HistoryNet mastheadHistoryNetShop Summer Catalog

Immortal 600: Prisoners Under Fire at Charleston Harbor During the American Civil War

America's Civil War  | 7 comments  | Print This Post  | Email This Post

Jones was unshaken by the stern words of the Union general and fired back a letter chastising Foster and the Federal armies for their conduct throughout the war. He complained at length that the Confederate authorities had not been notified, or given time to evacuate the city, before the bombardment began the previous August. He closed his dispatch to the enemy commander with the furious words: ‘Under the foregoing statement of facts, I cannot but regard the desultory firing on this city which you dignify by the name bombardment, from its commencement to this hour, as antichristian, inhuman, and utterly indefensible by any law, human or divine.’ Clearly Jones was in no mood to be chastised by the Yankees, nor was he prone to any sympathy for the captive Union officers he was exposing to danger.

Subscribe Today

Subscribe to America's Civil War magazine

In late June, the war of words began to match the war of guns, as Jones and Foster fired verbal salvos back and forth across Charleston Harbor. Both generals were under pressure to end the siege, but since they were losing troops to the front in Virginia, the stalemate dragged on and the prisoners stayed put.

The captives themselves became involved in the ongoing rhetoric when the five Federal generals among them–Truman Seymour (another Fort Sumter veteran), Henry Wessells, Eliakim P. Scammon, Charles A. Heckman and Alexander Shaler–wrote to Foster requesting an exchange and asking that the Union provide the Confederate prisoners with ‘kindness and courtesy.’ Scammon also requested permission from Jones to be released so he might go north to reason with the U.S. War Department to allow the two groups of prisoners to be exchanged. But the Confederate commander politely refused the request: ‘General, your note of yesterday was handed to me today. I am sorry to hear that your health is so bad, and I would gladly do anything in my power to contribute to your relief, but I have no authority to permit you to leave the Confederate States and go north for the purpose of effecting an exchange. Your government does not grant that privilege to our officers held as prisoners of war, but has, [it] seems to me thrown obstacles in the way of fair exchange.’

Jones was dismayed at the fact that as of April 1863 the Federal government refused to continue the practice of exchanging prisoners. Prior to that date, a formal policy had existed that prescribed how prisoner exchanges were to take place. The new hard-line policy was designed to prevent soldiers from returning to the ranks of the Southern armies, as the Federal Army concluded that the Confederates received the greater benefit from the practice. It also, however, caused a rapid swelling of the numbers of men in Northern and Southern prisons.

President Abraham Lincoln became aware of the situation in Charleston and gave permission to Foster to make an exception to War Department policy and begin making arrangements for an exchange. Thus, on August 3, an agreement was worked out for the 100 officers.

Just when it seemed that the prisoner dispute had been resolved, things took a turn that would place even more captives in harm’s way. Union Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman’s campaign in Georgia was getting a bit too close to the overcrowded Southern prison camp at Andersonville, and the Confederate government began to send hundreds of Federal prisoners to Charleston for safekeeping. Jones objected to the situation, arguing to no avail that it was ‘inconvenient and unsafe.’

Upon their arrival in Charleston, most of the Federals were confined to the city jail, a massive octagonal fortress guarded by a 40-foot tower. It was located on Magazine Street, in the southeast part of the city, directly in the line of fire from the mortars across the harbor.

Before long, the inmates included nearly 600 officers, more than 300 enlisted men both black and white, as well as local criminals and deserters from both sides. All were jammed into A-frame tents set up in the courtyard. An officer inmate described the yard as ‘A dirty filthy place unfit for human beings to live in.’ Another Federal, Lieutenant Louis Fortescue, wrote of the ‘intolerable heat’ that he endured in the cramped courtyard, which did not have a’single shade tree.’

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Tags: , , ,

HistoryNet.com Subject Locator
  1. 7 Comments to “Immortal 600: Prisoners Under Fire at Charleston Harbor During the American Civil War”

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. im using some of this for a history school project, thanks!

    By Bri on Apr 17, 2009 at 12:39 pm

  7. 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

  1. 1 Trackback(s)

  2. Feb 18, 2009: Lincoln and the Laws of War

Post a Comment

Please note that HistoryNet Staff cannot respond to requests for research of any type. Please visit our research forum to post research questions. If you have a question about our magazines, please use the contact us form.

Related Articles



SPONSORED SITES







HistoryNet Article Archives Historynet Spacer

OPINION POLL

Which of these World War I aircraft was the best fighter plane?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

See previous polls

STAY CONNECTED WITH US

RSS Feed
 
Get Our Daily HistoryNet Email
 
 


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.

 Get our RSS!
 Newsletter Signup

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.
Contact Us|Advertise With Us|Subscription Help