PDA

View Full Version : Surgeons and pistols



hta1970
10-14-2007, 06:34 PM
I have read the following two excerpts and would love to hear any comment on them and their connecting medical officers with carrying pistols.

From "Hunter Holmes McGuire Doctor in Gray," pg 53.

"On one side of the tents was their trunks. clothing hung from a suspended rod. And in order of appearance, this was the list on October 26: "Dr. McGuire's spurs, my holster and a pair of loaded revolvers, Henry Douglas's ditto, Dr. McGuire's towel, his holster and pistols, my sword belt, a new and handsome sword captured at Harper's Ferry, my spurs... Douglas' sword and belt, his towel, Dr McGuire's canteen and overcoat."

From Chisholm's manual, 3rd edition 1864, pg 139.

"Besised the litters, each bearer carries a canteen full of water, and the assistant surgeon, who follows the litters and directs the transportation, is accompanied by two men as orderlies. One of these orderlies, who habitually follows the medical officer, whether in battle or on the march, carriers the hospital knapsack. One of the orderlies is armed, to protect the party against stragglers and marauders. The surgeon, for similar reasons, should be also be armed with a revolver."

"Doc" Nelson
10-14-2007, 08:07 PM
Mr. Aycock,
I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, in particluar? I know of only 1 reenactor portraying a doctor that carries a pistol. And I know quite a few reenactors.

Although there is documented evidence showing that medical officers carried a pistol, for protection against vagrants taking medical supplies (more importantly, medicines). Doctors (and medical staff) were considered "non-combatants". So, just imagine being captured by the enemy and, you're carrying a weapon? Well, that just put you in the same category as those that, "make war" (i.e., the Infantry, etc.).

So, with having said that, I personally don't carry one on the field. Due to the fact that reenactments have no need of a Surgeon carrying a pistol?? Other than one trying to look good with a sword and pistol on. Who is going to take supplies from you?? Besides, it's 1 more thing to keep track of during an event. Crap, I have enough difficulty keeping up with my medical equipment and . . . my Orderly. Rather than trying to keep an eye on 1 more piece to add to my impression. But, that's up to you.

Just my 2 cents ;).

hta1970
10-14-2007, 08:31 PM
Noah,

I would have thought the same thing about a medical officer carrying a pistol being considered a combatant. Dr. McGuire was medical director for Jackson's Brigade/Division/Corps and a major advocate for the release of medical personnel. He is with originating the practice (pg 39). From the McGuire book it seems clear that he did not wear a sword. Jackson presented McGuire with a fine medical sword captured in the Valley campaign of 62 which he gave to his mother for safe keeping. (pg 41) As such I have no plans to buy or wear a sword. Looking to find an authentic leather belt without sword hangers.

On another note it seems also clear that McGuire may not have regularly worn his sash or even at all. During the Valley campaign if 62 McGuire requested permission to visit his sister in Wichester who was sick with tuberculosis. Jackson responded saying, "I can't give you permission to go but if you go, please wear your green sash." It seems that Jackson thought wear of such sash would protect McGuire from becoming a POW. I'll have a sash in my gear, packed away, but not worn.

I'm only hoping to present a correct impression. Not trying to add anything which would not be carried but certainly don't want to omit anything which was carried if I can avoid it.

I haven't seen any other discussions or documentation about these topics, so thought it was worth throwing them out there for discussion to see if anyone had any more information or resources.

"Doc" Nelson
10-14-2007, 09:05 PM
Well, you definately have a great attitude. I'm sorry if I came off wrong.

As for Dr. McGuire, I've never read much on him.

As for adding to your impression . . Doctors were permitted to carry firearms. And, as I stated, there is documented evidence that shows some did. But, if I ever buy a pistol for my impression . . what would I use it for, LOL?? This is why I choose to portray an average, everyday, common Assistant Surgeon. To go as light as possible during an event.

Your impression is up to you. Just make sure it's historically accurate. You'd be surprised at to how much information is out there. When I first started in my impression, I had difficulty finding "stuff". Well, my problem was, I wasn't looking for the right "stuff".

