"Southern Treatment of Black Union Soldiers" Topic

Southern treatment of captured soldiers, officer and enlisted, from black regiments was horrific and an atrocity, or a series of atrocities.

'All the negroes found in blue uniform or with any outward marks of a Union soldier upon him was killed-I saw some taken into the woods and hung-Others I saw stripped of all their clothing, and they stood upon the bank of the river with their faces riverwards and then they were shot-Still others were killed by having their brains beaten out by the butt end of the muskets in the hands of the Rebels-.'

'All were not killed the day of the capture-Those that were not, were placed in a room with their officers, they (the Officers) having previously been dragged through the town with ropes around their necks, where they were kept confined until the following morning when the remainder of the black soldiers were killed.'-from an affadavit of a Union sergeant from McPherson, The Civil War, 793.

The head of the Confederate Bureau of War remarked on the enlistment of black troops in the Union army: 'The enlistment of our slaves is a barbarity. No people..could tolerate…the use of savages [against them]…We cannot on any principle allow that our property can acquire adverse rights by virtue of a theft of it.-McPherson, 792.

Hundreds were slaughtered based on Confederate secretary of War's directive of 'we ought never to be inconvenienced with such prisoners…summary execution must therefore be inflicted on those taken.'-McPherson 793.

Among the places that captured Union black troops were massacred was Fort Pillow, Poison Spring, and the Crater…-McPherson 793.

Thank you for reminding us.

Now Brechtel, Nice to be reminded of this atrocity.

Why did you delete the first two comments, Bill?

Should we randomly post atrocities across all of the boards for well needed reminders?

I'm not really convinced that this subject lies within the remit of TMP. But it is at least as close as many other topics raised on the general subject of American history, so I am clearly wrong in my understanding.

Brechtel198,
Is this something we should be including in our ACW games?

Bill, can we have a section on just Slavery?

Maybe have a section for "Virtue Signalling" so when someone feels the need to signal everyone about their moral superiority, empathy, sensitivity, knowledge, and high standards they can have an outlet to broadcast it to everyone. Any comments on disagreement or calling them a Snow Flake automatically get deleted. They need a safe space.

Wolfhag

I agree. Are there miniatures for this yet?

Quite silly to touch base on such a sour subject we are already aware of. And so close to Black History Month too.

Slave revolts are always dealt with in this manner. Remember the end of the Sparticus revolt. None the less, still a horrible chapter of American history. Perhaps we could also remember that the last murder in Missouri over the Civil War happened in 1917. The county I grew up in had men being killed when caught alone until the 1890s'. A civil war often releases the worst in passions. Civilization is a thin veneer that we can tear apart at our peril.

Why did you delete the first two comments, Bill?

Violation of forum rules.

Yes, it's Black History month soon, and this is Black History. The amount of material written about this kind of thing is not large compared to other ACW topics. I begin reading Civil War history as a kid in the 1950s and it was years before I left the golden glow of Lost Cause narratives and became aware of the harsh realities of slavery in America.

The unwritten and written rules of real war are not part of our gaming. I don't think any of our rules do other than abstract the capture of troops as part of a general reduction in unit effectiveness.

The hobby lets me relive the adventure of war without any of the brutality and horror and return to the youthful innocence of play. But obviously we also learn history from this hobby and the dark side may come up in discussion.

I am okay with this here. Labels like virtue signaling, woke, snowflake…I don't care that much. I started out with Airfix and Featherstone gaming the Civil War. I left the era for years later on as the narrative deepened for me. It seemed too dark and slavery was nothing to fight for.
But I came back a few years ago, inspired by re-reading Catton's AOP trilogy. The soldiers in the field on both sides are the focus now in my gaming once again. But the dark side of the era is not entirely forgotten.

