Bitterness and Blame: Prisons and Prisoners of the Civil War
February 25th, 2006 -- Posted in History, Ramblings | 2 Comments »The emotional turmoil of prison life is profoundly identifiable in prison diaries, memoirs, and historical evaluations. In the evaluation of life in the prisons, historians struggle to lay blame and explain how both Confederate and Union governments as well as the citizens nearby seemingly overlooked atrocities of war such as those prisoners of war experienced. There are many commonalities in the historiography of prisons and prisoners of the Civil War period. The prisons, described most often as dens of filth with prisoners suffering from inadequate food and poor sanitation, most scholars agree, were deplorable. Most historians agree prison conditions were atrocious. Conclusions deviate in the tone of writing and with the assigned culprit for blame.
Personal accounts, narratives, and diaries published immediately following the Civil War were much harsher in their descriptions of prison life and treatment. It is the opinion of some historians that the elaborate descriptions of maltreatment were resulting from the need to convince the government those former prisoners of war deserved pensions. Some accounts demonstrated obvious anger for the captors. Union prisoners held by the Confederacy attempted to show how brutal their captors were. Confederates, defending their virtue, portrayed the North as oppressors. These views are rather indicative of the Lost Cause evaluations emerging after the war.
William Best Hesseltine, in his introduction to Civil War Prisons (1997), simply states, “no prisoner loves his jailer”(p6). This statement alone gives explanation to the various tones of writing regarding the Civil War. He further states, “prisoners in confinement and in varying states of illness were in no position to make objective judgments” (p7). When in misery it is easy to declare deliberate the hardships imposed by one’s captor. To some degree, the captor may be at fault for improper treatment, but maybe not always.
Civil War Prisons (1997), edited by Hesseltine, is a collection of essays concerning various Union and Confederate prisons. Papers presented in this work describe life at Andersonville, Fort Warren, Rock Island, Libby Prison, Elmira, and Johnson’s Island. The final chapter deals with the prison diary of Edmund E. Ryan. Hesseltine, a leading Civil War scholar, was before his death president of the Wisconsin Historical Society and professor of history at the University of Wisconsin. He strives to portray the history of this era without bias. Hesseltine declares that records of the Civil War prisons were incomplete and inadequate to use as a determination to place blame. He does not minimize the brutal nature of prison life, but indicates there are more forces at work than mere thirst for power upon the part of captors. The purpose of his work is to illustrate how carefully objective students studying the Civil War prisons need to be in separating truth from propaganda (p8).
Minor H. McLain, former prisoner of war during World War II and later associate professor of history at the State College in Salem, Massachusetts, presents two scenarios in his doctoral thesis regarding how prisoners may react to their captors. In “The Military Prisons at Fort Warren”, included in Hesseltine’s Civil War Prisons, McLain presents the theory that the prisoner will develop a respect, not to be confused with a like of friendship, for his captors; or the prisoner will develop a hatred for his enemy unparalleled on the battlefield (p32). This is easy to discern when comparing diary accounts published in the years immediately following the war and memoirs published twenty or thirty years later. Generally, accounts published just after the Civil War reveal bitterness and uncompromising descriptions of atrocities faced. Such is the case in Beyond the Lines (1864) by J.J. Geer.
Geer’s account, written from the perspective of a prisoner with no respect for his captors, regards Confederates as savages because of their views on slavery. Geer declares he is presenting a “straightforward and unvarnished account of facts”(p3). Declaring slavery repulsive and necessary to expose, Geer’s bias is apparent. The tone of his writing expresses hateful sentiment for his captors and a grand scale view of the Union. He describes Union military personnel as “the noblest men in the nation . . . (suffering) for country’s sake” (p17). Geer’s work is indicative of Lost Cause views. However, his tone of bitterness is probably more the result of resentment than an effort to portray prevailing thought of the period.
The memoir of Ezra Hoyt Ripple’s, Dancing Along the Deadline: The Andersonville Memoir of a Prisoner of the Confederacy (1996), edited by Mark A. Snell, contrasts Geer’s bitterness. Ripple claims to compose his memoirs for posterity’s sake, it is not meant as propaganda. Throughout the work Ripple does not portray anger or resentment toward his Confederate captors. He usually references them with respect, especially those who had actually seen combat. Snell speculates this may have been because of Ripples softening feelings over the years or because of patriotism of the early twentieth century. During this revisionist period there was much recognition of both the good and bad of Civil War and Reconstruction eras. Ripple may not have been intentionally propagandizing his experiences, but to some degree that is the effect. Although little embellishment is obvious in Ripple’s memoir, he does reveal prison officials as victims of circumstance and strives to portray them as such instead of the evil and inhumane characters many had made them out to be. As Hesseltine evaluates in his article “The Propaganda Literature of Confederate Prisons” (1935), embellishments of prison atrocities are tools of propaganda during and immediately after the Civil War.
