Talk:Andersonville Prison/Archive 1

Archive 1

membership and subscription?

I'm a translator needing to port it to another language. This is the original sentence In 1890 the Grand Army of the Republic, Department of Georgia bought the site of Andersonville Prison from membership and subscription I am confused to which the membership and subscriptions refer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooyyaoyao (talk • contribs) 10:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Malnutrition

This article doesn't strike me as particularly neutral. I kind of suspect that Southern whites ate dramatically better than Andersonville POWs, but I'll have to look it up. I suppose deaths of malnutrition among the guards is relevant to this; death by infectious disease, not so much. Boris B 22:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Southern Guards ate out of the same bakehouse that feed the prisoners. Their death rate, while in less numbers, were actually very close to the same in percentage. The seeming contradiction in the grave count is that they failed to state that the cemetary is still an active national cemetary in which Servicemen are still buried to this day. Pumabuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumabuck (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Number of deaths

45,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.199.121.12 (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs to be organized, split into proper sections, and more extensively referenced. /Blaxthos 19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Why is this article titled "Andersonville National Historic Site" when clearly "Andersonville prison" (currently a redirect) is the more applicable term? In fact, shouldn't there be two separate articles, one for the prison (its history and controversy, etc) and one for its current status as a Historic Site? What are people's thoughts on the latter? María (habla conmigo) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Andersonville National Historic Site" is the official name. It includes the prison, the National Cemetary, and the Prisoner of War museum. More needs to be said about this. Bubba73 (talk), 00:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In encyclopedic terms, the current official name is less important than how it is recognized by history. My Encyclopedia of the Civil War has an entry on Andersonville Prison, not Andersonville National Historic Site. :) The suggestion is that two separate articles are maintained, both of which can grow in separate ways: "Andersonville prison", which can include a section on the current state of the site's current National Historic status, and "Andersonville National Historic Site", which will contain the rest of it and further information when added. This sort of split has been done with other articles in which there appears to be a conflicting areas of coverage. María (habla conmigo) 01:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is OK with me, but I have no references with which to write it. I was there two months ago, but I didn't get any literature or anything. There probably isn't much to be said about the Cemetery or Museum outside the article on the National Historic Site. But the prison could be split off. I'm not opposed to splitting it off. What do others think? You might ask on a History project or the Military History project. Bubba73 (talk), 01:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

i yhink that by seperating the articals it might confuse some poeople, espically the people still in grade school. espically if they are unaware of the difference in the historical name and the name as it is recognized on a national level, but it would make more sence to split the artical in my mind, and also someone should add more subtitles to clean the artical up a bit. i would, but i dont have any time and dont know enough about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowerofrain (talk • contribs) 19:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Survivor?

How is it possible for the "survivor" whose picture is in the article to actually be alive? There is basically no flesh left on his body and I can't even see his eyes. Are we sure he isn't dead? --Hnsampat (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That pic is of a survivor, believe it or not.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

i thought the ame thing when i first saw the picture, but the person is alive, although i think he died shortly after the potograph was taken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowerofrain (talk • contribs) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the picture is real? Does anyone know his name? Where are his genitals? KevinLuna (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There is documentation that prisoners starved to death in the prison. If one starves to death one becomes skeletal before expiring, the body having metabolized all fat and all muscle in its effort to stay alive. Now, since there is written documentation of starvation it would not be a far reach to assume that there would be photographed documentation. Thus, the picture is likely real. The fact that you can't see the genitals doesn't mean the photo is fake either. This photo was taken over 140 years ago. Fading, blurring or deliberately camouflaging the genital area because of sexual mores of the time could all be reasons why you don't see his penis. As to his identity, why should there be any? The photographs taken at Auschwitz do not mention the names of the surviving prisoners, either. A photograph of a person in this physical state would be taken for criminal evidence and not for identity. Really, the three questions are completely disingenuous. You don't have to think about it too much to accept that the photo is real. I guess my question is, given all the evidence surrounding Andersonville prison, why WOULDN'T you think it was real? -Heather — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.179.21 (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought this fellow died about two days later. Valetude (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with pictures

I have tried a few times to move the pics and words around, but the main article still does not flow. Can some one help.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Info Box needs fixing

Hi, This is envirodan here.

I'd like to say that I do not know how to fix the info box, and I would like to ask all the people smarter than me to help make this page better. Thank You.

