“200 or 300 Union troops are working near Battery Marshall”: Confederates use POW labor at Charleston

On October 1, 1864, Rear-Admiral John Dahlgren offered this note to Major-General John Foster in regard to Confederate activity at Charleston, South Carolina:

I send you some deserters from Battery Marshall, who will give you some account of the works there.  By their account, some 200 or 300 Union troops are working near Battery Marshall for the sake of getting clothing and shoes to wear, being nearly destitute.

Some of these troops were drawn from the 600 Federal prisoners being held in Charleston.  While an important point on the chain of Confederate defenses, Battery Marshall, being on the north end of Sullivan’s Island, was not at a “hot corner.”  However, naval force occasionally traded shots with the battery.  And standing orders to the blockaders was to disrupt any working parties seen at the works on the Islands.

These prisoners were in effect “working for clothes.”  I cannot locate any note of protest from Foster, but this must have brought to mind earlier correspondence with Confederates authorities in regard to supplies for the prisoners.  At several times during the month, packages were exchanged and certainly allowances could provide needed clothing.

The practice of using prisoners as a labor force was not new in 1864.  However, the selection of tasks placing the prisoners at an exposed section of the line did press the envelope of the practice. And remember, these were tasks the Confederates normally reserved for negroes (either impressed or contracted).  Dahlgren’s note does not state if the prisoners were white troops or colored troops.

The USCT POW experience was, to say the least, worse than that of the white troops due to their legal status in Confederate hands.  Members of the 54th Massachusetts captured at Battery Wagner after the failed July 18, 1863 were among the first such USCT prisoners which Confederate authorities had to deal with.  Just days after their capture, Captain W.H. Peronneau, commanding Castle Pinkney where the prisoners were held, reported:

Negro prisoners are willing to submit to the State laws; they are willing to go to Battery Bee and work.

Another layer to the prisoner of war issue at Charleston. The laws which Peronneau referred were those allowing the state to impress blacks to work.  But along with those were laws which allowed authorities to send the men back into bondage, or to try them as inciting a slave revolt.  The black prisoners subject to forced labor laws with the threat of the hangman’s noose ever present.

And I reached back to that 1863 report with a mind to illustrate another point.  The prisoner issue at Charleston was not one that “developed” simply because the Federals confined 600 Confederates on Morris Island.  In its roots, the problem began in the summer of 1863.  And it involved, from the start, what the USCT represented in the minds of Confederate authorities.

(Citations from OR, Series I, Volume 35, Part II, Serial 66, page 307; Series II, Volume 6, Serial 119, page 132.)

Custer stole Abraham Miller’s horses, saddles, and hay: Were the burning raids justified? Legal?

Some years ago I was visiting Cedar Creek and stopped in the visitor center there.  This was before the national park was established there, but still the battlefield organization maintained a good post.  As part of my visit, I took in the orientation video.  As the program covered the events which lead up to Cedar Creek, the Burning Raids received due time.  When the narrator mentioned the number of barns and farms destroyed by the Federals, a couple to my right let out a very emotional gasp.  Later, after the movie was over, they began pressing the guide for more details about the raids.  The docent explained that as part of the raids not only did the Federals burn down barns and other buildings, but they took livestock, crops, and other property.  At some point, one of them reached a conclusion to all this – “All that burning and stealing was wrong.  It was unnecessary.  A crime!”  I’ve learned long ago to avoid such lead-ins and leave the tending to those behind the desk with name-tags.

I would have liked to have interjected, saying to the effect, “I’m from Missouri, and both sides burned our state practically to the ground.”  After all, it was Missouri’s “hard war” that served as a precursor to that experience in Virginia.  But I doubt that would have been constructive.  Better yet I might have brought up many stories from South Carolina that demonstrated similar Federal actions and how those were justified at the time.  That, perhaps, would have demonstrated the evolution in Federal approach.  But to best demonstrate that point, I’d have to avoid the “generalizations” and focus on some “specifics.”  And that’s what is often lost in such conversations.  So let’s talk some brass tacks on this subject today….

One day and 150 years ago, Abraham Miller of Bridgewater in Rockingham County, lost some property.  According to a claim made after the war, on September 29, 1864 a party of Federal soldiers took two horses, a ton of hay, 28 bushels of oats, 10 bushels of corn, and two saddles ($241.86 in 1871 estimates).