May I recommend some reading material? I have a book, it's titled: "Doctor to the Front: The Recollections of Confederate Surgeon Thomas Fanning Wood". He was an Assistant Surgeon in the 3rd North Carolina Infantry. He gives allot of insight into his experiences as a battlefield doctor. I believe it wasn't until Gettysburg, before he "procured" a pocket surgeon's kit. He was appointed in the first part of 1862. Given that Gettysburg was July 1863 . . he went approximately a year and a few months before obtaining proper equipment. And, he only obtained that after the Federal position was overran and, medical stores were captured (actually, as for the pocket kit he "procured", he walked up to a Federal Surgeon and, demanded he hand it over). I would highly recommend reading it. It's given me allot of insight into my impression.

Also, there is a ton of information here on the forum about medical "stuff". And, you're more than welcome to drop me an email @ jimmy_nelson@insightbb.com.

jda3rd
10-14-2007, 10:28 PM
At a time when doctors on both sides were likely to be armed, I don't think being captured while in possession of a pistol would be any more likely to get a fellow into trouble than not. Consider, too, that a small revolver, .31 or so, or a small pocket pistol, was not an uncommon item, and not an undue burden (not like, say, a Navy Colt, or LeMat). I would expect to find an arm such as I've described about as often as I'd expect to find a pocket watch. It might not be prominently displayed, and most might be unaware of its presence or even its existence, but I wouldn't take it for granted that the surgeon was unarmed.

Frank Brower

"Doc" Nelson
10-14-2007, 10:45 PM
During the War, I'd agree. But, with portraying a doctor in "today's" hobby . . I wouldn't worry about "extra stuff", that you have no real need for :mrgreen:.

hta1970
10-14-2007, 10:51 PM
Jimmy,

Sorry I got the address wrong there. For a second I got you and Noah Briggs confused. My appologies to both of you.

I'll definately check out the book on Dr Wood. I had seen it and it was on my wish list but wasn't sure how good it was or what information it contained. Some books are better than others and those recommended always go to the top of my list. Just ordered it and looking forward to the read.

I specifically checked out McGuire initially because I was curious about medical care in 2nd Corps, to which the 1st MD Artillery was assigned from 62-64 . I have also read "Confederate Commando and Fleet Surgeon: Dr. Daniel Burr Conrad" who served as a naval surgeon for a period with the army in 2nd Corps with the 2nd VA Inf.

I would say both the McGuire book and the Conrad book provide very little general medical information. McGuire's records were essentially all destroyed in Richmond with the whole Medical Department as well as his personal records which were burned when federals overtook his wagon. Conrad likewaise has little to say abut service in the army, though as a former U.S. Navy surgeon, I would be interested to know if he was attired in his former U.S. Navy uniform and when he switched uniforms to the Confederate steel gray. I am sure anyone going to 1st Manassas dressed as a U.S. Navy doctor serving with Confederate forces would get some odd looks today.

Jas. Cox
10-14-2007, 11:25 PM
I agree with "Doc" Nelson about lugging around extra items. That being said, I carry both a sword and an 1851 Navy Colt (replica) with Dr. Jas. Cox engraved on the butt. Why? The sword because I have it. The pistol because I like it. My justification for having one comes from A Pictorial Encyclopedia of Civil War Medical Instruments and Equipment Volume II by Dammann, Gorden Dr. Page 41. "On the following pages are examples of sidearms that surgeons purchased for their own protection. Since a surgeon was a non-combatant, these weapons would not have been used on the field of battle. Usually, when hospitals were overrun by the enemy, surgeons were able to continue to work on their patients. ..." I have read of at least one account of a Dr. ridding alone being attacked by the enemy.

Keep in mind that I currently am not with any group, nor do I give surgical demonstrations. Basically when I go to an event, I just look farbishly pretty. :rolleyes: I will concede that, but with historically documented justification. However, if I were involved in a demonstration of actual field work, I'd lose the sword, sash and sidearm. The sword gets in the way, and the gun gets heavy, pulling down the belt. So on that fateful day, when I meet up with "Doc" at an event, I will strip down to a more manageable "ensemb."

"Doc" Nelson
10-14-2007, 11:26 PM
LOL . . no problem. It's actually not the first time someone has referred to me as Noah. Not that, that's a bad thing (wink wink). Sorry Noah, had to throw that in there :rolleyes:.

I'm sending you an email right now.

David Meister
10-15-2007, 01:13 AM
I personally do not take the field armed. If you bring it with you it's just one more thing to look after especially at larger events where things tend to
disappear if you dont keep an eye on them. If you are "packing" and you choose to fire your pistol you had better clean it as soon as your done for the day (hence more things to bring with you). The .31 cal in a vest pocket is a nice idea just dont let it bounce out while your working.

