Newspaper Page Text
n
vj
Thursday, September 14, 2000
News
The Southern Cross, Page 3
An historical footnote:
the unhappy fate of a Civil War deserter
O f all sacramental records housed in the
archives of the Diocese of Savannah,
none are more poignant than early ac
counts of those who received the last rites
of the Catholic Church. Victims caught in
the tide of yellow fever which engulfed
the area, mothers who died of childbed
fever, laborers cut down in their youth by
accidents with unfamiliar machinery, small
children whose deaths were attributed to
“teething,” immigrants who looked for a
new life and found tuberculosis instead—
all of these tragic deaths appear in Cathe
dral Cemetery (now Catholic Cemetery) records.
Delicate and carefully preserved, the books con
taining the original records have been supplanted
by typed copies. One of the most unusual and dis
tressing mortality records in these books may be
that of a youthful Confederate who left the ranks
of his company in Savannah without permission.
“Pierre Clavel” (not his real name), a native of
France, was sentenced to death because he had
deserted the city’s rear line of defense and gone
over to the enemy. The fragile ledger in which the
unfortunate young man’s end was first recorded
looks as tense as the times: the notation of the
death of each individual written in cramped letters
straining to save room on scarce paper, the consci
entious priest hurrying to supply name, age, birth
place, date and cause of death, number of years in
the city, and place and time of burial.
At this point in the Civil War, the Confederacy
needed every man available. The exactness of the
recording priest’s account of Clavel’s stay in the
city possibly reflects the length of the soldier’s mil
itary service, as given by authorities. Or, it may
point to the priest’s having been summoned earlier
Rita H.
DeLorme
to console the condemned man and administer
the Last Rites.
What interest did Pierre Clavel have in
the war in which he found himself in
volved? Surely he had no slave or proper
ty. He may have spoken and understood
just a wisp of English. Local officials had
some leeway in deciding the fates of men
who left their companies. If the offense was
repeated, the penalty might be more severe.
If the soldier fleeing service became in
volved in illegal activities and joined a
marauding, looting gang, his penalty could
be harsh. Yet this young deserter stands alone in
the records of that date. It appears no companions
of his received a like sentence. Did Confederate
officials, noting the high rate of desertion, hope to
make him an “example” to others tempted to aban
don military service?
Concerning desertions, one source discloses that,
although Robert E. Lee, commander of the Army
of Northern Virginia, was desperately short of
manpower, he usually preferred offers of amnesty
as a way of drawing deserters back to his army.
Many times, Confederate soldiers left their posts
simply to check on those back home, though others
intended to join bands of deserters, or to hide out
in mountains, or to join up with enemy forces.
Generally, if captured, deserters went the court
martial route, the outcome varying from solitary
confinement to flogging, imprisonment, a fine,
longer service, etc. One authority notes that execu
tion was not commonplace, though accounts of the
time make this observation questionable.
Over 105,000 Confederates left the army during
the Civil War. In Augusta, the Daily Constitutiona
list of May 5, 1864, commented on the stream of
deserters being taken to that city and listed names
of 21 men who were to be shot in Augusta for
desertion.
An earlier newspaper account described the exe
cution of a private who had deserted and noted that
the deserter had left a wife and three children. A
man of “mature years and quiet demeanor,” the
condemned man “was attended by Mr. Aldrich,
Chaplain of 1st S.C. Artillery.” The Richmond
Inquirer recommended early in 1864 that “instead
of depleting the industry of the country to strength
en the army, the wiser and only true policy is the
adoption of measures which, by preventing deser
tions, shall maintain the strength of the army at its
highest point.” The Columbus Times declared that
“if, by arresting the evil of straggling, unauthorized
absences and desertions, the armies in the field can
be rendered equal to the emergencies of the service,
then there ought to be no additional enrollment.”
The newspaper added that every man whose pres
ence was not needed in the army should be allowed
to remain at home for the benefit of societal and
industrial interests of the country.
There were those who managed to avoid military
service in both Union and Confederate Armies
through hiring substitutes to take their place.