Page 31

John A. Miller, who later provided testimony to support Abraham’s claim, said:

I went to the Cavalry Camp of General Custer (attached to General Sheridan’s army) on business and while there saw the two horses charged in the said petition in their possession. The horses were accounted as Cavalry horses and a Captain whose name I did not learn was on one of them.  I saw the hay, corn, and oats of the claimant taken by the troops of General Custer at about the same time.  I cannot say how much exactly of the said supplies were taken, but I am fully convinced that they took at least as is charged in this petition.

So a bunch of “Yellow Hair’s” troopers made off with Abraham’s horses, taking with them some supplies without so much as voucher or Yankee greenbacks in return.  They just “took” it all.

With that little bit of information, should we consider Abraham just a farmer trying to make his way in the middle of a war?  Perhaps it would be easy to cast him as a Charlie Anderson (there’s that cultural reference again, Robert).  But we should also consider that Abraham had done business with the Confederate army at several times during the war.

Abraham appears in the Confederate Citizens Files with, while not a substantial amount of business, enough to establish his association.  In June 1862, he sold a small amount of corn to Confederate authorities on two separate invoices.  The total was just over $30. More substantially, in February 1863, he sold $179.50 of bacon.

Page 3

Then in March 1863 he sold 28 bushels of wheat to the Confederate army.  Sure, less than $250 in transactions all told in the record – and that assumes the records are complete.  But we are not trying to say Abraham did business that rivaled Tredegar or other major businesses.  Rather this does establish Abraham as a person supplying goods to the Confederate Army, in context of what happened on September 29, 1864.

So did the Federals have reason to be concerned, had they left Abraham’s farm alone, that he would sell or otherwise turn those goods over to the Confederates?  Let’s go back to the records.  First there is this:

Page 13

Yes, on October 5, 1864… let be bold that for emphasis …. October 5, 1864, Abraham Miller gave 424 bushels of corn and 1500 pounds of fodder to Captain J.P. Dickinson.  Abraham was given a receipt for $365, and Dickinson marked the account as unpaid “for want of funds.”

But wait… didn’t Sheridan’s guys burn all there was?  Apparently not!

A few days later, Abraham sold 61 bushels of corn and 1200 pounds of hay to another Confederate quartermaster:

Page 17

The total there was $280.  And there is a strike through at the bottom “and that the articles have been accounted for on my property return for the quarter ending the 31st day of December 1864.”  I don’t know exactly what to make of that last, other than to say again that Abraham Miller continued to do business with Confederate authorities.

I would caution, however, that these receipts are just part of the story.  What we don’t know is the back-story.  Was Abraham just doing business with the Confederates because he needed the money?  Was he pressured?  Did the presence of Federals lead him to sell it all off, in hopes of getting at least something?  All good questions to which there are few clues in the records.

But one thing we can say, given that Abraham did sell off what he owned in October 1864, the Federals did have justification.  The case is clear: anything left behind in Abraham’s possession would – and did – end up in Confederate hands.

Now was it legal for the Federal troops to “take” what was Abraham’s?  Keep in mind there was no “Geneva Convention” in 1864.  There was instead General Orders No. 100, also known as the Lieber Code.  Article 15 of that order read:

Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to the hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of the appropriation of whatever an enemy’s country affords necessary for the subsistence and safety of the army, and of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist. Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God.

The logic – if Abraham’s hay, corn, fodder, and horses could be used by the Confederates, then the Federals could take it in order to deny those resources to their enemy.  It may not sound nice.  But such is the nature of “military necessity.”  The last line, of course, offers some words to caution against extremes.  Cited constraints were agreements made between combatants or other conventions of war.  Still, the object remained – Abraham’s property was a legitimate target.

You may ask if Abraham was reimbursed for his loss.  The board reviewing his claim had this to say in 1871:

Page 50

The claimant says he was a [non-contestant?].  He voted to ratify the ordnance of secession. He says he had actively opposed secession & was afraid not to vote, or to vote against it, as threats of violence had been made agt. Union men. He does not show any threats to him – nor any force used or threatened.  It all rests on his own statement.

So he hired a substitute & paid him $1000 & afterwards he paid a fine of $500…. We are not satisfied that he was loyal.

As I said with respect to the invoices, there’s more to the story (and a reminder that Robert Moore addressed the secession vote and coercion some time back).  There’s always more to the story.

