commanders or through the appropriate
staff officers. Even in the most remote com-
mands, the provost machinery was firmly
in place, and sometimes entire brigades
were placed on provost duty.
It was not until February 1865 that a bill
was introduced in the Confederate Senate
providing for the formal appointment of a
provost marshal general. The purpose was
to replace the long-serving Brig. Gen. John
H. Winder, who had just died, and name
Brig. Gen. Daniel Ruggles as his replace-
ment. When Winder placed Richmond
under martial law “to ferret out spies andother undesirables,” his undiplomatic
methods caused further repercussions, and
his battles with the city’s hospitals and
board of surgeons did nothing but increase
his unpopularity. Leaving in June 1864 to
become the commandant of the infamous
Andersonville prison in Georgia, Winder
eventually would command additional
southern prison camps and function as
provost marshal general until his death on
February 7, 1865.
Robert E. Lee never doubted the need for
strict discipline. In Lee’s opinion, too much
reliance was placed on the soldier’s innate
“merit” and not enough was done to instill
instinctive obedience. He believed the pri-
mary duty of the Confederate provost
guard was the maintenance of discipline.
Beyond that, Lee looked to the provosts to
perform the time-consuming responsibili-ties of crime prevention and investigation
of crimes committed by military personnel,
as well as escorting offenders, apprehend-
ing deserters, and rounding up absentees.
In the constant battle against vice, Con-
federate military policemen encountered
looting, pillaging, lax military security, and
the soldiers’ time-honored pastimes of
gambling and prostitution, all complicated
by the ever-present liquor-related offenses.
In May 1862, the Confederate Congress
attempted to control liquor consumption
by passing legislation to punish drunken-
ness in the army. Such enactments, noted
one historian, “had about the same deter-
rent effect as King Canute did in his famous
encounter with the North Sea.”
A highly visible provost was essential for
a measure of acceptable discipline, and
provost marshals were charged with func-
tioning as policemen, magistrates, and jail-
ers. The Confederate Articles of War in
1861 provided for provost tribunals to try
military personnel accused of offenses
against military law. Originally, the proce-
dures for courts-martial were inefficient, but
an attempt to correct deficiencies was
effected a year and a half later, in October
1862, authorizing a military court for each
army corps in the field to exercise unre-
stricted jurisdiction over military personnel
and civil jurisdiction in occupied areas. Each
court was permitted to appoint a provostmarshal with the rank and pay of a captain
of cavalry to execute its orders, and provost
jurisdiction was extended to include
offenses against the Articles of War, Con-
federate law, and state law. General courts-
martial were also established and they had
their own appointed regimental officers
serving as provost marshals with duties sim-
ilar to those of a sheriff in a civilian court.
Although the Articles of War were
intended to provide for the trial of military
offenders against military law, imprecise
wording could be construed as making
civilians answerable to military courts. The
standards of discipline of the marshals and
their subordinate officers, and the degree
to which “inhumanity would be tolerated
in the imposition of discipline,” varied.
Problems frequently arose between the
provost marshals and various state
supreme courts (acting on writs of habeas
corpus) concerning the jurisdiction of the
military over civilians accused of crimes
against the Confederacy. In one instance,
Louisianans loudly bemoaned limited
efforts to suspend the writ, and citizens
protested the suspension of such rights in
New Orleans immediately prior to the
Union occupation. When Winder put Rich-
mond under martial law, his undiplomatic
methods caused further repercussions.
Alarmed, the Confederate Congress
quashed Jefferson Davis’s authority to sus-ABOVE: Libby Prison in Richmond, Virginia, was part of the provost marshal’s chain of responsibility. It
is shown following its liberation by Union troops in April 1865. LEFT: Although the powers of the provost
marshall were not intended to extend beyond the army, ordinary citizens were also subjected to its reg-
ulations, including the unpopular civilian passport.CWQ-EW16 Intelligence *missing Mercer, Pad_Layout 1 10/23/15 11:14 AM Page 10