An email from a nephew led me do some detective work. An ancestor, my nephew informed me, was accused of mistreating Federal prisoners at the Florence Stockade during the Civil War. He sent me a reference in a book published in 2010 that names my great-great grandfather, Thomas G. Barrett, as an officer whom prisoners accused of crimes leading to great suffering and even death.
To do this detective work, I reviewed four modern books; read parts of even more books written by imprisoned Union soldiers (published as long ago as 1867); reviewed records of the State Assembly of New York; looked up some entries in Lillian Henderson’s Roster of Confederate Soldiers of Georgia; read a letter written in 1865 by the Judge Advocate General to the Secretary of War; examined numerous documents related to Barrett’s service in the war; found the obituary of Thomas’s brother, who died in 1910; and delved into the Official Records, Series II, Volume VIII.
The accusation didn’t make sense. Thomas was the ordnance officer in the brigade commanded by John King Jackson. Why would Thomas be at Florence or any other prison? He wasn’t. It was a case of mistaken identity. The prison officer was not Thomas, but his brother James. The modern books are wrong. The old books written by the prisoners never mention the accused officer’s first name. Nor do any of the documents in the OR. Nor do any of the reports made to the State Assembly of New York. Nor does the letter written to the Secretary of War. So why the mistake? Why do three historians, in four books, citing the OR and prisoners’ accounts, state so
GEORGIA’S CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS In Honor of a Fallen Nation Gould B. Hagler, Jr.
This unique work contains a complete photographic record of Georgia’s memorials to the Confederacy, a full transcription of the words engraved upon them, and carefully-researched information about the monuments and the organizations which built them. These works of art and their eloquent nation’s profound grief, praise the soldiers’ bravery and patriotism, and pay homage to the cause for which they fought.
definitely that Thomas G. Barrett was the accused officer sought by Federal authorities as soon as the war ended?
Both Thomas and his brother James served (at different times) in Co. C of the Fifth Ga. Inf. Regt. Thomas went to another regiment, then to Jackson’s Brigade as ordnance officer. James initially joined the Eighth Georgia as private but was discharged because of a disability. He re-enlisted as a private in the Fifth Georgia and was elected second lieutenant in Co. C. In Nov. 1864, James was detailed as Inspector of Military Prisons. But who first made the mistake and figured that the Barrett in question was Thomas?
Was it the Federal authorities who were looking for the wrong Barrett? Probably not. James fled the country immediately after the war, so if the authorities were looking for Thomas they learned quickly that he was not their man.
It is most likely that the mistake was made by the editors of the OR, Series II, Volume VIII, was published in 1902. The records included in the volume don’t contain Barrett’s first name, but the index does. Clear as it can be: “Barrett, Thomas G.” Every page number following this name refers the reader to documents referring to Barrett, first name not given, accused of mistreating prisoners. So any modern writer looking at the volume would identify the accused officer as Thomas. Natural enough.
However, I was not the first person to catch this mistake. It was first noticed 115 years ago, by the OR editors themselves, and corrected before the volume was published. Page 2 of Volume VIII is entitled “ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.” About 40 of the corrections apply to
inscriptions express a the index. The reader is instructed to “Insert all words and figures in italics and strike out all in [brackets].”
The second entry reads “Barrett, James [Thomas G.]” So strike Thomas, insert James, and history is corrected.
Would I have paid any attention to this if I were not descended from Thomas? Certainly not. Grandfather Thomas and Uncle James were not important leaders. Neither man rates anything more than a footnote in the history books.
But facts are facts, and to learn them we must check and check again; read the footnotes, and then go to the sources cited; examine the primary sources, compare them to each other, and see if the secondary works interpret them correctly. And look at everything with a critical eye and a skeptical attitude. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” (Or did he? You can check it out. In any case, this is true, and equally true they are little facts, or facts about little
As a postscript, the reader may
be interested to learn that Uncle
James skedaddled across the At
lantic in 1865. He returned home
in 1870 with a German bride, Aunt Sophia. His obituary states (inaccurately) that he “was in command of the Confederate prison in Florence.” The obit also says he “fled to Europe to avoid federal authorities.” It seems, therefore, that he was open about his service and did not conceal the fact that accusations were made against him. James was never tried. Did the authorities determine there was not sufficient evidence? Or did they simply lose interest after five years? Did he do things he should not have done, or were the charges false? I don’t know. Maybe one of my fourth cousins could look into it.