The case seemed solid enough. Three individuals – Kate Shields (widow), Padon Turner, and Henry Woods – all agreed on the details. Anderson Shields, who was Kate’s husband, had joined the Union army with his friends near Grand Gulf, Mississippi in May 1863. The soldiers were then sent to the outpost at Milliken’s Bend, Louisiana, where their regiment was attacked less than a month later. Anderson was severely wounded and taken prisoner. Turner and Woods were also captured. Once he was released, Anderson continued to suffer from his wounds, and he returned home to his wife and family. Turner and Woods rejoined their regiment, and apparently were unaware of what had happened to Anderson.

Anderson Shields’ military records (under the first name Andrew) confirm the details of his enlistment, his presence at Milliken’s Bend, and his capture. A year after the battle, he is still listed as a prisoner, and his status is soon changed to “missing in action” and he is dropped from the rolls. The final entry in Anderson Shields military record is from the muster out roll of the company, dated March 22, 1866, which reads: “Missing since the battle of Milliken’s Bend.” The army seemed satisfied that Anderson remained among the missing.

Kate Shields applied for her widow’s pension in December 1910, supported by the statements of Turner and Woods. Just a month later, she received the government’s reply. The letter curt and cold: “Your … claim …. is rejected on the ground of … the soldier having deserted and never having been honorably discharged.”

It’s unclear, but it seems quite probable that it was only when the testimony of Kate, Turner, and Woods was taken in 1910, that the government authorities chose to view Anderson’s return home as desertion. It was an “easy out” for the government, and a way to deny payment – technically correct, perhaps, but certainly morally repugnant.

Clearly Anderson Shields had served his country with honor, patriotism, and valor. He had recruited others to the flag. Scarcely a month in the service, it is nearly certain that he would not yet have known or understood the bureaucratic necessity of returning to his regiment – no matter how grievously wounded or disabled – in order to obtain a formal medical discharge. He knew he was incapable of further military duty. It was entirely logical for him to return home. He was a free man, now, after all. But the pension office decades later refused any reconsideration: “application for removal of the charge of desertion and for an honorable discharge has been denied.”

And the case was closed.

 

Part 5 (conclusion) of a series.

Sources: Andrew Shields compiled military service record, Co. B, 49th USCI, National Archives; Kate Shields widows pension record, #954257, National Archives.