A friend of mine has a non-firing replica that he puts out at his field hospital display.

P.S. I have not yet seen a period photo of an armed surgeon. (unless you count his sword) :)

NoahBriggs
10-15-2007, 08:31 AM
Oh, sh*t. The BlueMass Cat Cloning Project is out in the open. Lots of "me's" to keep track of.

Just like extra weapons.

Pros:
Documented to certain individuals.

Physical evidence it happened.

Comfort of personal security.

Looks cool.

Cons:
Against the 1863 Liber Code, which detailed how medical personnel were to be treated on the field. Non-combatants were supposed to be unarmed.

One more thing to lose on the field. The smaller they are, the faster they disappear. That is a mathematical algorithm. Back then they also had to carry powder, ball, cleaning materials.

If you are captured, you may be able to keep working. But your gun may well be confiscated. It's hard to get things like that at the end of the event. See mathematical algoritm above if you do not believe me.

Safety - You might not always have it on your person. Who is to say that it is not picked up by a couple of kids who use it as a toy, and "learn" that real guns do not go off? Hard lesson to learn if they play with a gun that is loaded. Double true if they are visitors.

Comfort of personal security - what, 600 armed men in front of you shooting up the enemy won't make you feel somewhat secure?

Looks cool - and dead weight, unless you have love handles to hold it up. Swords were ceremonial, not functional. Current reproductions S-T-I-N-K, and originals seem to cost as much as an M-1 Abrams tank. Okay -$60 mill. - maybe not that bad, but $1500 for a glorified toad sticker is not worth it to me. See mathematical algoritm above for further reference.

How do you know the gun was not post-war souvenier to enhance the coolness factor?

The Society of CW Surgeons agreed that carrying a personal firearm makes sense when a surgeon is in transit to his assigned post. They are against the idea of carry a personal firearm for the above reasons, only their list was less sarcastic.

Of course, if you have documentation the surgeon you are portraying carried a gun at that particular occasion, then go for it.

I have a sash. Sometimes I wear it on Sunday parade, assuming I remember.

There it is, from the remnants of my brain. Too much fun at Harpers Ferry this weekend. Do something different - play a tavernkeeper. You will never look at life the same way again. ;)

Jas. Cox
10-15-2007, 09:35 AM
Cons:
Against the 1863 Liber Code, which detailed how medical personnel were to be treated on the field. Non-combatants were supposed to be unarmed.

One more thing to lose on the field. The smaller they are, the faster they disappear. That is a mathematical algorithm. Back then they also had to carry powder, ball, cleaning materials.

If you are captured, you may be able to keep working. But your gun may well be confiscated. It's hard to get things like that at the end of the event. See mathematical algoritm above if you do not believe me.

Safety - You might not always have it on your person. Who is to say that it is not picked up by a couple of kids who use it as a toy, and "learn" that real guns do not go off? Hard lesson to learn if they play with a gun that is loaded. Double true if they are visitors.

Comfort of personal security - what, 600 armed men in front of you shooting up the enemy won't make you feel somewhat secure?

Looks cool - and dead weight, unless you have love handles to hold it up. Swords were ceremonial, not functional. Current reproductions S-T-I-N-K, and originals seem to cost as much as an M-1 Abrams tank. Okay -$60 mill. - maybe not that bad, but $1500 for a glorified toad sticker is not worth it to me. See mathematical algoritm above for further reference.

How do you know the gun was not post-war souvenier to enhance the coolness factor?

The Society of CW Surgeons agreed that carrying a personal firearm makes sense when a surgeon is in transit to his assigned post. They are against the idea of carry a personal firearm for the above reasons, only their list was less sarcastic.

Of course, if you have documentation the surgeon you are portraying carried a gun at that particular occasion, then go for it.

...

All great reasons for not carrying all this extra cr*p. If I knew now, what I didn't know then ... I wouldn't have purchased the, apparently stinky, reproduction sword. However, I was going blindly at the time and it seemed like the thing to do. To justify the investment, it has to be worn occasionally. The revolver I still would have purchased because 1. I like BP shooting and 2. It also works for post war, western reenactments (who doesn't want to be a cowboy?) I will note that I NEVER load it at events. It would serve no purpose as I would be a non-combatant and it would not be shot for any reason. And who wants to clean a weapon that hasn't been shot? Although cleaning can be a relaxing Zen like experience.

