Your search returned 95 results in 60 document sections:

1 2 3 4 5 6
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 1. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), The treatment of prisoners during the war between the States. (search)
e true. After a full investigation, and the taking of a large volume of testimony, the committee submitted a report. The testimony was being printed when Richmond was evacuated, and was unfortunately consumed in the great conflagration. A few copies of the report were saved, and we have secured one for our archives, which we now give in full: Report of the joint Committee of the Confederate Congress appointed to investigate the condition and treatment of prisoners of war.[Presented March 3d, 1865.] The duties assigned to the committee under the several resolutions of Congress designating them, are to investigate and report upon the condition and treatment of the prisoners of war respectively held by the Confederate and United Srates Governments; upon the causes of their detention, and the refusal to exchange; and also upon the violations by the enemy of the rules of civilized warfare in the conduct of the war. These subjects are broad in extent and importance; and in order fu
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 1. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), The treatment of prisoners during the war between the States. (search)
us from the guard. This soldier hailed me: I say, are you one of them fellers that eat cats? I replied, Yes. Well, here is one I'll shove throa if you want it. Shove it throa, I answered. In a very few minutes the kitten was in frying order. Our guards were not allowed to relieve our sufferings, but they frequently expressed their sympathy. The Colonel himself told us it was a painful duty to inflict such suffering, but that we knew he was a soldier and must obey orders. The 3d of March, 1865, dawned upon us ladened with rumors of a speedy exchange. The wings of hope had been so often clipped by disappointment, one would have thought it impossible for her to rise very high. Hope springs, etc., received no denial in our case. Each man was more or less excited. Strong protestations of belief that nothing would come of it were heard on all sides. But the anxiety manifested in turning the rumor over and over, the criticisms upon the source from which it came, and especially
Colonel Theodore Lyman, With Grant and Meade from the Wilderness to Appomattox (ed. George R. Agassiz), chapter 9 (search)
e has been removed and the interior of the tent supported by a framework, a part of which takes the form of a shelf, running round the sides and very handy for any small articles. I must also give credit to that idiotic Frenchman, who waited at table, for having ingeniously burned down our mess tent, during my absence, whereby we now have a much improved hospital tent, very pleasant, and we have got rid of the idiot and have a quite intelligent nig, who actually keeps the spoons clean. March 3, 1865 Our evanescent Chief-of-Staff, General Webb, has gone to Washington for a day or two, to see his wife. He insisted, before he went, that the Rebs were not going to evacuate Petersburg at present, on any account. Ah! said General Meade, Webb is an anti-evacuationist, because he wants to go to see his wife, and so wants to prove there isn't going to be any move at present. General Webb is a good piece of luck, as successor to General Humphreys. He is very jolly and pleasant, while,
William Tecumseh Sherman, Memoirs of General William T. Sherman ., volume 2, chapter 25 (search)
ly to the headquarters of Major-General Sherman, and direct operations against the enemy. Yours truly, Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War. The following telegram was received 2 P. M., City Point, March 4, 1865 (from Washington, 12 M., March 3, 1865): [cipher.] office United States military telegraph, headquarters armies of the United States. Lieutenant--General Grant: The President directs me to say to you that he wishes you to have no conference with General Lee, unless it beis pen and wrote with his own hand the following reply, which he submitted to the Secretary of State and Secretary of War. It was then dated, addressed, and signed, by the Secretary of War, and telegraphed to General Grant: Washington, March 3, 1865--12 P. M. Lieutenant-General Grant: The President directs me to say to you that he wishes you to have no conference with General Lee, unless it be for the capitulation of General Lee's army, or on some minor or purely military matter. He
Doc. 11.-the relief of Fort Sumter. Captain Fox's letter. in the Senate of the United States, March 3, 1865. Resolved, That the letter to the Secretary of the Navy, from the Assistant Secretary, should not have been communicated in answer to the Senate resolution of February third, 1865, and that the Secretary of the Senate be directed to return the same to the Secretary of the Navy. Attest: J. W. Forney, Secretary. Navy Department, February 24, 1865. Hon. Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy: sir: As part of your reply to the resolution of the Senate, of February third, 1865, in response to the allegations of the Hon. John P. Hale against me, in advocating said resolution, I beg leave to submit the following statements: As respects the charge that I gave instructions to inquire into the conduct or business transactions of any member of either House of Congress, I have to say, that there is not the slightest foundation for it. In obedience to your orders, t
