GDG- BMI

Mon Oct 30 13:52:13 CST 2006

The interrogation process is an art, and some people are better at it than
others.  I gather from their files that the BMI was very good at
interrogation, and was able to get people to cooperate with them.
Incentives did help in this process.

There is some evidence that the BMI included torture as a method to extract
info from prisoners.  Capt. McEntee of the BMI wrote about one prisoner
going berserk as a result of being tortured.

General Lee apparently learned how open-mouthed his soldiers were after
being taken prisoner.  In 1864, he issued a general order to all units to
instruct their troops that if captured they were to give their name and
regiment only.  Lee specifically stated that they were not to mention
brigade, division or corps designations, since that would permit the enemy
to construct an accurate order of battle of his army.

This instruction would not have done much good to stop the flow of
information to the enemy, because by mid-1864 the number of deserters from
the ANV had increased and would reach flood stage before long.  Deserters
had few qualms about cooperating with their interrogators and readily
devulged military information.

One other effective BMI method of gathering information about enemy
positions and strength was the use of scouts who operated in Confederate
uniform, and mixed with Lee's army from time to time.  This has not received
much attention, but there are BMI reports reflecting this activity including
during the Gettysburg Campaign.

Tom Ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com
[mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com]On Behalf Of Bill Gower
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:19 PM
To: 'GDG'
Subject: RE: GDG- BMI

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:

I have often wondered why captured soldiers on both sides talked so freely.
I am so used to watching WWII movies where the captured allied soldier gives
his name, rank and serial # and that's it.  In addition, the enemy captor
tries to trick the prisoner into giving information about his unit.  But it
seems like in the CW, the captor would ask about the unit the man belonged
to and without any coercion whatsoever they would freely give the
information.  Maybe it may have happened and I just haven't heard enough
stories but it seems like the captors on both sides did not have to apply
any torture or devious means to get the information.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com]
On Behalf Of Tom Ryan
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:03 PM
To: GDG
Subject: RE: GDG- BMI

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:

Hi Gary,

	In dicussing the size of armies during the CW, you have to consider
the
source of the information.  You mention that you have seen a range of
figures from 79 to 100 thousand ANV troops, but do not cite where those
figures came from.  There are reliable sources for these figures, including
the one I normally refer to which is Busey & Martin's "Regimental Strengths
and Losses at Gettysburg."  This source provides a figure of 71,699 as the
engaged strength of the ANV at Gettysburg.

	The reason why the BMI was able to determine within a small margin
of error
the size of specific units as well as the entire enemy army was that a high
percentage of prisoners, deserters and captured slaves were more than
willing to report everything they knew about the strength, disposition and
intentions of Lee's army.  Some prisoners and deserters did this because of
an absence of loyalty to the Confederacy, others because they did not know
any better and answered whatever questions they were asked.  Still others
responded to incentives offered such as better treatment or opportunities to
stay and work in the North.  Slaves generally were more than happy to report
everything they knew, but their information had to be confirmed by other
sources because their enthusiasm sometimes led to exaggeration.

	The bottom line was that estimating the size of the enemy became a
precise
exercise as evidenced by the BMI's figures on the ANV prior to the Battle of
Chancellorsville which were within two percent of actual numbers.  Also, as
mentioned earlier, one BMI report had Ewell with 21,000 troops at
Gettysburg, which is corroborated by Busey and Martin's figure of 20,597
engaged during the battle.

	If you have access to Gettysburg Magazine, I discuss the BMI's
activities
at Gettysburg in more detail in Issue 32.

Regards, Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com
[mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com]On Behalf Of gary.mcginnis at dot.gov
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 1:12 PM
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Subject: GDG- BMI

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:

" There is no evidence that Meade/Butterfield followed up with a
question to the BMI about the size of the rest of the ANV, specifically
Longstreet and Hill's corps and Stuart's Calvary division.  Regarding
the latter, prisoners would have been taken during the clashes at
Hanover and Hunterstown and also at Rummel Farm.  However, if the Union
commanders wanted to know the actual size of Lee's army, all they had to
do was ask and they would have had figures that undoubtedly would have
been within five percent of the actual figure (and more likely even more
accurate given the size of the sample available)."

Tom,

I have seen figures presented showing that the Army of Northern Virginia
had anywhere from 79,000 to over 100,000 troops. How do you figure that
the BMI could have come up with a figure that was plus or minus five
percent accurate?

Gary McGinnis

Sykesville, MD

                   ---------------------------------------------------------
-------
You may unsubscribe by going to
http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg

You can add yourself to the GDG map at:
http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup

View archived posts from May 2004 -  present at
http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/

----------------------------------------------------------------
You may unsubscribe by going to
http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg

You can add yourself to the GDG map at:
http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup

View archived posts from May 2004 -  present at
http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/

                   ---------------------------------------------------------
-------
You may unsubscribe by going to
http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg

You can add yourself to the GDG map at:
http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup

View archived posts from May 2004 -  present at
http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/