In conclusion, think of this as a Halloween costume (and I don't mean this in a demeaning to impression way at all). The best costumes are the simplest. Dressing up like a refrigerator may sound like a really neat idea, but after one stands at a party for a few hours and realizes one cannot sit, or pee easily, then it's not such a great costume after all. The guy who dressed like a drunken shriner starts too look pretty smart.

So, whenever I get those surgical instruments I ordered and I'm done strutting, I will go to a stripped down, non-weapon carrying assistant surgeon sitting at the feet of knowledgeable, experienced re-enactors.

But now I need to walk around the house with my sword.

hanktrent
10-15-2007, 09:53 AM
The Society of CW Surgeons agreed that carrying a personal firearm makes sense when a surgeon is in transit to his assigned post.

Something else I've wondered about, which is almost never portrayed at events, yet would be fairly common for a surgeon or assistant surgeon whose regiment was in battle...

What about when he'd be riding along the country roads in hostile territory, scouting out ambulance routes? Or walking over a battlefield hours or days after a battle, possibly amid souvenir-hunters, thieves, scavengers and upset local residents, with the healthy men of his own regiment camped far away?

Compared to the relatively small, relatively quick battlefields we deal with at events, where the surgeon is never far from his armed regiment, it seems there would be circumstances when a surgeon would be isolated from others, with only an orderly or two or an ambulance driver along, in a potentially anarchic environment.

I also wonder if the habit of carrying a pistol for personal protection might carry over from a doctor's pre-war days, when he might have been driving or riding at all hours of the day or night alone over lonely country roads.

That's all speculation, of course, but I'm curious now to see if I can find any comments from surgeons or doctors about their personal safety or pistols.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

hta1970
10-15-2007, 11:05 AM
This is some great discussion from some men I consider to be quite well versed in 19th century medicine and 1860s military medicine. I haven't been able to find anything on the surgeon I am trying to copy, but still awaiting his records from NARA. Seeing the McGuire, who was a Corps medical director was armed, I could see how he might encourage Assistant Surgeons on ambulance duty to carry a pistol, just as Chisolm does in his 1864 edition. For me weight isn't an issue, accuracy is my only issue.

The mention of weapons being "confiscated" during a reenactment capture does bring concern. Does the same thing happen to infantry or cavalry regards getting their weapons back?

The safety issue is also quite important and I can see extra measure need to be taken to ensure it stays on the person or in the holster on the person, rather than left around for anyone in camp to handle. Same holds true to our medical instruments and medicines.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/liebercode.htm
The Lieber Code of 1863
49. A prisoner of war is a public enemy armed or attached to the hostile army for active aid, who has fallen into the hands of the captor, either fighting or wounded, on the field or in the hospital, by individual surrender or by capitulation.
All soldiers, of whatever species of arms; all men who belong to the rising en masse of the hostile country; all those who are attached to the Army for its efficiency and promote directly the object of the war, except such as are hereinafter provided for; all disabled men or officers on the field or elsewhere, if captured; all enemies who have thrown away their arms and ask for quarter, are prisoners of war, and as such exposed to the inconveniences as well as entitled to the privileges of a prisoner of war.
50. Moreover, citizens who accompany an army for whatever purpose, such as sutlers, editors, or reporters of journals, or contractors, if captured, may be made prisoners of war and be detained as such.
53. The enemy's chaplains, officers of the medical staff, apothecaries, hospital nurses, and servants, if they fall into the hands of the American Army, are not prisoners of war, unless the commander has reasons to retain them. In this latter case, or if, at their own desire, they are allowed to remain with their captured companions, they are treated as prisoners of war, and may be exchanged if the commander sees fit.
115. It is customary to designate by certain flags (usually yellow) the hospitals in places which are shelled, so that the besieging enemy may avoid firing on them. The same has been done in battles when hospitals are situated within the field of the engagement.
116. Honorable belligerents often request that the hospitals within the territory of the enemy may be designated, so that they may be spared.
An honorable belligerent allows himself to be guided by flags or signals of protection as much as the contingencies and the necessities of the fight will permit.
117. It is justly considered an act of bad faith, of infamy or fiendishness, to deceive the enemy by flags of protection. Such act of bad faith may be good cause for refusing to respect such flags.
155. All enemies in regular war are divided into two general classes--that is to say, into combatants and non-combatants, or unarmed citizens of the hostile government.
The military commander of the legitimate government, in a war of rebellion, distinguishes between the loyal citizen in the revolted portion of the country and the disloyal citizen. The disloyal citizens may further be classified into those citizens known to sympathize with the rebellion without positively aiding it, and those who, without taking up arms, give positive aid and comfort to the rebellious enemy without being bodily forced thereto.