, and the bill was approved by the President on the third of March, 1865. No. Lxxxii.--The Bill more effectually to provith Houses, and was approved by the President on the third of March, 1865. No. Lxxxiv.--The Bill to provide for a Chief ofpposition. It was approved by the President on the third of March, 1865. No. Lxxxv.--The Joint Resolution tendering the as passed, and was approved by the President on the third of March, 1865. No. Lxxxvi.--The Bill for the Better Organizatind passed. It was approved by the President on the third of March, 1865. No. Lxxxviii.--The Bill to amend the several Acposes ; and it was approved by the President on the third of March, 1865. No. Lxxxix.--The Bill making Appropriations forll passed, and was approved by the President on the third of March, 1865. No. XC.--The Joint Resolution to encourage Enlien of colored soldiers passed, and received, on the third of March, 1865, the approval of the President. Some months after
864. Coit, J. B., Mar. 13, 1865. Colgrove, Silas, Aug. 4, 1864. Collier, F. H., Mar. 13, 1865. Colville, W., Jr. , Mar. 3, 1865. Comly, J. M., Mar. 13, 1865. Commager, H. S., Mar. 13, 1865. Congdon, J. A., Mar. 13, 1865. Conklin, J. T., Mar. 1862. Cramer, F. L., Mar. 13, 1865. Crandal, F. M., Oct. 24, 1865. Crane, M. M., Mar. 13, 1865. Cranor, Jonathan, Mar. 3, 1865. Crawford, S. J., Mar. 13, 1865. Crocker, J. S., Mar. 13, 1865. Crowinshield, C., Mar. 13, 1865. Cummings, Alex., 865. Hall, Caldwell K., Mar. 13, 1865. Hall, Cyrus, Mar. 13, 1865. Hall, H. Seymour, Mar. 13, 1865. Hall, Jas. A., Mar. 3, 1865. Hall, James F., Feb. 24, 1865. Hall, Jarius W., Mar. 13, 1865. Hall, Robert M., Mar. 13, 1865. Hallowell, E. N., Frederick S., Oct. 11, 1865. Lindley, J. M., March 13, 1865. Lippincott, C. E., Feb. 17, 1865. Lippitt, Francis J., Mar. 3, 1865. Lister, Fred. W., Mar. 13, 1865. Litchfield, A. C., Mar. 13, 1865. Littell, John S., Jan. 15, 1865. Littlejohn, D
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 3. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), The Nation on our discussion of the prison question. (search)
mselves guilty of the atrocities which they (falsely) charged against the Confederates. The statement that this Historical Society justifies the preparations made to blow up the thousand and odd Union officers in the Libby Prison at the time when the near approach of Dahlgren threatened Richmond, is not capable of even a fair inference from anything which we wrote. We simply published in full, without note or comment, the report of the committee of the Confederate Congress, presented March 3d, 1865, in which they give the circumstances under which the authorities of Libby Prison acted (Dahlgren approaching Richmond for the avowed purpose of liberating over 5,000 prisoners and sacking the city, after murdering the Confederate President, Cabinet, &c.) If The Nation desires to discuss that question, we presume it could be accomodated, but we expressed absolutely no opinion whatever on it. Nor did we intimate the opinion that Wirz was a saintly martyr. We simply showed that the charge
nd promptly given, in defense of a common right—of a blood-bought franchise. If the force employed to interfere with the election be too great, at any place of voting, to be arrested, the officers of election, in such case, should adjourn and not proceed with the election. If you are unable to hold a free election, your duty is to hold none at all. By enlistment, over twenty-two thousand of the most valuable slaves in the state had gone into the service of the United States, and on March 3, 1865, its Congress passed an act declaring that the wives and children of all such soldiers should be free. But the final moment was near at hand when the annihilation of more than one hundred millions of property and the destruction of one of the most important institutions of the state was to take place by one of those fictions so peculiar to this administration of the government of the United States. That was the pretended adoption of a constitutional amendment, prohibiting the existenc
John M. Schofield, Forty-six years in the Army, Chapter XVIII (search)
rviews with the President and General Grant at City Point, his mind must have been absorbed with this one idea which was the sole reason of his visit. Terms of surrender and the policy to be pursued toward the conquered South must have been referred to very casually, and nothing approximating instructions on the subject can have been received or asked for by General Sherman. Else how is it possible that the very pointed and emphatic instructions of the President to General Grant, dated March 3, 1865, War Records, Vol. XLVI, part II, p. 802. were not made known to him or the spirit of them conveyed to him in conversation? The question of the abstract wisdom of the terms of the Sherman-Johnston memorandum has little to do with that of Sherman in agreeing to it. Any person at all acquainted with the politics of the dominant party at that time would have known that it was at least unwise to introduce political questions at all. Besides, he had the example of his superior, the ge
1 2 3 4 5 6