alan J. Pitts
Re: Prisons
Thu Jun 14 14:52:05 2001


This isn't what Mr. Martin wants to be posted, but I'll say a couple of things on this subject and leave it be. Yes, war has always been extremely unpleasant. In the "war is hell" category, consider the following: American soldiers (and other allied troops) frequently killed unarmed German prisoners, and allied air attacks deliberately targeted cities such as Dresden for no discernable military purpose. On both levels -- actions of individual soldiers as well as actions of higher authorities -- great moral wrongs were committed. Yet for reasons too obvious to repeat here, I daresay few would place Hitler's Germany on the same moral level as the allied powers that defeated it.

I might interject here that one reason so many find the war interesting today has to do with its moral implications. It cannot be avoided.

The official policy of the Federal government towards Confederate prisoners was abhorent and reprehensible. I have yet to be convinced that the Confederate policy towards Union prisoners was one of deliberate neglect and starvation. As far as individual actions are concerned, human nature too often prompts those that have power over others to abuse and terrorize them. Too often prison guards behaved like thugs in Northern and Southern POW camps.

Unfortunatley Northen troops were frequently in a position to abuse and terrorize Southern civilians. As I have mentioned elsewhere, David Evans "Sherman's Horsemen" contains numerous instances of Southerners being burned out or left to starve. Evans makes it clear that this was not uniform -- some were pleasantly surprised not to be robbed or left homeless -- but random acts of vandalism were normal for most Northern horsemen. After seeing burned home after burned home, I can understand the Confederate response to catching some of these house-burners in the act. And Evans makes it clear that horsemen that rode with Garrard, Stoneman, Kilpatrick and McCook were equal-opportunity vandals -- they'd just as soon mistreat blacks and Unionists as well as pro-Confederate civilians. The accounts Evans usually uses are generally written by Northern veterans, which makes them even more telling.

Finally, we may fairly describe experiences on the Southern homefront as being much like Viet Nam in the sixties: very unpleasant, very uncivil. "T'weren't nuthin' civil about it," in the words of one Confederate veteran. We don't read much on the subject, but the homefront witnessed a near-complete vacuum of civil authority, virtual anarchy. Imagine the absence of any police forces or county sherrifs or national guard in your community today. A neighbor threatened to shot one of my dogs yesterday. What might he (or I) do if neither of us believed any civil authorities were available to subdue us? That was certainly the case in much of Alabama during the war.

Incidentally, fear of civil anarchy was the primary reason cited by William T. Sherman for waging war against the Confederate states. His letters make interesting reading.

My apologies to Hoyt and others. I honestly don't appreciate Northern war aims and tend to take the Southern side on many issues. I agree that it's ridiculous to perceive history exclusively in terms of good vs. evil, and understand that crimes were committed on both sides. Lee was certainly knew that, yet he could tell his men at the surrender, "You may take with you the satisfaction that proceeds from the consciousness of duty faithfully performed."

But, when the smoke cleared and ashes settled, many Union soldiers went home burdened with loot taken from Southern homes. I cannot imagine that those not motivated by abolition or hatred of Southerners or just a simple will to survive returned with anything worthy of personal pride.