Posted on 02/17/2008 10:45:07 PM PST by Dawnsblood
Of course you will, because as much as you accuse me of being biased for Lincoln, your bias against him is as bad or worse.
The North stopped prisoner exchange. The North -- that part of the old union that was headed by Lincoln.
Indeed they did. And why? Why were talks on exchanges going along smoothly until July of 1862? Could it possibly be because that was when Davis issued his first "execute on sight" order against certain Union officers if taken prisoner? And when Davis celebrated Christmas by ordering Ben Butler and Union officers serving in black regiments to be executed, and their men sold to slavery, then paroles were halted. And rightly so. Why reward a regime that refuses to treat your soldiers as prisoners of war? And in the end that was always the sticking point. And it was government policy:
"JUNE 13, 1864.
I am happy to hear the authority sent you will relieve from embarrassment in the further organization of the reserves.
In any special cases your applications, as they always do, will have much weight with me.
I send copy of my report,* which will explain my views about Butler and the exchange of prisoners through him. On the two points as to which you comment I agree with you entirely. I doubt, however, whether the exchange of negroes at all for our soldiers would be tolerated. As to the white officers serving with negro troops, we ought never to be inconvenienced with such prisoners.
J. A. S."
J.A.S. was James Seddon, the secretary of war. Link
So how was the Union supposed to act, rustbucket? Was it supposed to take what it could get, accept the exchange of white soldiers and ignore what was being done to black soldiers and their white officers? And how do you deal with a regime where murdering officers of black regiments was apparently the official policy of the war department? Should the Union just have shrugged it off and justified it by saying it got officers of white regiments back? And do you place the blame for this on Lincoln, too?
It may be remarked here that the rebels were willing enough to exchange prisoners at this time, man for man, were we to permit it to be done.
Let's look at this, shall we. Specifically Butler's letter to Ould dated August 27, 1864 Lnk. In it Butler clearly references the confederate refusal to treat captured black Union soldiers as prisoners as the sole sticking point in the exchange process. And it continued to be a sticking point because Ould refused to respond to Butler's request for clarification.
So continue to spin it, rustbucket. Yes, the Union refused to exchange prisoners because, and only because, the confederate government refused to treat certain of it's prisoners as soldiers. Had the Union agreed to exchange all confederate prisoners except those from South Carolina, and instead had them executed as traitors would you be so quick to call for Davis to exchange those he could and write of the South Carolinians?
Ould's offer, like his offer to buy medicines for Union prisoners was made before the large number of deaths at Andersonville.
Let's look at confederate reports on Andersonville. This one, made by D.T. Chandler, speaks volumes. Link
On housing: "No shelter whatever, nor materials for constructing any, has been provided by the prison authorities, and the ground being entirely bare of trees, none is within reach of the prisoners, nor has it been possible, form the overcrowded state of the inclosure, to arrange the camp with any system."
On medical care: "There is no medical attendance furnished within the stockade."
On treatment of those Union prisoners who died: "The dead are hauled out daily the wagon load and buried without coffins, their hands in many instances being first mutilated with an ax in the removal of any finger rings they may have."
Health condition: "The sanitary condition of the prisoners is as wretched as can be, the principal causes of morality being scurvy and chronic diarrhea, the percentage of the former being disproportionately large among those brought from Belle Isle. Nothing seems to have been done, and but little, if any effort, made to arrest it by procuring proper food."
On rations: "The ration is one-third pound of bacon and one pound and a quarter unbolted corn-meal with fresh beef at rare intervals, and occasionally rice. When to be obtained-very seldom-a small quantity of molasses is substituted for the meat ration. A little weak vinegar, unfit for use, has sometimes been issued. The arrangements for cooking and baking have been wholly inadequate, and though additions are now being completed it will still be impossible to cook for the whole number of prisoners. Raw rations have to be issued to a very large proportion who are entirely unprovided with proper utensils and furnished so limited a supply of fuel they are completed to dig with their hands in the fifty marsh before mentioned for roots, &c."
In conclusion: "The condition of the prison at Andersonville is a reproach to us as a nation. The Engineer and Ordnance Departments were applied to for implements, authorized their issue, and I so telegraphed General Winder. Colonel Chandler's recommendation are concurred in."
