| |

Immortal 600: Prisoners Under Fire at Charleston Harbor During the American Civil WarAmerica's Civil War | 7 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post Shells arched over the waters of Charleston Harbor throughout the summer of 1864. Some of the ponderous bombs shrieked into the city, while the deadly trajectory of others ended in Federal fortifications ringing the cradle of secession. For a group of Confederate prisoners living in a stockade built on a wispy spit of sand, the path of those hissing bombs, some so large and slow-moving that they could be followed in flight, was uncomfortably familiar, for their Morris Island prison pen had been deliberately placed in harm’s way. In essence, the beleaguered Rebels baking in the sun were being used as human shields. It was a sad commentary on how nasty the Civil War had become. Subscribe Today
The unfortunate situation had its roots in the previous summer. On August 21, 1863, Maj. Gen. Quincy A. Gillmore, the Federal commander in the Charleston area at the time, had sent a message to his Confederate counterpart, General P.G.T. Beauregard, informing him of the Union army’s intention to fire into Charleston. He stated that the city was a military target due to its arsenal, which manufactured artillery shells, and its docks, which received supplies smuggled through the blockade. He informed the Southern general that the shelling would start sometime after midnight, August 22.
Beauregard howled in protest, stating that he did not have adequate time to evacuate the city of its noncombatants. Nevertheless, in the wee hours of the following morning, Federal mortars sent their deadly projectiles into both the residential and business areas of downtown Charleston. Most affluent residents quickly fled the city, but the poorer inhabitants had to remain and face the onslaught.
Gillmore placed an 8-inch Parrott rifle on Morris Island, four miles across the harbor from the south end of the city. The giant cannon, nicknamed the ‘Swamp Angel,’ hammered 16 screaming shells into Charleston before dawn, signaling the beginning of a bombardment that would last 567 days. In the month of January 1864 alone, 1,500 mortar shells were fired into the city. Once-mighty Fort Sumter, the linchpin of the city’s defenses, was being pounded into a pile of rubble.
On April 20, 1864, Maj. Gen. Samuel Jones arrived in Charleston to take command of the Department of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida from Beauregard, who had been reassigned to North Carolina. Jones was a career army officer who had been born on December 17, 1819, in Powhatan County, Va. He attended West Point and ranked 19th out of 52 cadets in the class of 1841. He served on the Maine and Florida frontiers before returning to West Point in 1846 as a mathematics professor and an artillery instructor. Unlike many of the U.S. Army’s young officers at that time, he saw no action in the Mexican War. In 1853 he was promoted to captain and served in Texas until 1858, when he was made assistant judge advocate.
After Virginia seceded from the Union, Jones went with his native state. He resigned from the Army on April 27, 1861, and reported for service with the Confederacy. At the First Battle of Manassas, he commanded the Confederate artillery as a colonel under Beauregard and was shortly afterward promoted to brigadier general. Jones then led a brigade in Virginia, but was sent to Florida at the turn of 1862. He was promoted to major general and spent the rest of that year in various posts in Florida, Mississippi and Tennessee.
Jones had a bad habit of questioning his superiors, and at times refusing their orders. He hated to relinquish troops under his command and usually ran into trouble as a consequence. In the autumn of 1862 he failed to send reinforcements to General Braxton Bragg in Kentucky, and for that misstep he was transferred to command the Department of Western Virginia. Throughout 1863 and early ‘64, he maintained the supply routes that fed the Army of Northern Virginia, but fell into disfavor with General Robert E. Lee when he continually argued about the assignment of regiments. In March, Jones was relieved of his Virginia command and ordered to Charleston. Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6Tags: 19th Century, America's Civil War, American Civil War, Historical Conflicts
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
7 Comments to “Immortal 600: Prisoners Under Fire at Charleston Harbor During the American Civil War”
I wonder why this particular incident is not taught in public shcools? By the way, it’s not hard for me to see who was at fault. The North was knowingly shelling non-combatants – period. The South graciously let Union prisoners into the homes of NON-combatants, who, by the law of land warfare at that time, should have been allowed to leave BEFORE the bombardment. When a force has no respect for rules and regulations, anarchy generally arises to take its place.
By Robert Strickland on Aug 22, 2008 at 4:01 pm
An interesting and well-written argument, that makes an effort to be even-handed. A few points that are perhaps worthy of mention.
First, a major reason that the Union ceased prisoner exchanges was because the Confederacy had announced that it would not regard black troops — the United States Colored Troops (USCT) — as lawful combatants and would not treat them as prisoners of war. In response, the North ceased all prisoner exchanges. It is true that later in the war, an attrition analysis was relevant the issue of exchanging Southern prisoners (generally better fed due to more resources in the North) for Union prisoners who were often gravely malnourished and would almost always muster out. There is nothing unlawful or wrong about not exchanging prisoners–I would argue that this just shows that Grant was a modern general with a strong grasp of logistics and the clear vision to realize the necessary conditions for victory.
Second, any analysis of treatment of prisoners is arguable incomplete without mention of the truly horrific conditions at the main prison for Union prisoners of war, Andersonville. Photos of some of the surviving Union prisoners after the war resemble the concentration camp photos that we have all seen in connection with World War II. This is not meant to suggest that the Confederacy deliberately meant to starve and kill the victims, but their treatment not surprisingly engendered tremendous anger in the Northern public and Union forces.
By H. Woods on Feb 11, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Fort Delaware rivaled andersonville for horrible conditions. Look it up . My great great grandpa was a prisoner there and had to walk home barefooted looking like a rack of skin and bones. Home was Pike County in southern Alabama . He had no means of obtaining foo or anything else . He was just tough enough to live through the inhumane treatment . The north wrote the history books therefore inhumane treatment at the camps and using prisoners as human shields is always omitted from the history books. His name was James Lorenzo Manning private 22nd Alabama Infantry Company I . He is buried in Westville Fl .
Wally Dees
Amite , La
By WALLY DEES on Mar 7, 2009 at 7:23 am
Ft. Delware was not the only northern prison that was as bad or worse than Andersonville, look at Chicago. You also must know that the pictures you see are no of prisoners from Andersonville.
By Jerry Young on Mar 25, 2009 at 3:37 pm
im using some of this for a history school project, thanks!
By Bri on Apr 17, 2009 at 12:39 pm
For the most in-depth examination of the story of these men and their treatment, read “Immortal Captives” by Mauriel Phillips Joslyn. It is taken from the diaries, letters and recollections of the captives, guards and others associated with their situation. It comprises a fully documented indictment of Lincoln, Stanton and Grant for their policies concerning prisoners of war.
Gary W. Poole
By Gary W. Poole on Aug 10, 2009 at 6:56 pm