Pollard, Edward Alfred; The Lost Cause; a New Southern History of the War…
New York, E.B. Treat & co., Baltimore, Md., L. T. Palmer & co.; [etc.,
etc.] 1866. pp. 629, 632– 638
….Commissioner Ould urged and succeeded in raising a
joint Congressional Committee at Richmond, to take the testimony of returned
prisoners as to their treatment by the enemy. That Committee was raised, and a
large mass of testimony was taken, which was unfortunately lost by fire. This
Committee, however, made a report in February, 1865, a copy of which was
preserved. It is a document which should be read with care; the space it
occupies could scarcely be filled with a narrative more just and condensed; and
we therefore annex it, in fill:
REPORT OF THE
JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE CONFEDERATE CONGRESS, APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE THE
CONDITION AND TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR.
…Thus it appears that the sick and wounded Federal
prisoners at Annapolis whose condition has been made a subject of outcry and of
widespread complaint by the Northern Congress, were not in a worse state than
were the Confederate prisoners returned from Northern hospitals and prisons of
which the humanity and superiour management are made subjects of special
boasting by the United States Sanitary Commission!
In connection with this subject, your committee take
pleasure in reporting the facts ascertained by their investigations concerning
the Confederate hospitals for sick and wounded Federal prisoners. They have made
personal examination, and have taken evidence specially in relation to
“Hospital No. 21,” in Richmond, because this has been made subject of
distinct charge in the publication last mentioned. It has been shown, not only
by the evidence of the surgeons and their assistants, but by that of Federal
prisoners, that the treatment of the Northern prisoners in these hospitals has
been everything that humanity could dictate; that their wards have been well
ventilated and clean; their food the best that could be procured for them-and in
fact, that no distinction had been made between their treatment and that of our
own sick and wounded men. Moreover, it is proved that it has been the constant
practice to supply to the patients, out of the hospital funds, such articles as
milk, butter, eggs, tea, and other delicacies, when they were required by the
condition of the patients. This is proved by the testimony of E. P. Dalrymple,
of New York, George Henry Brown, of Pennsylvania, and Freeman B Teague, of New
Hampshire, whose depositions accompany this report.
This humane and considerate usage was not adopted in the
United States hospital on Johnson’s Island, where Confederate sick and wounded
officers were treated. Col. J. H. Holman thus testifies: “The Federal
authorities did not furnish to the sick prisoners the nutriment and other
articles which were prescribed by their own surgeons. All they would do was to
permit the prisoners to buy the nutriment or stimulants needed; and if they had
no money, they could not get them. I know this, for I was in the hospital sick
myself, and I had to buy, myself, such articles as eggs, milk, flour, chickens,
and butter, after their doctors had prescribed them. And I know this was
generally the case, for we had to get up a fund among ourselves for this
purpose, to aid those who were not well supplied with money.” This statement
is confirmed by the testimony of Acting-Assistant Surgeon John J. Miller, who
was at Johnson’s Island for more than eight months. When it is remembered that
such articles as eggs, milk, and butter were very scarce and high-priced in
Richmond, and plentiful and cheap at the North, the contrast thus presented may
well put to shame the “Sanitary Commission,” and dissipate the
self-complacency with which they have boasted of the superiour humanity in the
Northern prisons and hospitals.
Your committee now proceed to notice other charges in these
publications. It is said that their prisoners were habitually stripped of
blankets and other property, on being captured. What pillage may have been
committed on the battle-field, after the excitement of combat, your committee
cannot know. But they feel well assured that such pillage was never encouraged
by the Confederate generals, and bore no comparison to the wholesale robbery and
destruction to which the Federal armies have abandoned themselves, in possessing
parts of our territory. It is certain that after the prisoners were brought to
the Libby and other prisons in Richmond no such pillage was permitted. Only
articles which came properly under the head of munitions of war, were taken from
them.
The next charge noticed is, that the guards around the Libby
prison were in the habit of recklessly and inhumanly shooting at the
prisoners, upon the most frivolous pretexts, and that the Confederate officers,
so far from forbidding this, rather encouraged it, and made it a subject of
sportive remark. This charge is wholly false and baseless. The “Rules and
Regulations,” appended to the deposition of Major Thomas P. Turner, expressly
provide, “Nor shall any prisoner be fired upon by a sentinel or other person,
except in case of revolt or attempted escape.” Five or six cases have occurred
in which prisoners have been fired on and killed or hurt; but every case has
been made the subject of careful investigation and report, as will appear by the
evidence. As a proper comment on this charge, your committee report that the
practice of firing on our prisoners by the guards in the Northern prisons
appears to have been indulged in to a most brutal and atrocious extent. See the
depositions of C. C. Herrington, Wm. F. Gordon, Jr., J.. McCreary, Dr. Thomas P.