Yet nothing was done, rustbucket. Deliberately. Perhaps the Union should have exchanged those that they could if for no other reason than to save them from such deliberate mistreatment. Maybe they could have sent medicine, and it might even have made it to the prisoners, but what medicine is there for starvation? For scurvey? For exposure? All that could have been provided by the confederates, who instead found it better policy to allow the prisoners to die off in wagon loads. Maybe the Lincoln government could have prevented it. But the Union did take the position that it was all soldiers or none, and those in Andersonville and other rebel hell-holes paid the price for confederate policy. In more ways than one.
It should also be no surprise to you that if the South captured their former slaves in Union uniforms, they would not treat them as prisoners of war but would return them to slavery. In this regard, your post forgot to mention Butler's sentence:
In case the Confederate authorities should yield to the argument...and formally notify me that their slaves captured in our uniform would be exchanged as other soldiers were, and that they were ready to return to us all our prisoners at Andersonville and elsewhere in exchange for theirs, I had determined, with the consent of the lieutenant-general [Grant], as a last resort, in order to prevent exchange, to demand that the outlawry against me should be formally reversed and apologized for before I would further negotiate the exchange of prisoners.
Prevent exchange? Even if Southern slaves captured in Northern uniforms were exchanged? That lays bare the hypocrisy of the Northern commanders.
As Lee said to Grant:
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
October 3, 1864.
Lieutenant General U. S. GRANT,
Commanding Armies of the United States:
GENERAL: In my proposition of the 1st instant to exchange the prisoners of war belonging to the armies operating in Virginia I intended to include all captured soldiers of the United States of whatever nation and color under my control. Deserters from our service and negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition. If there are any such among those stated by you to have been captured around Richmond they cannot be returned.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
R. E. LEE,
General.
Lee was willing to exchange free Negroes who were not slaves or deserters from Confederate service. Up until the war and even part way into it, the law in the North was to return escaped slaves to their masters.
I have no doubt the conditions at Andersonville were terrible. I've been there, and the crosses in the cemetery are very moving. I recommend for your reading pleasure the book Portals to Hell by Lonnie R. Speer for descriptions of the terrible conditions in both Northern and Southern prisons.
These prisoners were put immediately in front of a Union battery that the South had been shelling. Shells falling short landed among the prisoners.
Some of these prisoners died of starvation in US hands. They were fed less than prisoners at Andersonville.
Not to China, but he did allow a Cray super computer to be “loaned” to the USSR to be used in boosting their auto industries. The only problem was the commies used it for their military programs. When the “loan” program” ended and they were supposed to return it they replied “NYET”...
This enabled them to develop their advanced MIG fighters and missile programs....
The simple fact is that take away slavery and leave every other cause and there is no rebellion. Leave slavery and take away every other reason you care to name, and the South still rebels. Simple as that.
If the South were willing to fight to protect their slaves, then it should be no surprise to you that they would treat Northern officers who used former Southern slaves to fight the South as leading a slave insurrection. The penalty for such was death.
Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." If the Union said it would hang every confederate officer it caught for treason, without benefit of trial, then would that have been OK with you?
It should also be no surprise to you that if the South captured their former slaves in Union uniforms, they would not treat them as prisoners of war but would return them to slavery.
No, it is not a surprise given the contempt that Davis and his government had for laws and courts and things like that. Execute who you want. Enslave any blacks that you got your hands on. What difference did it make?
And for the record, there were no runaway slaves in the Union army. Only free men. The Emacipation Proclamation took care of that.
In this regard, your post forgot to mention Butler's sentence...
It would have been hard to deal with Ould if Butler knew he'd be summarily hung if captured, but in any case the matter is moot. Ould never responded to Butler's insistence that black Union soldiers be included in the exchanges. And so the exchanges were held up. Due to confederate intransigence.
Deserters from our service and negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition.
Again, there were no 'negroes belonging to our citizens' in the Union army. Not after January 1, 1863.
I have no doubt the conditions at Andersonville were terrible. I've been there, and the crosses in the cemetery are very moving. I recommend for your reading pleasure the book Portals to Hell by Lonnie R. Speer for descriptions of the terrible conditions in both Northern and Southern prisons.
I've no doubt. The difference between us is that I make no apologies for Union treatment of confederate prisoners and do not try and justify that treatment in any way. You, on the other hand, place the blame entirely on Lincoln.
Why Lincoln?
And at the risk of repeating myself, yet again, I am not justifying Union mistreatment of prisoners. You, on the other hand, seem willing go to any length to justify confederate mistreatment of prisoners. When you're not blaming their fate on Lincoln, that is.
The simple fact is that take away slavery and leave every other cause and there is no rebellion. Leave slavery and take away every other reason you care to name, and the South still rebels. Simple as that.