Private Pierre Clavel was not among those so
exempted from military service. Faded ink in the old
Cathedral records reveals haunting details of one life
caught up in a war which claimed more American
lives than the sum of American fatalities in the
Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican War,
Spanish-American War, World Wars I and II, Korean
War and the first five years of the Vietnam War.
Rita H. DeLorme is a volunteer in the
Diocesan Archives.
Concessions
(Continued from page I)
“indispensable” though mysterious
relationship with the church.
“If it is true that the followers of
other religions can receive divine
grace, it is also certain that objective
ly speaking they are in a gravely
deficient situation in comparison
with those who, in the church, have
the fullness of the means of salva
tion,” it said.
It struck an ecumenical nerve in
stating that ecclesial communities
that have not preserved the valid
episcopate through apostolic succes
sion and the valid Eucharist “are not
churches in the proper sense.”
Speaking at a press conference,
Cardinal Ratzinger criticized what he
called an “ideology of dialogue” that
attempts to replace mission and con
version in the church with a “false
sense of religious tolerance.”
The cardinal said that while the
church teaches that good things can
exist in other religions, “one cannot
close one’s eyes to the errors and
illusions that are also present” in
those religions.
Although the impact of the docu
ment was expected to be highest in
the church’s dialogue with non-
Christian faiths, most initial reaction
came from Catholic representatives
and other Christian churches.
Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza of
Galveston-Houston, president of the
National Conference of Catholic
Bishops, said the declaration provides
“a valuable service in summarizing
and clarifying the teaching of the
church.” He said the Catholic belief in
the unique salvific role of Jesus Christ
and his church “in no way diminishes
the sincere respect we have for the
religions of the human family or our
conviction that their followers can
receive divine grace.”
Cardinal Bernard F. Law of Boston
said the document “does not signal a
lessening of the church’s commit
ment to ecumenical and interreli
gious dialogue. Rather it is a state
ment of truth so that the dialogue
may proceed on a firm foundation.”
Cardinal William H. Keeler of
Baltimore, a leader in dialogue with
Jews and Orthodox churches, said he
did not expect the document to create
problems for dialogue experts. Most
dialogue partners expect the Catholic
participants to be true to their faith,
which is what the Vatican declaration
insists upon, he said.
The World Council of Churches
warned of potential damage to
ecumenical dialogue, however.
“What a tragedy” if the witness of
joint Christian cooperation “were ob
scured by the churches’ dialogues
about their relative authority and sta
tus—however important they may
be,” the WCC said.
The WCC said it would have
hoped for “an acknowledgment of
the many positive developments” in
ecumenical dialogue and cooperation
over the past 100 years.
The World Alliance of Reformed
Churches wrote to Vatican ecumeni
cal officials to express “disappoint
ment and dismay” over the docu
ment, which it said was “made with
out ecumenical sensitivity” and
“seems to go against the spirit of
Vatican II.”
Christian leaders in Britain also
expressed disappointment at the
Vatican document, but said their
commitment to ecumenical efforts
remains unchanged. Anglican Arch
bishop George Carey of Canterbury,
head of the worldwide Anglican
Communion, said the document
“breaks no new ground” but fails to
reflect ecumenical understanding
achieved through 30 years of dia
logue and cooperation.
“The idea that Anglican and other
churches are not ‘proper churches’
seems to question the considerable
ecumenical gains we have made,”
Archbishop Carey said.
Catholic Archbishop Cormac Mur-
phy-O’Connor of Westminster, chair
man of the Department of Mission
and Unity of the Catholic Bishops’
Conference of England and Wales,
said the document “does not attempt
to change the teaching of the Catho
lic Church regarding ecumenism.
Certainly no slight is intended by its
comments regarding other Christian
communities,” he said.
Saying the tone of a recent Vatican
declaration “may not fully reflect the
deeper understanding that has been
achieved through ecumenical and
interreligious dialogue over these last
30 years or more,” Los Angeles
Cardinal Roger M. Mahony pledged
“unyielding support” to “our partners
in dialogue” in a September 9 state
ment.