Union troops used Confederate officers as human shields

newsleader ^ | April 24, 2004 | Terry Shulman

[stainlessbanner]

Saddam Hussein's devilish practice of using human shields isn't exactly new. It was pioneered by an American, in fact, during the last year of the Civil War.

"Your officers, now in my hands, will be placed by me under your fire, as an act of retaliation," Union departmental commander Gen. John G. Foster wrote his Southern counterpart in an edict, and with that a sordid new standard was set in the conduct of war.

[Diddle E. Squat]

You would be surprised at how much the families of the Confederate States of America still resent what happened to their kin and their land.

A century and a half later, eh? Not much different then the Palestinians, except the Confederate cranks can live wherever they want, own whatever land they want, have complete freedom, and are 5 generations further removed from the war they lost. I guess some bloodlines of bitterness never grow up and get a clue. Thankfully those Hatfields and McCoys types only represent a fractional percent of the South.

[Badeye]

I vacationed in Charleston two years ago, and you are exactly correct.

By 1864, the war had evolved from the "gentleman's war" to the precursor to the trench warfare of WW1. The final death throes, like in every war, included unbelievable (to those of us looking back 140 years) actions on both sides.

Bottom line is the Civil War should have ended in a year. The only thing that kept the South in the war for four years was general ineptitude on the part of the Union generals. As Grant noted after the war, had some of the tactics employed by the CSA in the first two year been attempted in the later stages, such as Jackson's valley campaing, the result would have been the complete and total annihilation of the Southern forces involved.

[Fierce Allegiance]

No argument from me.

If it were up to me, my address would end with "...Beach, X Carolina"

Mama Allegiance has no interest in moving away from family, though.

[mass55th]

"The only thing that kept the South in the war for four years was general ineptitude on the part of the Union generals."

I totally agree with you. Although Sherman is reviled by many, he did what no other Union General had before him, that is, take the war to the people. His theory of destroying the South's ability & will to wage war will be debated for ages to come, but it worked.

Sherman utilized Confederate soldiers to remove mines they (the Rebels) had buried in roadways. I also remember reading about his placing Southern civilians on boats that could possibly come under attack of Rebel guns along the river. He did what he had to do to win the war, whether it was popular or not.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The 600 officers (583, actually) were put in the stockade under fire
as retaliation for the Confederates putting Federal officers under fire in
downtown Charleston, in order (so it was thought) to discourage Union
artillerists from shelling the city.

[Badeye]

Yep. Sherman's "theories" were the percursor to the Blitzkrieg warfare of the 1940's, just as Longstreets "theories" concerning defensive warfare was the percursor to the trench warfare from WWI.

Sherman didn't want the war, didn't want to "destroy the south" which he in fact dearly loved prior to the war.

Too many "myths" are accepted as fact from the era, imho.

My favorite is Heth was looking for shoes at Gettysburg, btw. Thats probably the single greatest "myth" from the CW.

[varina davis]

And a Dixie Day to you, sir!

[#3Fan]

#3fan, the racist FOOL of the FR unionist lunatic fringe, will be along SOON, i would guess. and whisky papa, the MUCH banned scalawag & traitor to his native state,too.

You're losing your mind...or what's left of it.

[#3Fan]

a JOINT RESOLUTION of the US Congress from 1861 proves that what happened in yankee POW/DEATH CAMPS was PLANNED!

Link please.

[varina davis]

5 generations further removed from the war they lost. I guess some bloodlines of bitterness never grow up and get a clue. Thankfully those Hatfields and McCoys types only represent a fractional percent of the South.

I respectfully disagree, Mr. Squat. Had the South benefited from never-ending supplies that the north enjoyed, the war would not have ended at Appomattox and Mr. Davis would have continued his presidency of the CSA in Richmond.

Further, Southrons I am pleased to know represent far more than a "fractional percent" of those who do not subscribe to revisionist history.