There is some sense in what you say. However, IMO if there had not been slavery, the Morrill Tariff would have been sufficient cause. It was not signed into law until March 2, 1861, after the Southern states had left the Union. Had the Southern states still been in the Union, a big chunk of their wealth would have been disproportionally passed on to Northern manufacturers and used to provide manufacturing jobs for Northerners.
Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." If the Union said it would hang every confederate officer it caught for treason, without benefit of trial, then would that have been OK with you?
Hanged for treason? It would have been a long term guerrilla war if that had happened. Confederate soldiers were no longer subject to the Constitution, their states having withdrawn from the compact. Your theory of no unilateral secession not withstanding. Hmmm, I see the US has just recognized the unilateral secession declared by Kosovo.
No, it is not a surprise given the contempt that Davis and his government had for laws and courts and things like that. Execute who you want.
It must be offensive even to you to be in the position of trying to defend "Beast" Butler for hanging William Mumford, a New Orleans citizen, for taking down a US flag before the city was captured. For months, the US ignored Confederate pleas for justice in the Mumford case, so Davis issued his proclamation naming Butler a felon and authorizing his hanging.
Mumford was no Barbara Frietchie of legend, I guess [Link]. Not to Butler anyway.
And for the record, there were no runaway slaves in the Union army. Only free men. The Emacipation Proclamation took care of that.
The proclamation that declared an enemy's slaves to be free? In a similar vein, I hereby declare that all your income belongs to me. Whoops, I guess I sound too much like Hillary or Obama claiming things that aren't theirs to claim.
It would have been hard to deal with Ould if Butler knew he'd be summarily hung if captured, but in any case the matter is moot.
Funny, there is a lot of correspondence between Ould and Butler as agents of exchange in the Official Records. I guess Butler wasn't as concerned as you are.
Ould never responded to Butler's insistence that black Union soldiers be included in the exchanges. And so the exchanges were held up. Due to confederate intransigence.
Read Butler's statement again about not exchanging prisoners with the South even if the South gave up their slaves who were captured in Northern uniforms. Ould probably realized what was going on. Butler would have kept inventing reasons not to exchange.
Again, there were no 'negroes belonging to our citizens' in the Union army. Not after January 1, 1863.
The modern equivalent is "All your base are belong to us."
The difference between us is that I make no apologies for Union treatment of confederate prisoners and do not try and justify that treatment in any way.
Justify that treatment??? Wash your mouth out.
I am reminded of a story I've posted of an act of kindness by the wife of a Union prison commander. The following was written by one of the Confederate prisoners:
I want to say a few words for Colonel Brown's wife. One day in a fit of desperation, I wrote Colonel Brown a note, asking him to grant me an interview. To my surprise, on the following day he granted it. A sergeant conducted me to his office quarters. The Colonel received me politely. I told him I had an uncle in St. Louis, St. Andrew Murray, who would gladly aid me with money if I were allowed to communicate with him. His reply was, "Sir, I, personally, would be glad to grant your request; but I am sorry indeed I can not, under my orders, do so. I am powerless." For a few moments he left the office. The lady who had been present during the interview was Colonel Brown's wife. Turning to me she said, "Write your draft to your uncle; you shall have the money." This kind noble lady...gave me, as I left the office, a paper containing two large slices of bread, butter, and ham. I took them to my sick comrade, Billy Funk.
There were good people and bad people on both sides. Colonel Brown and his wife were kind to their Confederate prisoners, and I applaud them for it.
The why didn't the South secede when it passed out of the House in the spring of 1860? Why weren't they even complaining about it? Marching in the streets? Threatening something? Whey did they secede even before the bill was taken up by the new senate? The South could have blocked passage there if their senators hadn't walked out. But Lincoln gets inaugurated with his opposition to the expansion of slavery and they can't leave fast enough. I think that's an indication of the folly of your arguement.
Hanged for treason? It would have been a long term guerrilla war if that had happened. Confederate soldiers were no longer subject to the Constitution, their states having withdrawn from the compact. Your theory of no unilateral secession not withstanding.
I meant that as a response to your attempt at justifying the execution without trial of Union officers, linking them with slave revolt. If such summary executions of Southern officers for treason, which, strictly speaking, they were guilty of, would be received so violently in the South then why are you surprised that the execution of Union officers for commanding black regiments would be objected to in the North?
It must be offensive even to you to be in the position of trying to defend "Beast" Butler for hanging William Mumford, a New Orleans citizen, for taking down a US flag before the city was captured. For months, the US ignored Confederate pleas for justice in the Mumford case, so Davis issued his proclamation naming Butler a felon and authorizing his hanging.