From what I have read above, those sections which could apply to medical officers, a surgeon could be made a POW regardless to his being armed or not as could any citizen with the army. BTW - Did the Confederate States adopt any similar document?

NoahBriggs
10-15-2007, 12:54 PM
BTW - Did the Confederate States adopt any similar document?

It was an agreement between the two armies.

hta1970
10-15-2007, 01:31 PM
Noah,

Below is a section from the lieber code of 1863
http://www.civilwarhome.com/liebercode.htm
SECTION X.--Insurrection-- Civil war--Rebellion.

149. Insurrection is the rising of people in arms against their government, or portion of it, or against one or more of its laws, or against an officer or officers of the government. It may be confined to mere armed resistance, or it may have greater ends in view.
150. Civil war is war between two or more portions of a country or state, each contending for the mastery of the whole, and each claiming to be the legitimate government. The term is also sometimes applied to war of rebellion, when the rebellious provinces or portions of the state are contiguous to those containing the seat of government.
151. The term rebellion is applied to an insurrection of large extent, and is usually a war between the legitimate government of a country and portions of provinces of the same who seek to throw off their allegiance to it and set up a government of their own.
152. When humanity induces the adoption of the rules of regular war toward rebels, whether the adoption is partial or entire, it does in no way whatever imply a partial or complete acknowledgment of their government, if they have set up one, or of them, as an independent or sovereign power. Neutrals have no right to make the adoption of the rules of war by the assailed government toward rebels the ground of their own acknowledgment of the revolted people as an independent power.
153. Treating captured rebels as prisoners of war, exchanging them, concluding of cartels, capitulations, or other warlike agreements with them; addressing officers of a rebel army by the rank they may have in the same; accepting flags of truce; or, on the other hand, proclaiming martial law in their territory, or levying war taxes or forced loans, or doing any other act sanctioned or demanded by the law and usages of public war between sovereign belligerents, neither proves nor establishes an acknowledgment of the rebellious people, or of the government which they may have erected, as a public or sovereign power. Nor does the adoption of the rules of war toward rebels imply an engagement with them extending beyond the limits of these rules. It is victory in the field that ends the strife and settles the future relations between the contending parties.
154. Treating in the field the rebellious enemy according to the law and usages of war has never prevented the legitimate government from trying the leaders of the rebellion or chief rebels for high treason, and from treating them accordingly, unless they are included in a general amnesty.
155. All enemies in regular war are divided into two general classes--that is to say, into combatants and non-combatants, or unarmed citizens of the hostile government.
The military commander of the legitimate government, in a war of rebellion, distinguishes between the loyal citizen in the revolted portion of the country and the disloyal citizen. The disloyal citizens may further be classified into those citizens known to sympathize with the rebellion without positively aiding it, and those who, without taking up arms, give positive aid and comfort to the rebellious enemy without being bodily forced thereto.
156. Common justice and plain expediency require that the military commander protect the manifestly loyal citizens in revolted territories against the hardships of the war as much as the common misfortune of all war admits.
The commander will throw the burden of the war, as much as lies within his power, on the disloyal citizens, of the revolted portion or province, subjecting them to a stricter police than the non-combatant enemies have to suffer in regular war; and if he deems it appropriate, or if his government demands of him that every citizen shall, by an oath of allegiance, or by some other manifest act, declare his fidelity to the legitimate government, he may expel, transfer, imprison, or fine the revolted citizens who refuse to pledge themselves anew as citizens obedient to the law and loyal to the government.
Whether it is expedient to do so, and whether reliance can be placed upon such oaths, the commander or his government have the right to decide.
157. Armed or unarmed resistance by citizens of the United States against the lawful movements of their troops is levying war against the United States, and is therefore treason.

This sounds more like a order from the US government rather than an agreement between two sovereign nations, especially one which holds the right to leave a union to which they had previously belonged.

