The Andersonville Trial

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's another superb historical film.

Directed by George C. Scott, and starring Richard Basehart, William Shatner, Buddy Ebsen, Jack Cassidy and Cameron Mitchell.

So, the Brits aren't the only ones making great historical films.

[??????????]

Not guilty of course.

[MasterJedi]

Not guilty of course.

Whatever States.

[??????????]

Not guilty of course.

Whatever States.

Ok, then what about the commanders of Elmira, NY (Hellmira) or Rock Island, ILL or what about the commander of Point Lookout, MD?

[Wakie]

Civil War Prison Camps were Hellish experiences.  But by shear #'s Andersonville was the worst of the lot.  Just to compare it against the camps mentioned by States ....

Andersonville -- 45,000 housed - 13,714 dead - 30% mortality rate
Elmira -- 12,123 housed - 2,963 dead - 24% mortality rate
Rock Island -- 12,400 housed - 1,964 dead - 16% mortality rate
Point Lookout -- 50,000 housed - 4,000 dead - 8% mortality rate

The biggest killers in these camps was exposure and disease.  Andersonville was in Georgia whereas Elmira was in NY.  Does it excuse the negligence of the Elmira officials?  No.  But would you rather spend the winter in Georgia or in New York?

Wirz WAS a war criminal.

[??????????]

Ok, so Elmira had a 24% mortality rate while Andersonville had a 30% mortality rate, does 6% make the difference between a "war criminal" and a prison commander? Where would you rather spend winter Wakie? New York or Georgia?

Wirz WAS a war criminal.

Every war has to have a scapegoat, huh? How many black and white southern civilians and freedmen died at the hands of Sherman?

[Dr. Cynic]

Never saw the film, but I'm familiar with the case...

Actually, from the evidence presented at trial, I believe Wirz should not have been convicted... I honestly don't believe he got a fair trial, which he should've been afforded... I don't condone what was done, but the overcrowding contributed to the difficulties as well... Lice racing is not an acceptable way for human beings to pass the time... Alot of camps on both sides were horridly managed.

But, at the trial, the bias was plain... I don't believe it was fair to Wirz. However, Andersonville was by far the most horrid of any camp for a number of reasons, not just because of its commander.

[12th Doctor]

Fact:  The Confederates could not afford to spread out their prison camps due to the massive loss of territory they were expiriencing at the time, and the fact that their resources were more spread out.

Fact:  A large part of the reason conditions were so horrid in Andersonville is because prisoner exchange had haulted between the two sides... this was the Unions decision, not the Confederacy's... the Confederates could not have predicted the influx of prisoners they were encountered with.

Fact:  The Union had the resources, medical supplies and the manpower to assure the Confederates under their care did not die, or were nto ill treated.  The Confederates did not.

Fact:  The prisoners at Andersonville received the exact same rations that the Confederate soldiers recieved in the field.  That's more a testiment to how sad conditions were for the average Confederate soldier by 1864 than to any Confederate "cruelty".

Fact:  Confederate prisoners of war did not recieve equivlent rations to Union soldiers in the field, even while the Union could have easily have afforded to do so.

Fact:  Yellow Fever, Scarlet Fever, Malaria, food spoilage... all far more common in the South than in the North.  Most deaths in the camp were caused by these things.  Many Confederate cities, namely Richmond and New Orleans expirience severe outbreaks of these illnesses during the war.  If the Confederates could not control an outbreak against their own civilians, its not very resonable to think they could control one in the POW population.

I'm not a Confederate apologist, but the whole Andersonville episode is one of the most distorted events of the Civil War and is yet another example of how Northern and revisionist historians have presented events in such a way as to make the Confederates seem just this side of evil.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Fact:  The Confederates could not afford to spread out their prison camps due to the massive loss of territory they were expiriencing at the time, and the fact that their resources were more spread out.

Fact:  A large part of the reason conditions were so horrid in Andersonville is because prisoner exchange had haulted between the two sides... this was the Unions decision, not the Confederacy's... the Confederates could not have predicted the influx of prisoners they were encountered with.

Fact:  The Union had the resources, medical supplies and the manpower to assure the Confederates under their care did not die, or were nto ill treated.  The Confederates did not.

Fact:  The prisoners at Andersonville received the exact same rations that the Confederate soldiers recieved in the field.  That's more a testiment to how sad conditions were for the average Confederate soldier by 1864 than to any Confederate "cruelty".

Fact:  Confederate prisoners of war did not recieve equivlent rations to Union soldiers in the field, even while the Union could have easily have afforded to do so.

Fact:  Yellow Fever, Scarlet Fever, Malaria, food spoilage... all far more common in the South than in the North.  Most deaths in the camp were caused by these things.  Many Confederate cities, namely Richmond and New Orleans expirience severe outbreaks of these illnesses during the war.  If the Confederates could not control an outbreak against their own civilians, its not very resonable to think they could control one in the POW population.

