Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Let's talk about Columbia, South Carolina then. April, 1865. For all intents and purposes, the war was over. Sherman and his ..... troopers, burned 2/3's of the city to the ground. Columbia was certainly not Atlanta. It wasn't a railroad or manufactoring center. It wasn't even a big military staging base. Vengence! Retribution. There's no other reason. If that ain't "runnin' rampant", if that any "War Crimes Against Southern Civilians", I don't know what is.
No problem. Columbia is certainly bad, although some of the fire probably came from the burning cotton bales stacked in the streets by Wade Hampton's Confederates as they left town, spread by the wind. Sherman himself was present soon after that, arriving with his troops. He could easily have done something to stop the spread of the flames by using those first troops to do it. He did not, wandering about watching the place burn. The troops of that force, and their commanders, either did the same or actively helped the fire spread, setting a few new ones (depends upon who you want to listen to about it).
The next Union troops arriving detailed troops to put out the fire and help the townspeople. Their commanders seemed disgusted by it all, for the lack of discipline, the waste, and the wanton distruction, if nothing else.
O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XLVII/1 [S# 98]
JANUARY 1-APRIL 26, 1865.--The Campaign of the Carolinas.
No. 5.--Report of Bvt. Brig. Gen. Orlando M. Poe, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, Chief Engineer.
"... On the 17th a pontoon bridge was built just above the ruins of the former bridge over Broad River, three miles above Columbia, and the Right Wing crossed to the north bank and occupied the city, the greater part of which was burned during the night. Many reasons are given for this flagrant violation of General Sherman's orders, but, as far as I could judge, it was principally due to the fact that the citizens gave liquor to the troops until they were crazily drunk and beyond the control of their officers. The burning cotton, fired by retreating rebels, and the presence of a large number of escaped prisoners, excited the intoxicated soldiers to the first acts of violence, after which they could not be restrained. I don't know that I am called upon to give an opinion respecting this matter, but I volunteer the above. One thing is certain, the burning houses, lighting up the faces of shrieking women, terrified children, and frantic, raving, drunken men, formed a scene which no man of the slightest sensibility wants to witness a second time."
I am sure the troops were drinking any liquor they could lay hands on. I doubt the civilians were just giving it away, unless they mistakenly thought that would somehow prevent trouble. But I very often see liquor and troops mentioned at the same time as many of these ugly situations, no matter where or which side is committing them.
I ain't said I was trying to "give the South a free pass". What the heck do you mean by that anyway?
Please don't misunderstand my intent. I am trying to maintain a position against a strong centralized national government. I'm not advocating for slavery. I'm not advocating for seccession. I'm not for Jeff Davis. I am against Abe Lincoln and the Radical Black Republicans.
At least that's the position I'm trying to espouse on this fourm.
Just that wrong's wrong, no matter who does it -- and there are plenty of people who will do it if there is no force available to restrain them. 'War crimes" and attrocities should be strongly criticized and punished when they occur -- but it is just as bad when a Southern bushwacker murders a Union man as when a Union officer has a Southern sympathizer strung up or shot. In Missouri especially, there were lots of examples of both, but we see you only taking shots at one side.
The fact of the USMC running rampant in American cities, did slip by. Does ANYone have more info on this?
Alright Opn, obviously you're looking for something specific about the marines. When Adm. Farragut seized New Orleans and Gen. Butler occupied the city, I'm sure the USMC was present.
In Missouri especially, there were lots of examples of both, but we see you only taking shots at one side.
It's true. I am kinda single minded in that regard. But I don't think I've got the same kinda resources you all've got. This is just little ole me, here pard and I can't hardly keep up. If I don't stick to my story, I'll get lost in the friggin' frey.
I can see where OpnDownfall might be confused by your posts concerning US Marines being placed in American cities. You make it sound like they were there yesterday, not during the Civil War.
Surely you're not suggesting the USMC would invade American cities in this day, are you?
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I am trying to establish if he knows, what 'running rampant' means.
"Razing the Town Square!" wasn't the only game the invaders played around these parts, Opn. They liked to play "Stomp Seccesh!" and "Purge with Fire!" too.
"Stomp Seccesh" required a pair of big heavy knee high black boots.
The troopers would commence by tauntin' the Southern Man about bein' bare footed. This was doubly humiliatin' cause at the same time, they would confiscate his boots from him.
"Rebels don't need boots!"
Then they'd commence to kickin and stompin'. When the Southern Man got down on the ground and rolled up into a ball in order to try and protect himself, four or five of 'em would take into him real hard. After they were done, he'd be all brusised up and have a couple broken ribs and a smashed hand or two, if he survived. Some of 'em didn't.
"Purge with Fire!" was a whole heck of a lot more fun for the invaders, but it could get out of control if they weren't careful.
Essentially, what they'd do is wait til late in the afternoon on a real hot dry summer day and when the wind would pick up just a bit, they'd start a fire on the windward side of the Southern Man's field. They didn't care too much if it was crops he was growin' for the market or for his own consumption. They burned 'em all.
I think that's "runnin' rampant" enough for me.
What say Ya'll?
Last edited by Ozark Iron John; 05-25-2007 at 11:53 AM.
Surely you're not suggesting the USMC would invade American cities in this day, are you?
As I have said before, I think it is very likely that the US military shall be deployed in American cities again. Very Likely. If not to chase out the illegals, to put down insurrections and/or restore order out of the chaos. Our nation's headin' towards anarchy folks. If you don't believe it, there's nothing I can say to make you. I don't look forward to it, but ...... I believe its gonna happen. Again. I don't want it to happen, but mark my words, we're headin' for it.
OK, so 'USMC running rampant in American cities' is just metaphorical description for any 'wild eyed' members of any of the US Armed forces, who are 'raising a little cain'.
I can accept that outrageous flights of fantasy, can be used metaphorically, but on historical boards, reason, logic,and facts, usually suffice.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
But I don't think I've got the same kinda resources you all've got. This is just little ole me, here pard and I can't hardly keep up. If I don't stick to my story, I'll get lost in the friggin' frey.
Linear Mode