If you can point me to reference to this being an agreement between the Confederate States and the United States I'd love to read more.

NoahBriggs
10-15-2007, 03:25 PM
If you can point me to reference to this being an agreement between the Confederate States and the United States I'd love to read more.

I'll be back in three weeks. I need to schedule a surgical procedure with my podiatrist to have my foot removed from my mouth.

I know, I know. "I've read it somewhere but cannot remember" is not a legitimate source. Still, I have read various conflicting accounts online that the reason the hospital flag colors changed from red to yellow was because of an unofficial agreement drawn up by both armies under a flag of truce to standardize the color of the flags. They then spread the word to their respective commands something to the effect of "please do not shoot at yellow flags as they are hospitals."

Later on someone decided to idiotproof the hospital flag completely by plastering a big, green H in the middle, just in case some artillery moron missed the memo.

1860sEsquire
11-08-2010, 02:35 PM
I'm a lawyer and a former Army reserve officer so I have some familiarity with the laws concerning the customs and conduct of war but I am certainly not an expert. I merely wanted to weigh in to clarify a few points based on what I know . . .

The Lieber Code, written by a board of senior Federal officers, including the Columbia professor for whom the code was eventually named, was issued to Federal troops as General Orders 100 in April, 1863. It was not a law of general application and applied only to Federal troops. However, from a political perspective, Lincoln hoped that by setting parameters around the Federal troops' prosecution of the war, it would positively influence the conduct of Confederate troops.

The code represented the first major codification of the customs and principles of conducting war and saw the light of day mostly because General Halleck was himself a student of international law and admired Lieber's work and lectures.

From secondary material I've read, such as Solis, The Law of Armed Conflict and Hartigan, Lieber's Code, the Confederate government initially denounced the code but, apparently, later adopted it or adhered to most of the principles. I wish there was more written about the Confederate adoption of the code (or lack thereof) but I am not aware of much being available.

One thing to note about the Lieber Code is that it was rooted in Lieber's earlier work on Confederate guerilla parties "with Reference to the Law and Usages of War" and that it was written to provide guidance to Federal troops. Lieber deviated from his earlier work in that the General Orders 100 introduced the concept of "military necessity," such that even though noncombatants could not be directly targeted, indirect measures (e.g., destruction of crops, supplies, etc.) were permitted. So, from the Confederate perspective, the Lieber Code had some pro-Federal, self-serving elements.

Thomas Federico
Atlanta, Georgia

retter
11-09-2010, 09:50 AM
If memory serves me correctly(and we know how that goes), General Jackson first officially acknowledged/observed the neutrality of medical personnel during his Valley Campaign. After that, it was more or less informally observed on both sides till the adoption of the Lieber Code. Also buried deep within my old research somewhere is an account of a Union surgeon at Gettysburg who was shot when he appeared in front of a lot of pi%#ed off guys carrying rifles, wearing a sword and pistol(looked identical to a field officer). It allegedly happened in front of the Methodist Church on the Chambersburg Rd where an unmarked union hospital had been set up.

Elaine Kessinger
11-09-2010, 10:51 AM
I need to find the reference, but I remember that being a chaplain in uniform rather than a cassock or other religeous attire.

1860sEsquire
11-09-2010, 01:29 PM
Elaine, I think you're possibly referring to Chaplain Horatio Stockton Howell with the 90th Penn. He was apparently killed by Confederate skirmishers or sharpshooters on the first day of Gettysburg when he walked out of the hospital and was mistaken for a combatant.

Thomas

Calum
11-09-2010, 04:05 PM
Information from documentation belonging to my unit's chaplain...

Chaplain Horatio Stockton Howell, 90th PVI.

The church is on Chambersburg St. It was in US hands during most of the first day. On the 2nd & 3rd, it was in Reb hands.

Chaplin Howell was a "Chaplain Militant". He wore the standard officer's uniform, and carried a saber and / or revolver.

The exact circumstances of his death are a bit sketchy. One version is that he was challenged by the Rebs and rather than putting up his hands, he argued with them, saying he was a non-combatant and the Rebs shot him, rather than debate the issue.
Another version says the Rebs saw the blue officer's uniform and capped him.

One bit of trivia... the monument is in the wrong place. Howell was shot at thetop of the steps, and the monument is at the bottom.

Calum