Holloway and John P. Fennell. At Fort Delaware, a cruel regulation as to the use
of the’“ sinks,” was made the pretext for firing on and murdering several
of our men and officers-among them, Lieut.-Col. Jones, who was lame, and was
shot down by the sentinel while helpless and feeble, and while seeking to
explain his condition. Yet this sentinel was not only not punished, but was
promoted for his act. At Camp Douglas, as many as eighteen of our men are
reported to have been shot in a single month. These facts may well produce a
conviction in the candid observer, that it is the North and not the South that
is open to the charge of deliberately and wilfully destroying the lives of the
prisoners held by her.
The next charge is, that the Libby and Belle Isle prisoners
were habitually kept in a filthy condition, and that the officers and men
confined there were prevented from keeping themselves sufficiently clean to
avoid vermin and similar discomforts. The evidence clearly contradicts this
charge. It is proved by the depositions of Maj. Turner, Lieut. Bossieux, Rev.
Dr. McCabe, and others, that the prisons were kept constantly and systematically
policed and cleansed; that in the Libby there was an ample supply of water
conducted to each floor by the city pipes, and that the prisoners were not only
not restricted in its use, but urged to keep themselves clean. At Belle Isle,
for a brief season (about three weeks), in consequence of a sudden increase in
the number of prisoners, the police was interrupted, but it was soon restored,
and ample means for washing, both themselves and their clothes, were at all
times furnished to the prisoners. It is doubtless true, that notwithstanding
these facilities, many of the prisoners were lousy and filthy; but it was the
result of their own habits, and not of neglect in the discipline or arrangements
of the prison. Many of the prisoners were captured and brought in while in this
condition. The Federal general, Neal Dow well expressed their character and
habits. When he came to distribute clothing among them, he was met by profane
abuse, and he said to the Confederate officer in charge, “You have here the
scrapings and rakings of Europe.” That such men should be filthy in their
habits might be expected.
We next notice the charge that the boxes of provisions and
clothing sent to the prisoners from the North, were not delivered to them, and
were habitually robbed and plundered, by permission of the Confederate
authorities. The evidence satisfies your committee that this charge is, in all
substantial points, untrue. For a period of about one month there was a stoppage
in the delivery of boxes, caused by a report that the Federal authorities were
forbidding the delivery of similar supplies to our prisoners. But the boxes were
put in a warehouse, and afterwards delivered. For some time no search was made
of boxes from the “Sanitary Committee,” intended for the prisoners’
hospital. But a letter was intercepted, advising that money should be sent in
these boxes, as they were never searched; which money was to be used in bribing
the guard, and thus releasing the prisoners. After this, it was deemed necessary
to search every box, which necessarily produced some delay. Your committee are
satisfied that if these boxes or their contents were robbed, the prison
officials are not responsible therefore Beyond doubt, robberies were often
committed by prisoners themselves, to whom the contents were delivered for
distribution to their owners. Notwithstanding all this alleged pillage, the
supplies seem to have been sufficient to keep the quarters of the prisons so
well furnished that they frequently presented, in the language of a witness,
“the appearance of a large grocery store.
In connection with this point, your committee refer to the
testimony of a Federal officer, Col. James M. Sanderson, whose letter is annexed
to the deposition of Major Turner. He testifies to the full delivery of the
clothing and supplies from the North, and to the humanity and kindness of the
Confederate officers-specially mentioning Lieut. Bossieux, commanding on Belle
Isle. His letter was addressed to the President of the United States Sanitary
Commission, and was beyond doubt received by them, having been forwarded by the
regular flag of truce. Yet the scrupulous and honest gentlemen composing that
commission, have not found it convenient for their purposes to insert this
letter in their publication! Had they been really searching for the truth, this
letter would have aided them in finding it.
Your committee proceed next to notice the allegation that
the Confederate authorities had prepared a mine under the Libby
prison, and placed in it a quantity of gunpowder for the purpose of
blowing up the buildings with their inmates, in case of an attempt to rescue
them. After ascertaining all the facts bearing on this subject, your committee
believe that what was done under the circumstances, will meet a verdict of
approval from all whose prejudices do not blind them to the truth. The state of
things was unprecedented in history, and must be judged of according to the
motives at work, and the result accomplished. A large body of Northern raiders,
under one Col. Dahlgren, was approaching Richmond. It was ascertained, by the
reports of prisoners captured from them, and other evidence, that their design
was to enter the city, to set fire to the buildings, public and private, for
which purpose turpentine balls in great number had been prepared; to murder the
President of the Confederate States, and other prominent men; to release the
prisoners of war, then numbering five or six thousand; to put arms into their
hands, and to turn over the city to indiscriminate pillage, rape, and slaughter.