[varina davis]

I totally agree with you. Although Sherman is reviled by many, he did what no other Union General had before him, that is, take the war to the people. His theory of destroying the South's ability & will to wage war will be debated for ages to come, but it worked.

"Only an atheist contends that victory is a criterion of right." --- Dabney

[mass55th]

Speaking of Generals, I just realized that General Grant was born on this date in 1822. Happy Birthday Mr. President.

[PeaRidge]

You said: "Sherman didn't want the war, didn't want to 'destroy the south' which he in fact dearly loved prior to the war.

That idea was concocted by someone.

In fact, any discussion of Sherman should mention his pre-war opinions of Southerners, especially South Carolinians; opinions he formed while stationed there in 1843.

"This state, their aristocracy, their patriarchal chivalry and glory-all trash."

But Sherman was alarmed by what he called South Carolina "young bloods" who were "brave, fine riders, bold to rashness and dangerous in every sense."

His solution was, incredibly, that "the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright."

The person that said that was employed by the President and people of the Union states.

[Badeye]

"Had the South benefited from never-ending supplies that the north enjoyed, the war would not have ended at Appomattox and Mr. Davis would have continued his presidency of the CSA in Richmond."

By January of 1865, there was already a serious movement of succession among the original CSA founders, Florida wanted out, Georgia wanted out, Texas wanted out. There were others.

The seeds of the CSA's destruction can be found in its own Constitution. They over compensated, in my opinion. While its intellectually a fun exercise to play "states rights or die!" when that closely held theory actually faced reality, it fell apart under the weight of its own beliefs.

"Died of a Theory" is a very accurate description of what happened in the end to the Confederacy.

How else can one explain the fact that Georgia had 50,000 complete sets of uniforms, including shoes, in April of 1865...yet the Army of Northern Virginia was "ill clad" to be kind...and shoeless? And starving? Thats just one example, as you might or might not know.

[Badeye]

I live in Georgetown Ohio. "Grant Days" beings on Saturday, with re enactors invading Georgetown, just as Magruders raiders did. We have a Grant impersonator (City Business Manager - he's dead on Grant circa 1865).

If anyone here at FR is within driving distance of Georgetown Ohio, and has a serious CW bug like me, I strongly encourage you to make the trip this weekend.

My property has one of the "wagon roads" that had to have been used as the CSA troops came from the northern areas of Cincinnati east in an attempt to join Lee in Pennsylvania in June and July of 1863. One of the reasons we purchased it.

[Badeye]

"You said: "Sherman didn't want the war, didn't want to 'destroy the south' which he in fact dearly loved prior to the war.

That idea was concocted by someone. "

Sherman's view of the South itself, not the aristocrats, is what I was referring to. He especially loved his time in the deep south. Its true, he had no time for "blue bloods" but that extended to those of the North as well. The only "social" group he destested more than the rich aritocrats was reporters....I can relate to that.....LOL!

You can't just discount the dozens of letters he wrote to various family members prior to, during, and after the war. You can take a phrase here...a phrase there, out of context, and display any viewpoint you wish.

Sherman believed in Union, above all else. Once the die was cast, he did what he thought was the right thing to do. In the end, he understood that if the "heartland" of the South remained "untouched by war" it might continue for decades, not just years. I'll also add his infamous "terms of surrender" of which he was almost courtmartialed over, undermines your viewpoint in my humble opinion.

btw, I don't "take sides" on this. I find the whole era facinating, both North and South.

[stainlessbanner]

The seeds of the CSA's destruction can be found in its own Constitution.

Put the US Constitution and the CSA Constitution side by side. You say sovereignty is a bad theory?

[neutrino]

Reparations come to mind...

[billbears]

Ask the few that were able to walk out of Elmira how their stay was.

[billbears]

No ma'am I would not be suprised. With ancestors from the 6th NC Cavalry, 23rd NC Infantry, and 16th NC Infantry I not only haven't forgotten, I remind the yankees I work with daily about it. I may have forgiven the worthless bands of thugs that invaded our nation, but I haven't forgotten