Rufus Pettit: American Civil War Union Prison Inspector

 | Civil War Times  | 0 comments  |  Print This Post  |  Email This Post

The case against Pettit was closed, and it was time for the defense. Pettit had his work cut out for him. He would need a miracle to refute the strong case the host of prosecution witnesses had laid at his feet with their vivid descriptions of him brutally beating people on at least three different occasions.

Pettit opened his defense by calling as his first witness Lieutenant Colonel J.H. Taylor, who knew him when he commanded Company B of the 1st New York Light Artillery. Pettit got Taylor to say that he had been an ‘an efficient and gallant officer.’ Major H.B. Burnham, the judge advocate of the court, interrupted, looking at Pettit, ‘You are not charged with inefficiency or want of gallantry, but with certain named offenses and nothing else!’ Pettit retorted that he was charged with cruelty, that it was well known that cowards were cruel, and that because he was not a coward, he could not be cruel. Burnham ignored him.

The next defense witness, Brevet Brigadier General Samuel D. Oliphant, gave a very brief testimony. The gist of what survives in the court documents is, ‘I have no personal knowledge of Captain Pettit’s character.’ Captain Edward C. Kittle of the 61st New York, who knew Pettit from the Virginia Peninsula in mid-1862, did quite a bit better. ‘All the men of his battery thought a great deal of him,’ Kittle said. ‘He was a strict disciplinarian, but no man spoke against him.’

Next up was Colonel Wells, Pettit’s key witness. Wells said Pettit was ‘in every respect a superior officer. It was very rare to ever hear of a case of mistreatment [in the Alexandria prisons] and I investigated every case. I never found any actual mistreatment.’ Puzzled, Burnham asked about a case involving a Samuel Meek. He pointed out to Wells that ‘the War Department investigation found him unjustly detained, illegally arrested, and badly mistreated, all by Captain Pettit.’ Wells said he did not recall the case.

Wells went on to explain that the men Pettit targeted might have deserved what they got. ‘More than in any collection of men I ever saw in my life, these men needed discipline,’ he testified. ‘There were hundreds of professional thieves, pickpockets, robbers and murderers. They constantly assaulted each other. One group attempted to burn the Washington Street Prison while it contained 1,400 men.’

Wells still was not done giving hope to Pettit’s defense. To complicate the matter of overseeing the Alexandria prisons, Wells pointed out, there was no way to verify the identity of many of the prisoners. It was a problem that would have vexed any prison administrator. Prisoners were sent from as far away as Tennessee and Kentucky with no identification cards, photographs, serial numbers, or fingerprint files. The personal-description card that was supposed to accompany each man rarely did. A prisoner could pretend to be virtually anyone.

Next to speak on Pettit’s behalf was First Lieutenant Robert Roberts, who served under Pettit in the 12th U.S. Veteran Reserve Corps and commanded the Prince Street Prison for a year. Roberts swore that no man was ever tied up for refusing to confess to desertion; nor was any man tied up for more than an hour.

After Pettit finished with his handful of witnesses and presented some testimonials written on his behalf, he submitted a written closing statement to the court. For the most part, he reiterated his previous denials.

The court was not impressed. ‘The time has not come and I trust it never will, when any conduct however good, when the discharge of any duty however sacred, when the sacrifice of any interest however dear, can justify or excuse the commission of crime in this country,’ wrote Burnham, ‘and the good of the service and the safety of human rights demand that this selection of flagrant cases for your consideration should meet with a just, and yet a striking, reproof at your hands! No words are necessary to express the utter abhorrence with which such crimes are held by high-minded and honorable soldiers and the universal public! The facts are shamefully eloquent of the ignominy which blackens and obliterates every possible apology which might otherwise have been drawn from his further services.’

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to

Tags: 19th Century, American Civil War, Civil War Times, Historical Conflicts, Historical Figures

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.