At the same time a plot was discovered among the prisoners to co-operate in this
scheme, and a large number of knives and slung-shot (made by putting stones into
woolen stockings) were detected in places of concealment about their quarters.
To defeat a plan so diabolical, assuredly the sternest means were justified. If
it would have been right to put to death any one prisoner attempting to escape
under such circumstances, it seems logically certain that it would have been
equally right to put to death any number making such attempt. But in truth the
means adopted were those of humanity and prevention, rather than of execution.
The Confederate authorities felt able to meet and repulse Dahlgren and his
raiders, if they could prevent the escape of the prisoners.
The real object was to save their lives, as well as those
of our citizens. The guard force at the prisons was small, and all the local
troops in and around Richmond were needed to meet the threatened attack. Had the
prisoners escaped, the women and children of the city, as well as their homes,
would have been at the mercy of five thousand outlaws. Humanity required that
the most summary measures should be used to deter them from any attempt at
escape.
A mine was prepared under the Libby
prison; a sufficient quantity of gunpowder was put into it, and pains
were taken to inform the prisoners that any attempt at escape made by them would
be effectually defeated. The plan succeeded perfectly. The prisoners were awed
and kept quiet. Dalhlgren and his party were defeated and scattered. The danger
passed away, and in a few weeks the gunpowder was removed. Such are the facts.
Your committee do not hesitate to make them known; feeling assured that the
conscience of the enlightened world and the great law of self-preservation will
justify all that was done by our country and her officers.
We now proceed to notice, under one head, the last and
gravest charge made in these publications. They assert that the Northern
prisoners in the hands of the Confederate authorities have been starved, frozen,
inhumanly punished, often confined in foul and loathsome quarters, deprived of
fresh air and exercise, and neglected and maltreated in sickness-and that all
this was done upon a deliberate, wilful, and long-conceived plan of the
Confederate Government and officers, for the purpose of destroying the lives of
these prisoners, or of rendering them forever incapable of military service.
This charge accuses the Southern Government of a crime so horrible and unnatural
that it could never have been made except by those ready to blacken with slander
men whom they have long injured and hated. Your committee feel bound to reply to
it calmly but emphatically. They pronounce it false in fact, and in design;
false in the basis on which, it assumes to rest, and false in its estimate of
the motives which have controlled the Southern authorities.
At an early period in the present contest the Confederate
Government recognized their obligation to treat prisoners of war with humanity
and consideration. Before any laws were passed on the subject, the Executive
Department provided such prisoners as fell into their hands, with proper
quarters and barracks to shelter them, and with rations the same in quantity and
quality as those furnished to the Confederate soldiers who guarded these
prisoners. They also showed an earnest wish to mitigate the sad condition of
prisoners of war, by a system of fair and prompt exchange – and the
Confederate Congress co-operated in these humane views. By their act, approved
on the 21st day of May, 1861, they provided that “ all prisoners of
war taken, whether on land or at sea, during the pending hostilities with the
United States, shall be transferred by the captors from time to time, and as
often as convenient, to the Department of War; and it shall be the duty of the
Secretary of War, with the approval of the President, to issue such instructions
to the Quartermaster-General and his subordinates, as shall provide for the safe
custody and sustenance of prisoners of war; and the rations furnished prisoners
of war shall be the same in quantity and quality as those furnished to enlisted
men in the Army of the Confederacy.” Such were the declared purpose and policy
of the Confederate Government towards prisoners of war-amid all the privations
and losses to which their enemies have subjected them, they have sought to carry
them into effect.
Our investigations for this preliminary report have been
confined chiefly to the rations and treatment of the prisoners of war at the
Libby and other prisons in Richmond and on Belle Isle. This we have done,
because the publications to which we have alluded chiefly refer to them, and
because the “Report No. 67” of the Northern Congress plainly intimates the
belief that the treatment in and around Richmond was worse than it was farther
South. That report says: “It will be observed from the testimony that all the
witnesses who testify upon that point state that the treatment they received
while confined at Columbia, South Carolina, Dalton, Georgia, and other places,
was far more humane than that they received at Richmond, where the authorities
of the so-called Confederacy were congregated,” Report, p. 3.