I remember reading somewhere, although i can't put my finger on it, that USCT also executed confederates that fell into there hands. The specifics in this case were to do with the Bermuda Hundred campaign

Here is a list of some of the highlights for Confederate massacres and war crimes. Not complete but a good starter:

link

The Confederate proclamation that black soldiers and their white officers would be put back into slavery or tried/executed for inciting slave insurrection led President Lincoln to issue General Order 252 which essentially ended prisoner exchanges. This of course led to large numbers of prisoners on both sides which in turn led to neglect and much worse. This prisoner exchange abatement policy would stay in force in the Union until the CSA recognized black soldiers as legitimate military personnel, like all others.

It is an illustration of the Confederacies dedication to white supremacy that rather than back off of singling out black Union soldiers they would let their own soldiers suffer.

link

For wargaming purposes it serves to allow us to consider adjusting factors for combat and morale when black union units fight confederate ones on table top. For campaigns, you could have the CSA face lowered percentages of recuperating battle losses unless their players agree to rescind their order to re-enslave and/or shoot soldiers from black units. The corresponding harm might be a reduction of their side's popular opinion or an increase in black units available to the union.

There are a lot of ways to use this information to enhance or "color" ACW battles and campaigns.

The official policy of the Confederacy was to return captured slaves to their owners. Free blacks captured were to be sold into slavery. Their white officers were to be held in prison, not exchanged, potentially to be tried for instigating a servile insurrection (but I don't think any such trials were held, as the U.S. threatened to retaliate.) The whole subject led to a break down in the exchange of prisoners (for which Grant got the blame/credit, but it was Lincoln's decision).

Sorry Bill,

Didn't know I did that.

+1 Wolfhag….

Bill, maybe you should create a section/room/forum area called "Virtue Signaling", or "I want to stir up s**t", for posts like this, because after awhile, this gets old.
And it's usually the same people who keep beating the dead horse to make themselves look and feel "superior".

I believe that the atrocities committed by the Confederates/Confederacy is part of the story of the Rebellion.

If slavery is a useful topic to be discussed then so is this as it is a sub-topic of slavery.

So are the atrocities committed by the other side also part of that story? Now perhaps we should compare death rates at Andersonville and Camp Douglas?

And how about Lincoln declaring chloroform to be contraband and blockaded.

War is hell, I believe somebody said. Mass destruction of civilian property?

Seriously, why focus on one set of atrocities except for virtue signaling and smug feel-goods? The whole war was.

I have to give serious thought to whether there is any benefit to me in being here. But I'd not want to give someone the satisfaction of driving me away.

@Doc, you might add Custer's execution of Mosby's men and of course the retaliation. Also of course "Bloody Kansas". New York draft riots. Opps forgot the 1862 Sioux uprising in Minnesota. I am sure I am forgetting some.

Okay, Kevin, see if you want to respond to this. Do you agree with Lincoln here?

Before proceeding, let me say that I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist among us [in Illinois], we should not instantly give it up.—This I believe of the masses North and South.—Doubtless there are individuals on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances, and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become most cruel slave-masters.

A. Lincoln, Peoria Address, October 1854

If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist among us [in Illinois], we should not instantly give it up.

35th and Murphy, yes.

I've no doubt Kevin's facts are accurate. It is his motive for posting them I question.

Bill, I'm sorry, but this sort of thread is really bad for TMP.

Southern treatment of captured soldiers, officer and enlisted, from black regiments was horrific and an atrocity, or a series of atrocities.

Do you have any recommendations on rules that we can accurately reflect this in our games?

Kim

I've no doubt Kevin's facts are accurate. It is his motive for posting them I question.

Bill, I'm sorry, but this sort of thread is really bad for TMP.

I just dont know what to say here. What I will say is that this was a fine topic to bring up -- certainly something I didnt know about.

Bill, I'm sorry, but this sort of thread is really bad for TMP.

Historical discussion related to war is always welcome here.

Nobody is forcing you to read it.

Do you have any recommendations on rules that we can accurately reflect this in our games?

Different morale rules for soldiers who know they might be killed if they surrender?

