One significant detail in the saga of Maj. Welcome Crafts is the dateline on both Private Henry Pitchenger’s
complaint and the provost marshal’s suggestion that Crafts be
court-martialed for abusing Pitchenger. Both were written in early November 1864 from the so-called Bull Ring at City
Point, Va., which was Union army headquarters during the siege of Petersburg. (You can read the documents here, in the first post of this series.)
The Bull Ring was a prison camp housing men accused and convicted of desertion, cowardice, murder, rape and other crimes. Some Confederate prisoners were also held there. The camp comprised three one-story barracks surrounded by high wooden fences. William Howell Reed, an agent of the Sanitary Commission the Red Cross of wartime, called the Bull Ring “a pen of filth and vermin.” Reed heard a Union officer say he would rather spend six months at Libby Prison in Richmond than one month in the Bull Ring.
Marsena R. Patrick, provost marshal of the Army of the Potomac. |
Henry Pitchenger
was a substitute from Montreal. He filled a spot in a regiment with a
reputation for courage and proficiency in battle. When the 5th New Hampshire
Volunteers came home after Gettysburg, war had reduced it to just over 100 men fit for duty of the 1,000
who had left the state less than two years before. Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock,
the corps commander under whom the 5th fought at Gettysburg, called these
survivors “refined goal.”
Pitchenger joined the regiment more than a year after Gettysburg, in September 1864. He was in the Bull Ring when Maj. Crafts. his regimental commander, came looking for him.
Pitchenger joined the regiment more than a year after Gettysburg, in September 1864. He was in the Bull Ring when Maj. Crafts. his regimental commander, came looking for him.
Pitchenger wrote
his complaint about being beaten to Capt. Edwin Forrest
Koehler, a Philadelphian serving as judge advocate at City Point. Kohler passed
the complaint up the chain of command to Brig. Gen. Marsena H. Patrick,
provost marshal of the Army of the Potomac. It is probably significant that Patrick asked none
other than Hancock to authorize the court martial of Crafts for the
ruthless beating of Pitchenger in the Bull Ring.
Brig, Gen. "Tucky" Collis |
I could find no evidence that Crafts was court-martialed for his offense and
some evidence that he was not punished at all. In the face of such powerful accusations
of a violent attack on a private soldier in a prison camp, why was he spared?
Sometimes, especially in the absence of a full record,
history is what we think happened. More records may turn up in the case, but on the basis of the evidence available, here’s what I think happened in the case of
Henry Pitchenger and Welcome Crafts.
Probably Hancock or one of his subordinates reviewed the
documents. Anyone would conclude on that evidence that Crafts lost his temper and
pummeled Pitchenger without remorse.
But Pitchenger’s complaint also revealed something of his own behavior in
battle. His regiment had fought the enemy often from the trenches before Petersburg during
October 1864, losing five men killed. Pitchenger wrote of at least one of these
fights: “He (Crafts) has also shamefully ill-used me whilst in the regiment at
the front which was the reason of my leaving the regiment as I had no chance at
all for my life, being bucked and gagged while the shells were bursting within
a few feet of me & in sight of the enemys sharpshooters.”
“Bucked and gagged” refers to a common form of corporal
punishment during the Civil War. A piece of wood blocked the soldier’s mouth and was held
in place by a band tied round his head. The soldier’s hands were tied. He was forced to sit and pull his knees into his chest, then reach his tied hands around his ankles.
A rod placed beneath his knees and above his elbows kept him from moving.
Why other than for fear of Pitchenger’s running away would
Crafts order this harsh punishment at the front? Crafts had known since First Bull Run that infantrymen
had to be able to withstand enemy artillery shells and the presence of sharpshooters during
battle. He also knew that at Petersburg desertion to the enemy by substitute
soldiers in the 5th New Hampshire was so rampant that the rebels had stuck a sign above their trenches reading “Headquarters, 5th
New Hampshire Volunteers. RECRUITS WANTED.”
Maj. Gen Winfield Scott Hancock faced a choice between the leader of a regiment he admired and an abused soldier he abhorred. |
I think he chose to work around Pitchenger’s complaint rather than act on it. Crafts’s record shows no
blemish from this incident. He had made major on Sept. 6, 1864, and his promotion
to lieutenant colonel was dated Oct. 28, a short time before Pitchenger’s complaint.
He continued to lead the 5th. He was promoted to colonel just after the war,
although he was not mustered at that rank. His two postwar promotions cited gallant
and meritorious service during the Fredericksburg and Gettysburg battles.
As for the 22-year-old Pitchenger, he seems to have avoided
punishment for running away. On Nov. 20, 11 days after lodging his complaint,
he was returned to the 5th and placed in a new company. When the regiment
mustered out in June 1865, he was listed as “absent, in arrest.”
No comments:
Post a Comment