The evidence proves that the rations furnished to prisoners
of war in Richmond and on Belle Isle, have been never less than those furnished
to the Confederate soldiers who guarded them’, and have at some seasons been
larger in quantity and better in quality than those furnished to Confederate
troops in the field. This has been because, until February, 1864, the
Quartermaster’s Department furnished the prisoners, and often had provisions
or funds, when the Commissary Department was not so well provided. Once and only
once, for a few weeks, the prisoners were without meat, but a larger quantity of
bread and vegetable food was in consequence supplied to them. How often the
gallant men composing the Confederate Army, have been without mea, for even
longer intervals, your committee do not deem it necessary to say. Not less than
sixteen ounces of bread and four ounces of bacon, or six ounces of beef,
together with beans and soup, have been furnished per day to the prisoners.
During most of the time the quantity of meat furnished to them has been greater
than these amounts; and even in times of the greatest scarcity, they have
received as much as the Southern soldiers who guarded them. The scarcity of meat
and of breadstuffs in the South, in certain places, has been the result of the
savage policy of our enemies in burning barns filled with wheat or corn,
destroying agricultural implements, and driving off or wantonly butchering hogs
and cattle. Yet amid all these privations, we have given to their prisoners the
rations above mentioned. It is well known that this quantity of food is
sufficient to keep in health a man who does not labour hard. All the learned
disquisitions of Dr. Ellerslie Wallace on the subject of starvation, might have
been spared, for they are all founded on a false basis. It will be observed that
few (if any) of the witnesses examined by the “Sanitary Commission” speak
with any accuracy of the quantity (in weight) of the food actually furnished to
them. Their statements are merely conjectural and comparative, and cannot weigh
against the positive testimony of those who superintended the delivery of large
quantities of food, cooked and distributed according to a fixed ratio, for the
number of men to be fed.
The statements of the “Sanitary Commission” as to
prisoners freezing to death on Belle Isle, are absurdly false. According to that
statement, it was common, during a cold spell in winter, to see several
prisoners frozen to death every morning in the places in which they had slept.
This picture, if correct, might well excite our horrour; but unhappily for its
sensational power, it is but a clumsy daub, founded on the fancy of the painter.
The facts are, that tents were furnished sufficient to shelter all the
prisoners; that the Confederate commandant and soldiers on the Island were
lodged in similar tents; that a fire was furnished in each of them; that the
prisoners fared as well as their guards; and that only one of them was ever
frozen to death, and he was frozen by the cruelty of his own fellow-prisoners,
who thrust him out of the tent in a freezing night, because he was infested with
vermin. The proof as to the healthiness of the prisoners on Belle Isle, and the
small amount of mortality, is remarkable, and presents a fit comment on the
lugubrious pictures drawn by the “Sanitary Commission,” either from their
own fancies, or from the fictions put forth by their false witnesses. Lt.
Bossieux proves that from the establishment of the prison camp on Belle Isle in
June, 1862, to the 10th of February, 1865, more than twenty thousand
prisoners had been at various times there received, and yet that the whole
number of deaths during this time, was only one hundred and sixty-four. And this
is confirmed by the Federal colonel, Sanderson, who states that the average
number of deaths per month on Belle Isle, was “from two to five; more
frequently the lesser number.” The sick were promptly removed from the Island
to the hospitals in the city.
Doubtless the “Sanitary Commission” have been to some
extent led astray by their own witnesses, whose character has been portrayed by
Gen. Neal Dow, and also by the editor of the New York Times, who, in his
issue of January 6th, 1865, describes the material for recruiting the
Federal army as “wretched vagabonds, of depraved morals, decrepit in body,
without courage, self-respect, or conscience. They are dirty, disorderly,
thievish, and incapable.”
In reviewing the charges of cruelty, harshness, and
starvation to prisoners made by the North, your committee have taken testimony
as to the treatment of our own officers and soldiers, in the hands of the enemy.
It gives us no pleasure to be compelled to speak of the suffering inflicted upon
our gallant men; but the self-laudatory style in which the “Sanitary
Commission “ have spoken of their prisons, makes it proper that the truth
should be presented. Your committee gladly acknowledge that in many cases our
prisoners experienced kind and considerate treatment; but we are equally assured
that in nearly all the prison stations of the North – at Point Lookout, Fort
McHenry, Fort Delaware, Johnson’s Island, Elmira, Camp Chase, Camp Douglas,
Alton, Camp Morton, the Ohio Penitentiary and the prisons of St. Louis,
Missouri, our men have suffered from insufficient food, and have been subjected
to ignominious, cruel, and barbarous practices, of which there is no parallel in
anything that has occurred in the South. The witnesses who were at Point
Lookout, Fort Delaware, Camp Morton and Camp Douglas, testify that they have
often seen our men picking up the straps and refuse thrown out from the
kitchens, with which to appease their hunger.