I'm not a Confederate apologist, but the whole Andersonville episode is one of the most distorted events of the Civil War and is yet another example of how Northern and revisionist historians have presented events in such a way as to make the Confederates seem just this side of evil.

Your points are well made.

Actually, the film does indicate the Wirtz (Basehart) did what he could to take care of the prisoners and the the panel had a predetermined verdict.

[Bacon King]

Wirtz definately did not deserve to die. IIRC, he petitioned the Confederate government numerous times to help improve conditions, but was ignored due to a lack of available resources.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Wirtz definately did not deserve to die. IIRC, he petitioned the Confederate government numerous times to help improve conditions, but was ignored due to a lack of available resources.

You are also quite correct.

That fact was brought out in the film.

Unfortunately, the verdict was predetermined before the 'show trial' by the 'kangaroo court' began.

[Wakie]

Ok, so Elmira had a 24% mortality rate while Andersonville had a 30% mortality rate, does 6% make the difference between a "war criminal" and a prison commander? Where would you rather spend winter Wakie? New York or Georgia?

Wirz WAS a war criminal.

Every war has to have a scapegoat, huh? How many black and white southern civilians and freedmen died at the hands of Sherman?

*Groan* Every argument between us usually goes this way.

A quick reread of my first post will demonstrate that I stated that I do not excuse those in charge of Elmira.  All I'm doing is demonstrating that Andersonville was THE worst place to a prisoner in the Civil War (due to it having the highest mortality rate).

As for where would I rather spend a winter?  Neither is appealing but I tend to believe that the Georgia winter is milder than the New York winter.

Does every war have a scapegoat?  Yeah that tends to be how it goes.  Did the Union have war criminals?  Again, the answer is yes.  That said, so did the Allies in WWII.  In the documentary Fog of War Robert McNamara says that had we lost WWII he, Curtis LeMay, and many others would have been "rightly charged with war crimes".  But in war the winners are never tried.

Now, on to the case of Wirz.  He intentionally denied some of the already low food supply.  Unlike other prison officials in Northern and Southern camps, Wirz didn't try to prevent his men from excercising excessive cruelty.  In fact he encouraged it.  There were war criminals in the Civil War and Henry Wirz was one of them.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ok, so Elmira had a 24% mortality rate while Andersonville had a 30% mortality rate, does 6% make the difference between a "war criminal" and a prison commander? Where would you rather spend winter Wakie? New York or Georgia?

Wirz WAS a war criminal.

Every war has to have a scapegoat, huh? How many black and white southern civilians and freedmen died at the hands of Sherman?

*Groan* Every argument between us usually goes this way.

A quick reread of my first post will demonstrate that I stated that I do not excuse those in charge of Elmira.  All I'm doing is demonstrating that Andersonville was THE worst place to a prisoner in the Civil War (due to it having the highest mortality rate).

As for where would I rather spend a winter?  Neither is appealing but I tend to believe that the Georgia winter is milder than the New York winter.

Does every war have a scapegoat?  Yeah that tends to be how it goes.  Did the Union have war criminals?  Again, the answer is yes.  That said, so did the Allies in WWII.  In the documentary Fog of War Robert McNamara says that had we lost WWII he, Curtis LeMay, and many others would have been "rightly charged with war crimes".  But in war the winners are never tried.

Now, on to the case of Wirz.  He intentionally denied some of the already low food supply.  Unlike other prison officials in Northern and Southern camps, Wirz didn't try to prevent his men from excercising excessive cruelty.  In fact he encouraged it.  There were war criminals in the Civil War and Henry Wirz was one of them.

Please let me clarify,

First, the Wirtz case came before the Geneva conventions spelled out explicit criteria for treatment of prisoners of war.

Second, at the time, the existing criteria for humane treatment of prisoners of war was that their food, housing, clothing and medical treatment be up to the same standard as that afforded the soldiers of the side holding the prisoners.

Third, the record is clear that the north did NOT abide by this standard.

Fourth, the record is unclear whether this standard was followed at Andersonville.

Fifth, inability does constitute a legal excuse.  There is considerable evidence that Wirtz did request more supplies for his prisoners, and that his request was denied by his superiors. 

Sixth, the north declined to engage in prisoner exchanges, which would have alleviated the problem.

All in all, neither side treated their prisoners humanely, IMHO.

[angus]

freedmen died at the hands of Sherman?

I haven't seen The Andersonville Trial, but I did think of you when I saw an advertisement on the History Channel.  "Sherman's legacy was built during a five-week campaign of terror and destruction that would become known as "total war".   Was he a hero?  Some people thought he was a butcher.  You decide.  Sherman's March Sunday April 22 at 9 Eastern on History."

Apologies to butchers.  The abjectly politically incorrect statement tacitly suggesting butchers are somehow less than honorable isn't mine, it's the History Channel's scriptwriters.  Still, the commercial piqued my interest and also I figured you might want to watch it.  You may already know everything they'll say, but you could point out factual errors, if there are any.  I find that the History Channel is pretty good at checking facts.