These are the four men executed for war crimes during the Civil War

These are the four men executed for war crimes during the Civil War

The warden of Andersonville, Henry Wirz was hanged for war crimes... in a time before war crimes.

He was one of only two Confederate Officers to be hanged for war crimes committed during the war. The other was Bushwhacker Champ Ferguson, charged with killing prisoners and non-combatants. He was said to have decapitated prisoners and rolled their heads down hills in a races in which his men would bet. He was seldom disciplined, and was even arrested for the murder of a superior [Confederate] officer for which he was acquitted due to lack of evidence.

Marcellus Jerome Clarke, and Henry C. Magruder They were executed for Terrorism and Guerilla Fighting. Amongst crimes committed where, mass rape of a Union Officer's wife and six school-girls, and the burning a black man alive. They where executed after their arrests for robbing a bank.

Robert Cobb Kennedy, Sam Davis, and John Yates Beall, where all executed for spying.

These seven men where the only Confederates executed for crimes committed during the war.

Forrest was never charged with fort pillow mostly because it's most likely that he didn't prder it and his men went wild on the surrendered black soldiers

 Forrest was a regular soldier and not a guerilla fighter like Anderson, Quatrill, or Fergusen. He fought as a regular legitimate cavalry soldier as opposed to an irregular fighter or more commonly know, a guerilla

Just a small point, war crimes did exist at the time, just not in their current form. The 1806 Articles of War did include sections on the treatment of civilians and prisoners (for example, articles 32 and 33 set out the punishment for abuses of civilians, including capital crimes and violence; and article 97 governing the rules of war and soldier conduct, with article 57 covering the punishment for spies). These were further revised by the Leiber Code (1863) to specifically address questions raised during the war, close loopholes, and provide more detail.

These articles of war were based on the even earlier Articles of War adopted during the Revolutionary War, which were based on the unwritten rules of war that were centuries older.

So these men were hanged for committing war crimes that were established at that point in military law as war crimes. For those with a military background before joining the Confederacy, ignorance can't be an excuse, as the Articles of 1806 were read to all officers and enlistees within 6 days upon joining.

Interestingly, under Article 7 (the sedition and/or mutiny clause), the Union could have legally hanged all Confederate officers and soldiers who had left the service of the US army to join the CSA. Frankly speaking, the Union treated Confederates quite leniently, a lot of war crimes were committed by the CSA, including several massacres of their own people within the South.

before war crimes where codified in international law, like they are now. Piracy, Guerilla Fighting, Trageting Civilians, and abusing POWs where all war-crimes at that time. It's just a shock to me that only two people where hanged OFFICIALLY for war-crimes. The two other guys where hanged officially, for theft, terrorism, and rape. But those, at the time, where not war crimes like today.

 it took time to reach an international standard where everything was properly codified. I think the Leiber Code was a good start, though it obviously had some ideas we wouldn't allow today (allowing retributive war crimes as punishment in response to war crimes; i.e. "you execute prisoners, I will respond in kind").

For example, I believe rape would count as a war crime under the 1806 Articles of War. But to be fair, the respective articles are vague, with "capital crimes and other abuses against civilians" left undefined. Rape likely fits under "other abuses" but it's one of those things we needed to explicitly include in later war crime definitions to avoid any lack of clarity.

it's shocking that only two were officially charged with war crimes. I think your post is great for discussing the topic of war crimes and the civil war, so thanks for sharing!

Andersonville is a pretty humbling place. 13,000 people died slow and painful deaths from disease and starvation there

I had an ancestor who died of scurvy there, as well as one who got lucky and was sent back north after he got bronchitis in Andersonville (when he recovered he promptly attempted to reenlist in the union, but was denied due to his age and medical issues). I was lucky enough in my teens to go on a family trip to Andersonville and we found the grave of Patrick Coleman, the ancestor who died there. He was the son in law of the one sent back to north, George Buck. The prison is a heavy, solemn place, and even as a13 year old it felt eerie being there.

The Confederate flag is just as bad as a Nazi flag in my book, maybe even worse, as it was used to begin an evil cause in our own nation. Those who think it makes them "rebels" and nothing more are grossly misinformed and/or don't care about the other implications of the racist, traitor flag

He could have done more to improve the conditions which he actually had control over, like improved sanitation and better shelter from the elements, and more control over his guards, but he was severly hamstrung in terms of food and medicine.

The food provided to the camp by the confederate government was badly below what it needed to be, and the commandant argued at his trial in his defense that he had repeatedly petitioned the confederate government for more food and supplies. Several prisoners testified to that as well. He also sent union pows to the union government to make the case for them to reinstate prisoner exchanges and thus ease the conditions at the camp, but that was rejected.

Basically, he could have lessened the death rate somewhat, but the massive overcrowding and severe lack of food and other supplies meant the prison was guaranteed to be a horror show no matter who ran it.

 there was a lot more he could've done, but because of the shortages of food and medicine he kind of just said "F it" and didn't bother making the improvements he did have control over. So although his personal treatment of prisoners didn't contribute to all the deaths there, he certainly played a part in a large number of them. Improving the sanitary conditions would've helped mitigate the need for the medicine they did not have enough of, and although food supplies from the confederacy were short, I have a tough time believing that he was incapable of finding some other outlet to acquire sustenance for the prisoners.