(To a greener tomorrow (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

Racism -> overcrowding

The Confederacy refused to recognize black Union soldiers as soldiers, accord them prisoner of war status, or include them in "exchanges" of captured enemy soldiers between the two sides. It should be made clearer in the article that this was an important factor leading to the overcrowding. AnonMoos (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It presently misleadingly simply says that the North refused to reinstate prisoner exchanges, without noting that the Union only stopped the exchanges because the Confederacy refused to include African Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.78.86 (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The overcrowding seemed to be a deliberate policy by the Confederacy, and Wirz personally. The 'camp' was nothing more than a wood stockade fence around an area. And it was only about half of the available cleared area. Plus it was in the middle of a wooded area; that could easily have been cleared to provide more area. (Or just leave the trees there; they would provide some shade for the prisoners from the broiling summer sun.)

Wirz could easily have relieved some of the over crowding just by expanding the area of the camp. (This was eventually done to some extent, late in the war.) There was space, wood for stockade walls, and he had plenty of (prisoner) labor available. He just chose not to do so.

This overcrowding (and the disease it caused) was the main cause of death in the camp. Wirz could have reduced this, had he wished to. He did not, and was rightly hanged. T bonham (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Wirtz Trial

There is an article "No Darker Field OF Crime" pp 10, in "Georgia BackRoads" (Spring 2011 Edition) that should be reviewed as to the legitimacy of the Captain Henry Wirtz trial. Specifically that damning testimony by the prosecution's star witness, Felix de la Baume, who in reality was Felix Oeser - a deserter from a New York regiment - "had never set foot in Andersonville Prison". 98.18.53.66 (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. There's always someone around to doubt the evidence given at Nuremberg too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.179.21 (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's cited but it can't possibly be right.

"... and blunt weapon executions from guards, diarrhea, and disease."

How exactly does diarrhea and disease carry out a "blunt weapon execution"? There shouldn't be a comma in front of the 'and' either. 109.156.49.202 (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture depictions

In the film The Good, the Bad and the Ugly there is a prisoner of war camp setting. Is this Andersonville? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.50.195 (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Andersonville held Union POWs, the fictional camp in the film held Confederate POWs. A reference to the camp about how prisoner are to be treated is made however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoir (talk • contribs) 00:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Prisoner of war, from Belle Isle, Richmond, at the U.S. General Hospital, Div. 1, Annapolis.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Prisoner of war, from Belle Isle, Richmond, at the U.S. General Hospital, Div. 1, Annapolis.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 9, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-04-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A survivor of the Andersonville Prison during the American Civil War displays his emaciated state after being freed. A prisoner of the camp described the view upon entering: "As we entered the place, a spectacle met our eyes that almost froze our blood with horror, and made our hearts fail within us. Before us were forms that had once been active and erect; stalwart men, now nothing but mere walking skeletons, covered with filth and vermin." Nearly thirteen thousand of the forty-five thousand prisoners died there. Hostilities of the war officially ended on April 9, 1865.Photo: Unknown; restoration: Jujutacular

Where is a page about Anderson prison?

It has a historical site but not a wiki page. What's with that? Nitpyck (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Survived?

The picture of the living skeleton is captioned 'A Union soldier who survived'. I heard he died two days after the picture was taken. Valetude (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Racism -> overcrowding

When Confederate and Union exchange authorities were discussing exchanges between Union prisoners and Andersonville prisoners Grant stepped in and halted all further discussion in Aug. 1864. This halt in exchanges that cost the lives of many prisoners of war had nothing to do with Union authorities caring for the welfare of African American soldiers. Grant was very clear in correspondence as to the reason he stopped all prisoner exchange in Aug. 1864 and he did not mention anything about African American soldiers. He said it was because the Rebel soldiers ended back on the front line within days while the bulk of the U. S. soldiers had served their allotted time in the army. He added the few that could rejoin their commands would also be out in a few months. He even seemed to be saying some people would die in prison but he owed to the men on the front line, and this would hasten the end of the war, etc. I do not think anyone can find today a source saying Grant ever halted prisoner exchange because of anything to do with African American U. S. troops. This was mentioned as one of several reasons prisoner exchanged was halted (only temporarily) by the Secretary of War in May and again in July 1863 (maybe other times) but several other reasons were also listed. Confusingly, we all know exchanges resumed and continued. Even after Grant's order of Aug. 1864 halting exchanges other exchanges continued, thus I am not clear on why that was the case, but assuredly had nothing to do with U. S. C. troops. Let's state American history accurately. Rjr1960 (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1