Whilst these were uncivilised barbarous atrocities they were not war crimes as these incidents preceded the first Hague Convention in 1899

What is the point of Kevin's posting? Is he condemning the spirit that allows the absolute desire to win at any cost which produces amazing atrocities? If so, I agree. We can then join together to deplore the Allied bombing of Dresden in the same light. Or the ransacking of the American Indians by the US government (which began during the ACW). I hope Kevin would equally agree that the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan in 45 by the Americans was an atrocity of enormous proportions.

If we consider that there are more than a few posters that maintain that the South was no more racist than the rest of the nation, then "Kevin's" thread is a rebuttal to this. Additionally, it is a rebuttal to the idea that those who criticize the CSA are doing it by unfairly applying contemporary moral standards.

It would appear that the South lived in somewhat paranoid terror of slave uprisings which rarely manifested themselves except on a minuscule scale. Further, their definition of slave insurrection was somewhat loose and included free blacks fighting for the Union.

It's fascinating to illustrate that the CSA was so very committed to white supremacy and deterring slave rebellions that they would abandon their own soldiers to get revenge on blacks of all descriptions. Its more proof that the South was racist and slave obsessed, even for the times.

It would be very hard to imagine the contemporary British government abandoning their soldiers to die in camps just because they wanted revenge on non white soldiers whom they hated not for any evil behavior but for their intrinsic characteristics. Even more shocking because most British soldiers weren't a vote while, I assume, most CSA soldiers had the vote. Condemning your own voter base to disease and death in order to get revenge is dedication.

Also, it tends to confirm the sincerity of the secession articles which discussed preservation of slavery and the inferiority of the black race. It is one of those instances where the words and the deeds both align in perfect harmony.

Au pas de charge, +1

I hope Kevin would equally agree that the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan in 45 by the Americans was an atrocity of enormous proportions.

No, I don't agree. The dropping of the two nuclear weapons ended the war without an invasion of Japan which would have produced over 1,000,000 allied casualties and would have quite literally destroyed Japan.

And it should be remembered that Japan opened the ball and had to accept the consequences.

No, I don't agree. The dropping of the two nuclear weapons ended the war without an invasion of Japan which would have produced over 1,000,000 allied casualties and would have quite literally destroyed Japan.

You are assuming, of course, that the atomic bombs were dropped to end the war. I think a more likely explanation is that Truman wanted to show the full fruits of the Manhattan Project and to scare the Soviets. Japan was simply a pretext for such a display. If not, the Americans could have blockaded the Japanese Islands and simply waited (invasion was not the only option.) But that would not have satisfied other American aims.

Waited for what, though? Years might go by. The Japanese were not big on surrendering. The bombs gave them a reason.

Japanese troops, in ones and twos, were still coming out of the jungles to surrender into the 1970s.

The two nukes finished the job at a much less loss of life, conspiracy theories aside.

Marcus, yes I'm sure one of the reasons Truman did it, was to prove to the Russians that we had them and would use them.

But by 1945 the People in the US were worn down by the war, as I am sure it was elsewhere in the world. No one was up for a prolonged blockade or for sure, for the millions lost in an invasion of Japan. My family already had 2 brothers and 2 first cousins in the war, one dead in France with Pattons army. My dad turned 18 late in 45 and would also have to go. So I believe the US people would never have forgiven Truman for not using a weapon that could have saved millions of lives.

The Japanese would have starved to death if the USA would have just blockaded the Islands. They almost starved to death anyway. The results of the 'silent service' in WWII has been underappreciated.

I don't have to 'look and feel "superior'" to any Confederate apologist. I already AM morally superior to anybody who would defend the Confederacy, its survival, and its ideals just by being opposed to it.

Blockading Japan would not have ended the war in China, or do you propose we invade there too?

We are fortunate that we have those in our hobby that are willing to collect, paint and play with "the Bad Guys" of world history, otherwise this hobby would be non existent.

