or Port Hudson) or when the enemy's siege works is close enough that it could be stormed with the defenders firing only one volley before being overwhelmed (Port Hudson again). There was also a threat of mutiny at Vicksburg and Pemberton received a note threatening this. Gardner at Port Hudson did not and was probably hoping of a mutiny among Banks's nine month regiments that were near or at their enlistment expiration (there were few and they were threatened by Banks - the threats generally worked).

Fort Donelson is a great example of poor leadership (not a siege). Battery Wagner is a good example of a place holding out until it was near the point of being stormed (and then the Confederates skeddadled before that happened). Fort Sumter was unsuccessfully stormed by the Navy and Army; but the Cornfeds knew in advance and well prepared and repelled the attacks. It never surrendered until Charleston was abandoned. Fort Fisher had to be stormed.

Atlantis mentions USCT. If there's no quarter offered, then there's no choice but to fight to the last. The defender has nothing to lose and can only hope to inflict as much damage as possible before being destroyed.

Spreight's column was exhausted AND bluffed by Forrest - same tactic used by Rommel (Panzers drove out of town and re-entered to give the impression of greater strength - that and he bluffed the Italians a lot in WW I).

One should also consider morale and who wants to be the last soldier to be killed before the war ended? It's why some Confederates hated Lorena (song) and Nazis hated Lili Marlene. Both made soldiers melancoly and homesick.

 

[J. Stanley]

I think Fort Sumter set the tone for an appropriate and honorable surrender. After 34 hours of bombardment, no way to run, no hope for reinforcements or victory, Major Robert Anderson surrendered the fort, knowing that continuing to fight would only lead to the death of the men under his command.

Both the Federals and Confederates observed that Anderson did the right and honorable thing and he was celebrated.

All the mass surrender that came later (Fort Donelson, Vicksburg, Port Hudson, Appomattox Courthouse) did all of the following:
1) shot at and got shot by the enemy
2) are unable to escape
3) are unable to continue the fight/or will be uselessly slaughtered if they continue fighting

Only then will raising the white flag be acceptable and honorable. Certainly, nobody wanted to surrender and become a PoW, but when all other avenues have been exhausted, surrendering was considered honorable.

The only surrender that prompted public and military outrage was probably Harpers Ferry in the 1862 Maryland Campaign. The largest Federal surrender of the war, and the vast majority of the garrison had not a chance to fire their guns. These troops received the unfortunate stigma of being the "Harpers Ferry cowards". In the Battle of Champion Hill in May 16, 1863, the 32d Ohio was spurred on to charge the 1st Mississippi Light Artillery with the cry "Go in, Harper's Ferry cowards!"

 

[JeffBrooks]

Simply put - when there is no hope of relief and continued fighting brought no prospect of victory. In such cases, surrender to avoid the useless loss of life is the only honorable course of action. Lee's men at Appomattox were still armed and had ammunition. They could have fought for another day or so. But Lee understood that there was no prospect of success and continued fighting would simply get more of his men (and many Northern boys as well) killed for no reason.

Imagine if, on July 3, 1863, Pemberton had received a message from Johnston that he was preparing to attack Grant from the rear. If he had received such a message or seen other indications (heavy firing heard in the enemy's rear, for example), then a surrender on July 4 might rightly have been criticized. As it was, there was no prospect of relief, so a surrender was perfectly acceptable.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Albert Sydney Johnston had a singular policy where the surrender of forts is concerned.

View attachment 580660
Map of the extensive fortifications A.S. Johnston constructed to secure his HQ at Bowling Green KY.

View attachment 580661
Fort Bruce / Sevier / Defiance sits on a commanding bluff where it could control river traffic up & down stream. The swinging Louisville & Nashville RR is on the middle right of the page. Clarksville was a vital communications nexus.

View attachment 580665
Called the "Gibraltar of the Mississippi" the Confederate fortifications at Columbus Ky not only had cannons, & an elaborate mined chain barrier blocking the river. All along the prospective landing sites of were electrically fired "infernal devices."

When he recieved word that Fort Donelson had fallen, he ordered these fortifications built with such an immense expenditure of money & labor surrendered to advancing Union forces. Enormous piles of rations & military supplies were also abandoned.

For just plain out surrendering of forts without a shot being fired, there is nobody quite like A. S. Johnston.

 

[SpanishFort]

Vicksburg surrendered when it ran out of supplies.

Most forts it seemed to be a matter of when resitence became hopeless, which varied a lot.

Fort Pulaski was being penetrated repeatedly by heavy artillery from a range at which it could not respond.

Fort Morgan surrendered when the Union besiegers had completed approaches with batteries, ready to breach the fort with heavy artillery at short range. The defenders could have attempted a forlorn hope in the night to disable the guns. However, with no relief coming from Mobile, Fort Gaines captured, CSS Tennessee captured, and Farragut in the bay what was the point?

Not sure it was practical at Forts Gaines and Morgan, but at Spanish Fort, the Rebels launched several sorties to keep the besiegers off balance.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

When he recieved word that Fort Donelson had fallen, he ordered these fortifications built with such an immense expenditure of money & labor surrendered to advancing Union forces. Enormous piles of rations & military supplies were also abandoned.

For just plain out surrendering of forts without a shot being fired, there is nobody quite like A. S. Johnston.

Once the Union had command of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers it made Columbus and Bowling Green essentially indefensible due to being easily outflanked and cut off. As Donelson demonstrated, ASJ didn't understand the idea of relieving besieged forts.

Failure to remove the supplies, especially from Columbus, seems like a major mistake.

