|
|
Immortal 600: Prisoners Under Fire at Charleston Harbor During the American Civil WarAmerica's Civil War | 7 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post
Samuel Jones was transferred to Florida after Charleston finally fell to Union forces in February 1865. He remained there until war’s end and surrendered at Tallahassee in April 1865. Following the war, Jones returned to Virginia and farmed until 1880, when he took a job in the adjutant general’s office in Washington. He died in 1887. Subscribe Today
Foster remained in Charleston until the city surrendered. Then, like Jones, he was sent to Florida to command troops. He served in the U.S. Army after the war and is credited with developing underwater demolition techniques. He died in New Hampshire in 1874 and received a hero’s funeral from the people of the Granite State.
The issue between Jones and Foster over the use of prisoners as deterrents to shelling dramatized Charleston’s symbolic importance during the Civil War. Jones was desperate to save the city, an icon of Southern independence, and its inhabitants from further destruction. Foster, on the other hand, was under pressure to capture the battered but resilient port city that was the cradle of the Confederate States of America, and to recapture Fort Sumter.
Both generals had felt compelled to resort to tactics they knew were against the code of honor they had learned at West Point, yet both felt that under the circumstances they had little choice. Behind their decisions were the emotions of hatred for an enemy they had come to loathe, and the callousness that comes when the sightof destruction and death becomes commonplace.
It is difficult to say who was at fault for the fiasco. Jones was the first to place prisoners under fire. On the other hand, the Federal Army was firing into a city where they were well aware civilians still resided. Grant must also shoulder some blame, for his orders ceased the prisoner exchanges.
No matter who should bear the burden of responsibility, the treatment of the prisoners in Charleston Harbor, particularly that endured by the Immortal 600, remains one of the most controversial incidents of the Civil War. Certainly, the prisoners-as-shields practice constitutes a dark chapter in the greatest of American tragedies. This article was written by Tim Cunningham and originally appeared in the January 2003 issue of America’s Civil War.
For more great articles be sure to subscribe to America’s Civil War magazine today! 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