Whether it's the Egyptians, Romans, Mongols, Vikings, Turks, Spanish, Americans, Germans, Japanese and many many more throughout history who's record on human rights violations is abhorrent, we are still willing to play the battles and campaigns of the armies of these nations.

We all recognize every nations abuses and atrocities, but our focus is on the strategy, tactics and study of the military leaders, the common soldiers, and the wars they fought.

If we can't separate those realities, then this is the wrong hobby and we should just play chess.

Kim

I can absolutely admire the fighting qualities of the individual soldier. I have said so in the past. And paint and game using them today. I also recognize when their cause was an unjust one.
But I also will point out and not back down from pointing out apologists for such unjust causes.
"I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse." -Ulysses S. Grant.

What Cleburne said.

@KimRYoung

GGG uncle who fought with 50th Va. which surrendered at Fort Donelson (later exchanged). Fought in West Virginia. The regiment was transferred to Jones Brigade, ANV. Fought at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg.

Gettysburg would be his last fight as he was killed second day in the attack on Culp's Hill. Was buried near the battlefield until later interned and sent to Hollywood Cemetery to be buried in a mass grave with many of the dead from Gettysburg.

Kim

TMP link

It would seem you, or rather your GGG Uncle, had a direct interest in prisoner exchanges. And although he met his end at Gettysburg, I'm fairly certain that his exchange was just before the cut off point. His ability to be exchanged added manpower to the confederate army. Thus, this discussion has a direct impact on the ACW and perhaps wargames campaign scenarios in a way that the Egyptians, Vikings and Mongols probably do not.

I believe this satisfies your self styled requirement that we keep:

…our focus is on the strategy, tactics and study of the military leaders, the common soldiers, and the wars they fought.

If we can't separate those realities, then this is the wrong hobby and we should just play chess.

It would be interesting to know what your ancestor (or any prisoner sitting in a camp) would've had to say about CSA/USA prisoner exchange policies and how they were arrived at.

But you see, there is no separation of realities here, and you can both have this discussion and still confidently continue to wargame the period.

On a related topic, today is the 100th Anniversary of the destruction of the prosperous black community of Rosewood by white nationalists.

link

It would be interesting to know what your ancestor (or any prisoner sitting in a camp) would've had to say about CSA/USA prisoner exchange policies and how they were arrived at.

I wonder what he thought of a lot of things, like his motivation to enlist. He was a simple farmer and NOT a slave holder. I can only assume he believed (or was convinced) he was defending his land from an invasion from the North.

I also believe he had a better chance of surviving 3 years in a Union POW camp rather then return to the army.

Having went to Gettysburg again this fall, I went to the exact point his regiment attacked. I can say being ordered to attack the union position there was totally hopeless and cried for him and every soldier that was ever given such an impossible order.

Kim

Suspending the prisoner exchange was the right move for the Union. One-for-one exchanges benefited the south more than the north.

I enjoy painting confederate soldiers more than Union. I like the way they look on the table better. None of my little metal figures are slave owners and none of my little metal generals have any political opinions that they have cared to share with me. They line up where I want them and do as they are told for a couple of hours every month or so.

I enjoy Military history. I dont try to examine all the political and morale stuff. I deal with that stuff in my real life. Wargaming to me is only about pushing lead, rolling dice and having a good time!

TMP link

Here's a relevant book by one of my professors:
The Saltville Massacre by Thomas D. Mays
link

A blurb from that The Saltville Massacre book:

In the morning, Confederate troops, including a company of ruffians under the command of Captain Champ Ferguson, advance over the battleground seeking out and killing the wounded black soldiers. What starts as a small but intense mountain battle degenerates into a no-quarter, racial massacre. A detailed account from eyewitness reports of the most blatant battlefield atrocity of the war.

It would be interesting to calculate the percentage killing by Confederate soldiers of wounded white troops vs black ones.

Brechtel198 +10 FTP