 

[SpanishFort]

I'm going to recommend that you read Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War by David Silkenat. It covers many forms of surrender, including forts, and how the attitude toward surrender changed over the course of the war. This review gives you a very good description of what you will find in the book. It is a very interesting read.

Review - "Raising the White Flag: How Surrender Defined the American Civil War" by David Silkenat

Non-fiction Civil War book reviews, commentary, publishing news, author interviews, and profiles

cwba.blogspot.com

Excellent, I am ordering it now. Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[SpanishFort]

I think Fort Sumter set the tone for an appropriate and honorable surrender. After 34 hours of bombardment, no way to run, no hope for reinforcements or victory, Major Robert Anderson surrendered the fort, knowing that continuing to fight would only lead to the death of the men under his command.

Both the Federals and Confederates observed that Anderson did the right and honorable thing and he was celebrated.

All the mass surrender that came later (Fort Donelson, Vicksburg, Port Hudson, Appomattox Courthouse) did all of the following:
1) shot at and got shot by the enemy
2) are unable to escape
3) are unable to continue the fight/or will be uselessly slaughtered if they continue fighting

Only then will raising the white flag be acceptable and honorable. Certainly, nobody wanted to surrender and become a PoW, but when all other avenues have been exhausted, surrendering was considered honorable.

The only surrender that prompted public and military outrage was probably Harpers Ferry in the 1862 Maryland Campaign. The largest Federal surrender of the war, and the vast majority of the garrison had not a chance to fire their guns. These troops received the unfortunate stigma of being the "Harpers Ferry cowards". In the Battle of Champion Hill in May 16, 1863, the 32d Ohio was spurred on to charge the 1st Mississippi Light Artillery with the cry "Go in, Harper's Ferry cowards!"

Excellent food for thought. By the way, I am working on a focused study of Fort Gaines' role in the Battle of Mobile Bay. Colonel Charles D. Anderson was blistered by his superiors and in the Southern press for what they deemed a hasty surrender. But my research has revealed complicated circumstances that heavily influenced his decision to capitulate.

 

[SpanishFort]

Simply put - when there is no hope of relief and continued fighting brought no prospect of victory. In such cases, surrender to avoid the useless loss of life is the only honorable course of action. Lee's men at Appomattox were still armed and had ammunition. They could have fought for another day or so. But Lee understood that there was no prospect of success and continued fighting would simply get more of his men (and many Northern boys as well) killed for no reason.

Imagine if, on July 3, 1863, Pemberton had received a message from Johnston that he was preparing to attack Grant from the rear. If he had received such a message or seen other indications (heavy firing heard in the enemy's rear, for example), then a surrender on July 4 might rightly have been criticized. As it was, there was no prospect of relief, so a surrender was perfectly acceptable.

Well stated. The US military code of conduct (promulgated after the Korean War) serves as a guide for today's fort commanders. It states: "I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist." The reason for this is that you can never know what may turn up. Prolonged resistance may delay the enemy just enough for someone else to succeed. In the case of the attacks on coastal forts, perhaps a tropical storm appears and wipes out the fleet. (A maritime storm destroyed the Spanish Armada in its attack on the UK long ago.)

 

[JeffBrooks]

Well stated. The US military code of conduct (promulgated after the Korean War) serves as a guide for today's fort commanders. It states: "I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist." The reason for this is that you can never know what may turn up. Prolonged resistance may delay the enemy just enough for someone else to succeed. In the case of the attacks on coastal forts, perhaps a tropical storm appears and wipes out the fleet. (A maritime storm destroyed the Spanish Armada in its attack on the UK long ago.)

Here's an interesting question: under these guidelines, was Lee wrong to surrender at Appomattox?

 

[gary]

Here's an interesting question: under these guidelines, was Lee wrong to surrender at Appomattox?

No. Lee stopped the unnecessary effusion of blood.

 

[Library Lady]

Here's an interesting question: under these guidelines, was Lee wrong to surrender at Appomattox?

Does the portion of the code quoted apply to all surrenders or only to forts? I ask because Lee was not in a fort.

What is a sufficient means of resistance? If you are outnumbered 3:1 to 4:1, as Lee was, should you still resist? If you have no means of escape, should you still resist? If you haven't had much, if anything, to eat in a very long time with minimal to no prospects of getting anything to eat in the near future, are you still physically capable of mounting meaningful resistance even if you have a gun and ammo? I would ask the same question concerning lack of sleep for many days. These are conditions the Army of Northern Virginia was in.

Who else was going to succeed in a meaningful fashion and what would that meaningful fashion have looked like?

Does the current code endorse a command breaking up into what Lee would call bushwhackers and what we might call terrorist cells? I'm not talking about small groups of soldiers breaking out and trying to get to another command to continue the war in the usual way; I'm talking about purposefully breaking a command into small units that would continue to resist by irregular means. This was an option available to Lee which he refused.

Under the current code, how would a war end if our opponents, holding the upper hand, refused to treat with civilian authorities because that would imply that we were legitimate when the opponents didn't believe that we were? The only way to end the Civil War was for the Confederate armies to surrender. Lincoln's government would not treat with Davis' government because it was seen as illegitimate.

Does the current code care not at all for unnecessary deaths and destruction? This was a big deal to both Lee and Grant.

How often does the military revise the code of conduct (or what Lee and Grant probably called the Articles of War)? I ask because it seems that attitudes toward many things, including surrender, may have changed in the 160 years since the end of the Civil War. Attitudes toward surrender certainly changed appreciably during the Civil War itself.