Well you can't be very upset at the execution of Mumford if you see nothing wrong with executing out of hand Union officers. At least Mumford had the appearance of a trial before being hung for treason, Davis wanted to kill people on sight.
The proclamation that declared an enemy's slaves to be free? In a similar vein, I hereby declare that all your income belongs to me. Whoops, I guess I sound too much like Hillary or Obama claiming things that aren't theirs to claim.
When you can't defend your side in their own time, toss in Clinton and Obama and call your opponent a liberal. You people don't change a bit.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a fact. In the eyes of the Union all Southern slaves were free, and that included being free to join the Union Army. You think that it would have been perfectly acceptable for Lincoln to leave captured Union soldiers, those that weren't murdered trying to surrender that is, in Southern hands to be returned to slavery or shot without trial while other white soldiers were exchanged for their rebel counterparts. And when the Union didn't go along with such a blatantly unfair scheme, you have no problems with those Union prisoners being starved to death. All that is Lincoln's fault and not the South's.
Justify that treatment??? Wash your mouth out.
I have yet to see you condemn it or to do anything but blame it on Lincoln. The Southern whine "All the fault are belong to Lincoln."
No complaints?
Some months ago we said to the Northern party, "You sought sectional aggrandizement, and had no scruples as to the means and agencies by which to attain your unhallowed purposes. You paid no heed to the possible consequences of your insane conduct." The fact was then patent that the condition in the bond by which the Northern protectionist party gave its weight and influence in aid of Black Republicanism was the imposition by the party of a protectionist tariff. The South was to be fleeced that the North might be enriched.
Having driven the South to resistance, instead of adopting a policy of conciliation, it added to the existing exasperation by adopting a tariff as hostile as could be to Southern interests. The estrangement of North and South was not sufficiently marked and intense. New fuel must be added to the fires of strife, new incentives to embittered feelings. [Source: New Orleans Picayune, April 3, 1861]
Sectional aggrandizement was mentioned as one of the reasons for secession by Texas and Georgia.
Whey did they secede even before the bill was taken up by the new senate? The South could have blocked passage there if their senators hadn't walked out.
Vote calculation by Senator Louis Wigfall of Texas, December 12, 1860, posted long ago by GOPcapitalist:
Tell me not that we have got the legislative department of this Government, for I say we have not. As to this body, where do we stand? Why, sir, there are now eighteen non-slaveholding States. In a few weeks we shall have the nineteenth, for Kansas will be brought in. Then arithmetic which settles our position is simple and easy. Thirty-eight northern Senators you will have upon this floor. We shall have thirty to your thirty-eight. After the 4th of March, the Senator from California, the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from New Jersey, and the Senator from Minnesota will be here. That reduces the northern phalanx to thirty-four...There are four of the northern Senators upon whom we can rely, whom we know to be friends, whom we have trusted in our days of trial heretofore, and in whom, as Constitution-loving men, we will trust. Then we stand thirty-four to thirty-four, and your Black Republican Vice President to give the casting vote. Mr. Lincoln can make his own nominations with perfect security that they will be confirmed by this body, even if every slaveholding State should remain in the Union, which, thank God, they will not do.
At least Mumford had the appearance of a trial before being hung for treason, Davis wanted to kill people on sight.
Taking a flag down is a capital offense?
When you can't defend your side in their own time, toss in Clinton and Obama and call your opponent a liberal. You people don't change a bit.
I must have hit a nerve. When did I call you a liberal? I have no idea what your politics are and don't care.
You think that it would have been perfectly acceptable for Lincoln to leave captured Union soldiers, those that weren't murdered trying to surrender that is, in Southern hands to be returned to slavery or shot without trial while other white soldiers were exchanged for their rebel counterparts.
You are presuming to tell me what I think and misstating it to boot. You do this a lot. I'm sure there is a name for this type of debate tactic.
Basically the North was ignoring the prior call on the service of escaped black slaves that was the law of the US at the start of the war and claiming the right to free them. These conflicting claims were only resolved by force of arms.
I suspect that a number of the black Union soldiers taken as prisoners were returned to their owners. The South recognized the claims of slave owners for their service, as did the North in regions controlled by the North.
I wondered if there were black Union soldiers at Andersonville. Turns out there were -- they were captured at Olustee.
... you have no problems with those Union prisoners being starved to death.
Tsk, tsk. You're doing it again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.