KianGaf
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- May 29, 2019
- Location
- Dublin , Ireland
I read an account of the incident of him tearing down the flag at the New Orleans mint. His trial and execution seemed to be conducted under very questionable legal grounds.
I read an account of the incident of him tearing down the flag at the New Orleans mint. His trial and execution seemed to be conducted under very questionable legal grounds.
Well, when Farragut reached the city, before Butler arrived, he had the flag raised on the U. S. Mint by marines from USS Pensacola, and announced that if anyone removed it, he would bombard the city. Mumford tore it down, irresponsibly putting the people of N.O. in grave peril, but fortunately Farragut restrained himself.I seem to recall somewhere that Butler also justified his carrying out of the death sentence under the laws of war reasoning that the lowering of the flag from a government building would indicate that the city was retaken or fallen and would have caused bombardment of the city and the Union personnel unknowingly by the Union Navy.
Well, when Farragut reached the city, before Butler arrived, he had the flag raised on the U. S. Mint by marines from USS Pensacola, and announced that if anyone removed it, he would bombard the city. Mumford tore it down, irresponsibly putting the people of N.O. in grave peril, but fortunately Farragut restrained himself.
The original order came from General John Dix. Essentially he stated that anyone bringing down the flag would incur the punishment prescribed. (shot on the spot). This was earlier in 1861 I believe when the forts of the Gulf were being claimed, and Hampton Roads also. Whether the order was in effect in 1862 or just latent, I don't know. Butler used his own reasoning but he could fall back upon the order Dix published from Washington. Thanks,I'm glad you're familiar with that because I was looking for my source to support my comment but I couldn't find it. I thought for sure it would be in Butler's Book but so far I've not turned it up.
Well, when Farragut reached the city, before Butler arrived, he had the flag raised on the U. S. Mint by marines from USS Pensacola, and announced that if anyone removed it, he would bombard the city. Mumford tore it down, irresponsibly putting the people of N.O. in grave peril, but fortunately Farragut restrained himself.
Dix' directive was not a military order. It was as Buchanan's Secretary of the Treasury that he telegraphed Treasury agents at the mint: "If any one attempts to haul down the American flag, shoot him on the spot." Apparently the telegram was intercepted by the Confederates, and never reached N.O. I don't know if either Farragut or Butler were aware of his order.The original order came from General John Dix. Essentially he stated that anyone bringing down the flag would incur the punishment prescribed. (shot on the spot). This was earlier in 1861 I believe when the forts of the Gulf were being claimed, and Hampton Roads also. Whether the order was in effect in 1862 or just latent, I don't know. Butler used his own reasoning but he could fall back upon the order Dix published from Washington. Thanks,
Lubliner.
In wartime, in a rebellious city under martial law, all things change. Mumford was used as an example, to demonstrate that unrest would not be tolerated. His crime was less destroying the flag than going about afterwards, with torn shreds of the flag in his lapel, bragging about what he did, and haranguing hostile mobs, encouraging them to resistance. He was arrogant and stupid, and he was hanged for it, ... and the mobs disappeared.
Butler's action was drastic, but legal under martial law. It was also effective. He had an utterly inadequate force with which to control a large and vehemently hostile population. He effectively did it with a single execution.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the people of New Orleans. Their city had been surrendered virtually without a fight, and the Confederate government had told them essentially that they were not worth fighting for. They were angry and humiliated and resentful -- they had not been defeated. They wanted, needed, to show their hostility to the occupation.
On the other hand, I can only admire the brilliance with which Butler carried out his assignment of securing and pacifying the south's second largest city. Ben Butler certainly had his faults, and there is much that can legitimately be said against him. But, he also had his virtues, genuine ones, and the city of New Orleans benefited greatly from his firm, efficient, humane, and almost bloodless administration.
And the women were promptly shut up by the "beastly" threat of ... public embarrassment.Even as a life long resident of Massachusetts, I never had any love for Butler, yet, in this instance, he did the right thing. You cant have people of a conquored city disparaging Union soldiers....they were throwing chamber pots on Union soldiers by woman, who soldiers were not going to take revenge upon. He had the hanging coming - mess with the bull and you eventually get the horns.
There is also much information in James Parton's General Butler in New Orleans (1863). Parton has been called "The Father of American Biography." He was well known for his lives of Aaron Burr, Horace Greeley, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire ... but particularly his hugely popular 3 volume Life of Andrew Jackson (1859-60). Butler asked him to chronicle his service in New Orleans, and Parton agreed with the provision that he have free hand to interview anyone he chose, full access to all documents, and complete control over the publication: Butler never saw a copy of the manuscript until it was published.I'm glad you're familiar with that because I was looking for my source to support my comment but I couldn't find it. I thought for sure it would be in Butler's Book but so far I've not turned it up.
I finally located Butler's correspondence