Andersonvilles of the North: The Myths and Realities of Northern Treatment of Civil War Confederate Prisoners

4. Union Policies Regarding Prisoners of War

–4– UNION POLICIES REGARDING PRISONERS OF WAR 1861–1865 TO LOOK AT MOST OF THE WRITING DONE BETWEEN 1865 and the present, the evidence against Northern officials regarding how they treated Confederate prisoners during the Civil War appears to be pretty damning. Ex-prisoners and modern writers have agreed, with some very limited, very recent exceptions, that the Federal government could have done considerably more than it actually did to mitigate Southern prisoners’ suffering and mortality. Many have contended that the North had everything it wanted, materially speaking, but failed to share its bounty with Southern captives out of a spirit of vindictiveness. Others cite a misguided retaliation policy wherein vital supplies were intentionally kept from prisoners in Northern pens for the supposed misdeeds of the Richmond government. Still others have preferred the lesser charge of simple negligence. Whatever the reasons offered by writers discussing Union treatment of Confederate prisoners, most have stated explicitly or implied strongly that Southern prisoners’ suffering and mortality were excessive. Modern writers often accept that medical ignorance and the enormity of the job of caring for prisoners between the summer of 1863, when the exchange cartel was suspended, and 1865 were variables affecting mortality in Northern prison camps. However, most also assume that the North’s military, financial, and material resources should have been adequate to have overcome those difficulties. In fact, anyone researching this topic will 71 find quickly that the idea that given the North’s material abundance Confederate mortality was inexcusably high has become cliché. This chapter reexamines that old and remarkably durable negative perception of Northern prisoner of war policies through official military records and wartime Southern diaries written by prisoners before the postwar axes were brought out for grinding. Evidence from these sources reveals that while Union prisons were most certainly uncomfortable and potentially lethal places, Northern officials tried more often than not to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for Confederate inmates. That their efforts to take proper care of those prisoners failed to keep mortality below 12% is tragic, but that statistic says far more about life in military camps of that time period than it does about the character of the Northern people and their government during the Civil War. One concept that is critical to understand when trying to assess whether Union officials were unduly negligent and/or abusive toward Confederate prisoners is that notions of rules regulating treatment of military prisoners captured in battle were in their infancy when the Civil War began in 1861. Charles Sanders asserted in a 2006 article that Northern policies regarding prisoners of war “stood in direct contradiction to the provisions of international law,” suggesting that a body of law in this area existed. The fact is that no body of international law, no Geneva Conventions, in short, nothing remotely close to the modern and extensive body of international laws existed in the 1860s to inform Northern officials about how Southern prisoners were to be fed, clothed, sheltered, and cared for medically. Further muddying the water was the fact that Confederate prisoners were not, at least in eyes of Northerners and the eyes of the international community, soldiers from a legal nation; they were rebels, outlaws . While Western nations by the middle of the nineteenth century tended to accept that they had certain humanitarian responsibilities for prisoners from enemy nations, it was far less clear that rebels or internal enemies were entitled to the same rights and privileges as combatants from legally recognized states. Most likely such captives wound up in the category of traitors, outlaws who had forfeited their right to expect the protection of the law and were therefore at whatever mercy the legitimate authorities chose to bestow.1 The idea too that when prisoners have surrendered and thrown down their arms that they are to be treated as humanely as possible is very modern . Prior to the Enlightenment in the West, those unfortunate enough to be captured in battle were ransomed, enslaved, or killed. While exceptions no 72 ANDERSONVILLES OF THE NORTH doubt existed, wars prior to the Enlightenment had not been romantic jaunts fought between groups who harbored chivalric ideas about war as some sort of lethal tournament fought according to rules and regulations. Western history is full of examples prior to the Enlightenment of prisoners and civilians who happened to be in the area being slaughtered wholesale in the wake of...