Talk:Immortal Six Hundred

Failure to footnote and biased terminology
Footnote 5 applies to this verbatim quote in this Wikipedia stub but is missing: "crowded into the fort’s cold, damp casemates. For 42 days, a "retaliation ration" of ten ounces of moldy cornmeal and half a pint of soured onion pickles was the only food issued to the prisoners.... Thirteen men died...." The wording from the NPS site reads: crowded into the fort’s cold, damp casemates. For 42 days, a "retaliation ration" of 10 ounces of moldy cornmeal and soured onion pickles was the only food issued to the prisoners. Thirteen men died at Fort Pulaski....

This statement requires a footnote: "retaliation for the conditions found by the Union at the Confederate prisons in Andersonville, Georgia, and Salisbury, North Carolina." The footnote cites the NPS, but the NPS didn't mention "conditions found by the Union" because no such discovery occurred before these conditions were imposed @ Ft. Pulaski. Camp Sumter @ Andersonville was deliberately bypassed by Union Gen. Sherman. Salisbury's prisoners were exchanged in Feb. 1865 and the prison held only a few POWs when Union Gen. Stoneman burned it in April 1865. But that was a month after the "remaining prisoners were returned to Fort Delaware on March 12, 1865" as this article states. So, the Immortal 600 couldn't be punished for conditions that had not yet been found by the Union.

Seeming bias: "The Confederates were only (sic) landed on Morris Island late in July of that year....It should be noted that the Confederate prisoners did not arrive on Morris Island until (sic) the first week of September 1864." "Only" and "until" seem to have been inserted to mitigate/excuse Federal behavio. This is curious in view of footnote 5 from a NPS announcement, the key point of which NPS said of the re-enactment at Ft. Pulaski: The event will honor the sacrifice of these brave Confederate prisoners. Superintendent Fenwick remarked, "We feel it is critical to bring this tragic part of our history to light and as Rudyard Kipling once said "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

The last paragraph in this Wikipedia stub is inexcusable. First, it selectively cites NPS in a way designed to minimize the principled stand of the Confederate officers. Compare its first sentence with this quote from NPS (follow link in footnote 5):  "The Immortal 600 became famous throughout the South for their adherence to principle [emphasis mine] and for refusing to take the Oath of Allegiance under extremely adverse circumstances." The third sentence needs a footnote, otherwise it is an assertion.

Both this Wikipedia item and the NPS give the false impression that none of the Immortal 600 took the Oath of Allegiance to the US. Helen Trimpi, author of the book "Crimson Confederates: Harvard Men who Fought for the South," identifies on p. 10 that John Algernon Baker of NC and 17 others took the Oath. On pp. 31 and 58 of the Jan/Feb 2015 Confederate Veteran magazine, Joanne Cullorn Moore identifies Lt. J.W. Davis, 20th Va. Cav. as taking the Oath @ Ft. Pulaski. Traditional Catholic (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Final words.
Oh, I see the hateful Yankee wokesters had to add some scorn to the final words 2601:640:4000:10B0:79E4:951B:950C:B7F2 (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Additional context and information could be helpful
After reading your source on the subject, (I believe it was source number 2,) Your first paragraph could use some additional context and information. Currently, you have this:

In June 1864, the Confederate Army imprisoned five generals and forty-five Union Army officers in the city of Charleston, South Carolina, using them as human shields in an attempt to stop Union artillery from firing on the city.[2] In retaliation, United States Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton ordered fifty captured Confederate officers, of similar ranks, to be taken to Morris Island, South Carolina, at the entrance to Charleston Harbor. The Confederates were landed on Morris Island late in July of that year.

The pretext of the bombardment needs to be cleared up ( as your source notes clearly:)

Though the pretext of the Federal bombardment was that Charleston had an arsenal,the threatened bombardment had come while the city's civilian inhabitants were still within. After notifying the Union forces that Civilians were still in the city and must be given time to leave, The union general shelled them anyway, causing many of the poorer inhabitants who could not escape to perish. In an attempt to stop this, the newly appointed Confederate commander (Jones) had POWs placed in the city to stop the bombardments, to which the Union general further retaliated by placing Confederate POWS on Morris island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:4101:ACE0:BDEC:4EF7:12B9:E39 (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this article needs some major revisions. I have two of the reference books.  One is not very good.  I started reading the other a few months but didn't get far.  I need to read it and take notes as I go, to revise the article in an organized way. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead in could use further information for clarity
The Lead-in could use additional information on why some African American POWs were not allowed to be exchanged, and why officers of some colored regiments  could be executed.

A good source would be a letter from Robert E Lee to U.S. Grant in 1864 regarding Prisoner Exchange. This is from the Virginia Archives. (Empahisis mine)

"General: In my proposition of the 1st instant to exchange the prisoners of war belonging to the armies operating in Virginia I intended to include all captured soldiers of the United States of whatever nation and color under my control. Deserters from our service and negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition. If there are any such among those stated by you to have been captured around Richmond they cannot be returned.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

R E Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:4101:ACE0:BDEC:4EF7:12B9:E39 (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)