All historical accounts of prison life during the Civil War are a testament to the devastating life experienced. Hesseltine states in the “The Propaganda Literature of Confederate Prisons” (1935) and Civil War Prisons: A Study in War Psychology (1930), the 13, 000 graves at Andersonville evidence poverty and inefficiency of the Confederate prison system (p59). In review, Charles Ramsdell declares this as the “first systematic and adequate study of the subject” (p480). According the Ramsdell, Hesseltine refutes charges of confederate wanton cruelty.
History of Andersonville Prison (1968), Ovid Futch, attempts no comparison with other prisons. He attempts to present an unbiased account exposing speculations of deliberate abuse and neglect. Futch concludes Andersonvilles’s failures are a direct result of improper planning and poor timing. He declares not only Henry Wirz, prison supervisor, to blame, but also the entire confederate government. Andersonville atrocities were no secret. Even after periodic inspections, few changes took place. With the works of Hesseltine and Futch, the trend toward revisionist ideology becomes obvious.
William Marvel, in Andersonville: The Last Depot (1994), also argues Confederate inefficiency and poverty as being contributors to mass casualties in the Confederate prison at Andersonville declaring the prisons hasty establishment and failure to reach completion before the arrival of prisoners is to blame. Tried and hung for war crimes, Henry Wirz took blame for the death toll and poor conditions at the Georgia prison. Although not a pleasant or likeable character by description, Wirz suffered as a scapegoat for Andersonville sufferings. In reality, he became the victim of indifferent Confederate commanders and the failing Confederate economy. Marvel uses arguments declaring victimization to exonerate Wirz of being solely responsible for the lacking facility and care at Andersonville. Marvel also attempts to blame Union decisions to cease prisoner exchanges for the high death toll at Andersonville. This argument is unsubstantiated in this and other works. In his review of Andersonville: the Last Depot (1994), Walter Edgar, University of South Carolina, declares Marvel’s argument for the Unions deliberate exacerbation of the prison tragedies by suspension of exchanges as unconvincing and properly dismissed (p157). War is not pleasant, nor is prison life. It is not fathomable that the Lost Cause idea of suspending exchanges of prisoners was for creating more propaganda. It is more plausible the cessation of exchanges was due to conflict between Union and Confederate commanders regarding equal exchange of officers and black troops for white troops. To exchange a single black Union soldier for a single white Confederate soldier indicated equality, which the South was not willing to do.
Similar in detail to Andersonville: The Last Depot (1994) and Dancing Along the Deadline, Edward F. Roberts provides descriptions of Andersonville life in Andersonville Journey (1998). Roberts also declares Wirz a scapegoat. The book, divided into three parts, details an aspect of Andersonville in each section. Part one describes life at Andersonville, including the scarcity of food, shelter and clean water. Roberts evaluates attempted reforms to better accommodate prisoners. This section also introduces Henry Wirz. Part two is dedicated to the transfer of prisoners just before the end of the war, but concentrates mostly on the arrest, trial and hanging of Wirz. Part three discusses post-war actions of prisoner care, the establishment of a proper cemetery and remembering those kept at Andersonville prison and its horrific legacy.
Although Andersonville is the most notorious prison of the Civil War, it is not the only prison. Historiography addresses similar issues of inadequacy at other prisons, north and South. James I. Robertson Jr. directs attention to the Andersonville of the North in his essay, “The Scourge of Elmira”, presented in Hesseltine’s Civil War Prisons (1997). Robertson describes conditions similar to that at Andersonville: overcrowding, poor sanitation, and lack of necessities. Michael Horigan does the same in Elmira: Death Camp of the North (2002). Horigan declares the horrendous conditions where and aggressive retaliation policy adopted by Union government in response to known atrocities of prisoner life in the Confederacy. He also connects treatment with the cease of prisoner exchange as an attempt to hasten the end of the war. This connection is plausible if based on the idea that holding prisoners prevents them from strengthening enemy forces. However, it does not release officials from the responsibility of depravity experienced in the prisons.
Benton McAdams, Rebels at Rock Island: The Story of a Civil War Prison (2000), compares a sixteen percent mortality rate at Rock Island to the thirty percent at Andersonville and twenty-four percent at Elmira. Hardships faced at Rock Island pale in comparison to those at Elmira or Andersonville. McAdams declares the poor reputation of Rock Island stems from a propaganda war between the prison commandant, Adolphus J. Johnson, and journalist Joseph Baker Danforth Jr. Danforth, a Democrat opposing the war, using his journalistic forum to expose and embellish prison faults. Inappropriate comments by Johnson indicating a wish to see prisoners starve did not help ease tensions or remove substance for Danforth to elaborate.
Although propaganda offers negative connotations in evaluating literature, it is usually not without some foundation. Michael P Gray dedicates an entire chapter to prison torture techniques in his work The Business of Captivity (2001). Gray describes, in detail, torture methods used such as a seven-foot box known as a sweatbox that kept a punished prisoner enclosed for a few moments that seemed like hours. He also describes barrel shirts worn as a means of embarrassment for prisoners caught stealing from messmates or other smaller infractions. Reserved for severe punishment was hanging by the thumbs or a practiced called bucking and gagging. Bucking and gagging involved restriction of movement and a wooden block, large enough to split the corners of one’s mouth, placed as a gag (125). With such actions as this, it is no wonder historiography of Civil War prisons reveals much atrocity and bitterness.
