|
|
Immortal 600: Prisoners Under Fire at Charleston Harbor During the American Civil WarAmerica's Civil War | 7 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post
To be caught between the opposing cannon fire was truly horrifying for the Rebel inmates. The big Federal guns in Battery Wagner would blast shells over their heads, and occasionally one of the rounds would prematurely burst, scattering the camp with fragments. The outgoing shells could be’seen distinctly’ as they roared overhead, recalled a lieutenant in the 20th Virginia Cavalry. Subscribe Today
It was even more terrifying when the Southern gunners replied to the Union salvos and sent inbound projectiles directly over the prisoners’ camp. Henry Dickinson, a captain in the 2nd Virginia Cavalry, remembered the huge mortar shells that ‘looked as though they would fall directly on us.’ Dickinson could follow the shells at ‘night by the fuse burning,’ and was very relieved when their ‘parabolic course’ terminated in Battery Wagner.
As for the shells that sometimes burst over the camp, one of the incarcerated Confederates recalled that the inmates could ‘listen at the fragments humming through the air and hear them strike the ground with a dull thud among the tents.’ ‘Just imagine our position,’ one Rebel wrote in his diary. ‘Tied hands and feet as it were without the means of defending ourselves and know not what moment we may be writhing and bleeding under the effects of the bursting of terrible shell….
When shall it end?’
As reports of the arrival of the Confederate officers in the stockade on Morris Island reached Confederate headquarters, Jones suggested that harsh methods of reprisal were necessary. On September 7 he wrote to the Confederate high command in Richmond: ‘If the department thinks it proper to retaliate by placing Yankee officers in Sumter or other batteries, let the order be given, prompt action should be taken. Please instruct me what if any authority I have over prisoners.’
On September 22, the Confederate prisoners were taken out of their stockade and placed once again on Crescent City. They remained in the damp hold of the ship for one storm-tossed evening and, unaware of Grant’s firm dictate to Foster, hoped that they were to be exchanged. They had been transferred, however, so that Federalauthorities could search their camp for unauthorized goods, and the inmates were herded back to their forlorn digs the following day.
Throughout the month of September, the shelling continued, and the Confederate captives remained in their prison pen. Several Union guards outside the stockade were struck by shrapnel, but, almost unbelievably, the prisoners remained unharmed, even though approximately 18 rounds, fortunately all duds, actually landed among their sun-bleached A-tents.
The prisoners’ meager rations often consisted of only two pieces of hardtack a day. On a good day, a prisoner might receive some ‘worm eaten hard tack, a little chunk of bacon one half inch square’ and a bowl of bean soup made, it was rumored, on a formula of ‘three beans to a half quart of water,’ remembered Thomas Pickney, a captain in the 4th South Carolina Cavalry.
General Jones’ threats to put Union prisoners on the ramparts of Fort Sumter never materialized, and on October 8 the Union captives in Charleston were removed to cities farther inland. The Southern captives’ ordeal continued, however, until October 21, when, after 45 days of exposure to shellfire, they were finally taken out of their miserable pen and transferred to Fort Pulaski at Savannah, Ga.
The men spent a miserable cold, dreary winter there, 13 dying of disease. In March, the survivors were shipped back to Fort Delaware, where 25 more succumbed to illness. There they remained until after the war ended. The last man of the group was not released until July 1865.
The harsh and unusual conditions of their imprisonment inspired one of the captives, John O. Murray, to record his experiences in the 1905 book The Immortal Six-Hundred. The name he gave the group stuck, and today they are still referred to as the ‘Immortal 600.’ Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to
            Tags: 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. |
||
Loading ...
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