Let me close by recommending to those who are looking for a fresh perspective on the Burning Raids, a recent post by Robert.  More than barns, mills, and grain were destroyed during those days of autumn.

“General M. Jeff. Thompson arrived in camp”: The “Confederacy’s Swamp Fox” joins Price

For September 29, 1864, the itinerary of Major-General Sterling Price’s Army of Missouri read:

September 29 (Camp No. 30). – Passed through Caledonia and Potosi.  At the latter place General Shelby fought and captured ____ Federals. The enemy, who left Pilot Knob under General Ewing, hearing of Shelby being in front, moved off to the west.  Marmaduke and Shelby started pursuit last night. General M. Jeff. Thompson arrived in camp. Rumors of Steele leaving Little Rock doubted; distance twenty-two miles.

A fair march of twenty-two miles, but not quite up to the “foot cavalry” standards perhaps.  Not mentioned in the itinerary, a force of Confederate cavalry ranged out to Cuba… Cuba, Missouri that is… and destroyed a portion of the Southwest Branch Railroad.


So on this day 150 years ago, M. Jeff Thompson arrived back at the “front” and in the midst of Major-General Sterling Price’s Missouri Campaign.  Perhaps it was fitting that Thompson should participate in the last great campaign in Missouri, as he had been an active part of the war in the Trans-Mississippi from the start.

He was born Meriwether Thompson in Harpers Ferry, [West] Virginia, but the moniker “Jeff” came from a childhood association.  Thompson attended J.J. Sanbourn Military Academy in nearby Charlestown as a teen, but failed to receive an appointment to West Point.  Working as a store clerk in several communities, Thompson eventually took up residence in Liberty, Missouri.  There he transformed himself into an engineer, working for the city and helping to lay the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad.  He’d presided over the ceremonies inaugurating the Pony Express in April 1860.  So he was a person of some prominence in pre-war Missouri.

Pre-war military activity included service in the Missouri State Guard with the rank of Colonel.  As with many throughout the south, Thompson reacted to John Brown’s Harpers Ferry Raid and began to advocate secession.  That advocacy transformed to direct action on May 12, 1861 when Thompson cut down the American flag from the St. Joseph post office and tossed it to a cheering crowd.  This, and his political connections, secured the command of the First Division, pro-Confederate Missouri State Guard.  His commission as “Brigadier-General” came from Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson and not from the Confederate government.

Operating in the swampy bottom lands in southeastern part of the state, Thompson received the nickname “Swamp Fox.”  Though not as successful, by any measure, as the Revolutionary War “Swamp Fox,” Francis Marion, Thompson was able to make his presence known.  Among other things, his operations proved an obstacle to early Federal operations along the Mississippi River axis.  In particular he was a thorn in the side of one Brigadier-General U.S. Grant during those early days of the war.

In June 1862, he added “naval commander” to his resume.  He led a portion of the Confederate ram fleet, which included one warship named after him, in action at the Battle of Memphis on June 6.  After that defeat, without a command Thompson served in various staff capacities.  During Brigadier-General John S. Marmaduke’s April 1863 raid to Cape Girardeau, Thompson’s engineering skills enabled the Confederate force to escape over the St. Francis River at Chalk Bluff.

Later in August Thompson was captured in Kentucky.  Though still not a “Confederate general” by virtue of the state commission, Thompson was among the “generals” sent to Morris Island in June 1864 in response to the fifty Federal prisoners in Charleston. After exchange on August 3, Thompson returned to the west. But he did not make his way to Price’s command until very late in September.

With Price’s advance into Thompson’s old stomping (or dare we say “swamping”?) grounds, Thompson was a favorite for some command.  But all the seats were spoken for.  On October 2, Brigadier-General Joseph Shelby proposed combining one of his regiments and a separate battalion as a command for Thompson, using those formations as the nucleus to form a full brigade with the recruits.  But before that could take place, Colonel David Shanks, commanding Shelby’s old Iron Brigade, was wounded in action at Prince’s Ford.  On October 6, Thompson received orders to take over the famous Iron Brigade… OK, Phil Spaugy, not THE Iron Brigade, but Shelby’s Missouri Iron Brigade.

As Price’s raid into Missouri progressed through the fall, Thompson joined so many “returning” characters who would share the spotlight in one of the largest (particularly in terms of geography covered) campaigns of the war.

(Citation from OR, Series I, Volume 41, Part I, Serial 83, page 644.)