Some prisoners did not sit idle without protest to their plight. Edited by George L. Anderson, A Petition Regarding the Conditions in the CSM by John Fraser describes inadequate shelter, rations and care received by prisoners in Columbia, South Carolina. Included in the petition is a statement that the petitioners do not believe their captors are recognizing the extent of prisoner sufferings. The next statement requests no retaliation for the petition. This indicates the previous statement was included to ease any tensions aggravated by such a petition.
In another work written during the war, Henry S. White details his three-month incarceration in eighteen letters compiled to the Zion’s Herald, and independent Methodist newspaper. These letters are published and include editor’s notes by Edward Jervey in Prison Life Among the Rebels (1990). Jervey states White’s anti-southern biases are clear and his opinions should not indicate fact (xiii). This statement is in concurrence with the earlier mentioned advice, by Hesseltine, for students to remain objective when evaluating such a sensitive and emotional subject as prison life.
In researching Civil War prison life one will come across terms such as heroism, nobility, horror, evil and cowardice. These are all aspects addressed in Yankee Rebel (1966), edited by John G. Barrett. This work consists of the diary of Edward Dewitt Patterson, a northerner who chose allegiance to the South. He was first kept prisoner at Fort Delaware, then Johnson’s Island. Although he describes the unsanitary conditions and inadequate food in the prisons, like Ezra Ripple, Patterson describes his captors as predominantly respectful. His tone of writing is matter-of-fact, not bitter nor condescending. He writes in a very descriptive style and describes Confederate soldiers as noble, honorable and high-minded. Bias to his adopted home in the South he does not speak poorly of the North. He continuously declares the North as more resourceful, and adopts Lost Cause sentiment in stating the Union knows it cannot defeat the will of the Southerner. Yankee Rebel (1966) is one of few personal accounts that address events of the war outside prison walls. The only outside information addressed in memoirs of Andersonville or Elmira are the rumors of prison exchange. Patterson was obviously more fortunate in obtaining outside information. In his writing as a prisoner of war, there is much reminiscence of days gone by.
In Libby Life: Experiences of a Prisoner of War (1865) General Frederic Fernandez Cavada offers another descriptive account of prison life. The published work, compiled from the frequent writings of Cavada upon newspaper margins and paper scraps, describes Libby prison in elegant detail and creates a mental picture of disappointing prisoner accommodations. Cavada took to writing of his experiences as a means to pass the time. A commonality between prisoners, regardless of where held, is the large amount of idle time they experienced. Unlike other works of this period, such as The Southern Side; or Andersonville (1876), by Randolph Stevenson, Cavada’s is not indicative of a propaganda tool to expand upon the horror or prisons or to illicit anger toward the opposing force.
In ”Libby Prison: A Study of Emotions” (1958), Frank Byrne declares propaganda and anger toward captors North or South, stems from events caused by fear. In his revisionist view, it was fear, Byrne says, not shortages, which caused actions condemned by propagandists. Prison officials feared losing control, therefore overcompensating to regain or keep power. As a means of control, guards used withholding of rations, ball and chains to restrict movement, or stockade confinement.
It is true that guards and prison supervisors feared losing control of their captives. In multiple works, scenarios are described where guards use withholding rations to gain information. Particularly was the case if suspecting a riot or escape attempt. Torture tactics earlier described presented a means of instigating fear, therefore keeping control.
Interpretations in the historiography of Civil War prisons and the life within are the same with regard to filth and depravity. Some prisons were better than others were; yet, none were adequate for quality care. Differences arise in the culprit to blame for atrocities committed in the name of war. The North blames the South and the South blames the North, each condemning the other for neglect.
Memoirs are the works with the most diversity in blame. Those published in the early twentieth century were less harsh in reference to their captors with some authors declaring them victims of inadequate funding and instructions from unaware ranking officials. Although some guards were brutal, others were respectful and described as such. The change from earlier published accounts is partly due to the passage of time and partly to patriotism and the desire to move past Reconstruction era animosity. There is revisionist influence upon writing of the early Twentieth century. Accepted is the fact that prison conditions were poor and prisoners suffered. However, revisionists declare the inability to correct problems was the cause of continued depravity, not intentional brutality. Accordingly, the governments did the best they could with what they had.
Written without obvious bias are relatively few works. The works of Hesseltine and Futch are the most revered by scholars. Before the Civil War ended works were being published and the topic of prisons being discussed among journalist outlets such as Harper’s Weekly and Zion’s Herald. It is only in the late Twentieth century that authors began suggesting that despite all the obstacles, governments were ultimately responsible for prison failures. Still, objectivity is required in any study of history. War is not pleasant and atrocity abounds. In evaluating any historiography, one has the benefit of hindsight to form opinions and evaluations. In the case of Civil War prisons and prison life, Hesseltine was correct in declaring, no prisoner loves his jailer. The evidence supports this. Regardless of the first hand narratives, the death toll speaks for itself. Governments were negligent, as were guards, prison commandants and even the citizens of the Union and Confederacy. Their choices of inaction sealed the fate of many individuals.