Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
"Im Going to march to Richmond.....and when I go through South Carolina it will be one of the most horrible things in the history of the world. The devil himself could'nt restrain my men in that state. " William Tecumseh Sherman
If you have ever tried to burn a cotton stuffed mattress, you know cotton won’t blaze, it smolders. Can smoldering cotton blow enough ember from the streets to the buildings to start a fire? I don’t know, but it seems unlikely. At any rate, according to the eyewitness of Miss LeConte, she saw Union soldiers setting fires. So whether the cotton started the first fire or not seems a moot point.
As for the town folk giving whiskey to the soldiers, I doubt withholding it from them would have been very successful since they took what they wanted in all other respects. I, also, seriously doubt that telling them “no” would have prevented their taking it. I just can’t visualize the citizens of Columbia breaking out the whiskey in honor of being invaded and occupied. That makes little sense.
Also, the claim that the burning of Columbia was started mainly by Southern rowdies, doesn’t ring true. Miss LeConte made mention that hardly an able bodied Southern man could be found in the entire city of 20,000, beside the doctors on duty at the hospital. That does ring true. By 1865 all youths of 16 years and men up to any age and still able, were serving the Confederate army. Also, it seems unlikely that a town full of Union soldiers would have allowed rowdy Southerners boys or men full run of the town to create mischief. Miss Le Conte also points out that rather than help fight fires the Union soldiers were hampering the Columbia fire fighters by cutting their hoses.
She does give credit to a few officers for attempting to gain some restraint, but nothing that could be construed as very significant.
“As the best evidence tells us, the destruction of Columbia was a tragic accident. Retreating confederates set cotton on fire, and the burning embers were carried by the wind. Some cotton bales continued to smolder during the day, and the high winds whipped them into a blaze as well that evening, spreading more embers around. Some Union soldiers, drunk on the liquor provided them by well-meaning but mistaken civilians, set fires themselves, but the record shows that more Union soldiers tried to stop the fires but were unable to do so.”
Perhaps. We may never know for sure. But, one thing that bothers me is this intelligent and very articulate young woman’s eyewitness version of what transpired. She doesn’t appear to be hysterical or exaggerating.
Another thing that is troublesome for me is, how is it that the fierce and stoic Uncle Billy had so little control over the discipline of his men? Did they not fear disciplinary action for disobeying orders, if there were such orders?
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
"Im Going to march to Richmond.....and when I go through South Carolina it will be one of the most horrible things in the history of the world. The devil himself could'nt restrain my men in that state. " William Tecumseh Sherman
Sherman always talked big. He seldom acted as radically as he talked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
If you have ever tried to burn a cotton stuffed mattress, you know cotton won’t blaze, it smolders. Can smoldering cotton blow enough ember from the streets to the buildings to start a fire? I don’t know, but it seems unlikely.
Not only likely, but that's what happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
At any rate, according to the eyewitness of Miss LeConte, she saw Union soldiers setting fires. So whether the cotton started the first fire or not seems a moot point.
As I said, there were some drunken Union soldiers who did set some fires, but the vast majority of the fires [And with all due respect to Miss LeConte she could only see around her house and not throughout the city] were due to what retreating confederates had done and due to what southern civilians did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
As for the town folk giving whiskey to the soldiers, I doubt withholding it from them would have been very successful since they took what they wanted in all other respects. I, also, seriously doubt that telling them “no” would have prevented their taking it. I just can’t visualize the citizens of Columbia breaking out the whiskey in honor of being invaded and occupied. That makes little sense.
Nevertheless we have several eyewitnesses who confirm it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Also, the claim that the burning of Columbia was started mainly by Southern rowdies, doesn’t ring true.
Those who don't wish to believe something will never believe it no matter how much evidence is placed in front of them. However, those interested in the truth of history put aside their prejudices and go with what the evidence says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Miss LeConte made mention that hardly an able bodied Southern man could be found in the entire city of 20,000, beside the doctors on duty at the hospital. That does ring true.
Miss LeConte was not everywhere in the city. She is only one person and her impression is not necessarily accurate. We have eyewitness testimony of southern civilians who were imprisoned [and I doubt she spent much time in the jail socializing with the prisoners] setting fires after they were released.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
By 1865 all youths of 16 years all youths of 16 years and men up to any age and still able, were serving the Confederate army.
Be careful of that all-inclusive "all." As we know, for example, owners of twenty or more slaves were exempt from serving in the Army. Additionally, those who were in jobs considered essential to the war effort were exempt from serving in the Army. Or are you claiming the railroad, for example, was run by women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Also, it seems unlikely that a town full of Union soldiers would have allowed rowdy Southerners boys or men full run of the town to create mischief.
They were busy putting out fires caused by the burning cotton that was spread by the high winds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Miss Le Conte also points out that rather than help fight fires the Union soldiers were hampering the Columbia fire fighters by cutting their hoses.
Miss LeConte is repeating rumors she heard. Rumors are seldom reliable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
“As the best evidence tells us, the destruction of Columbia was a tragic accident. Retreating confederates set cotton on fire, and the burning embers were carried by the wind. Some cotton bales continued to smolder during the day, and the high winds whipped them into a blaze as well that evening, spreading more embers around. Some Union soldiers, drunk on the liquor provided them by well-meaning but mistaken civilians, set fires themselves, but the record shows that more Union soldiers tried to stop the fires but were unable to do so.”
Perhaps. We may never know for sure. But, one thing that bothers me is this intelligent and very articulate young woman’s eyewitness version of what transpired. She doesn’t appear to be hysterical or exaggerating.
She appears to be repeating rumors spread around the town.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Another thing that is troublesome for me is, how is it that the fierce and stoic Uncle Billy had so little control over the discipline of his men? Did they not fear disciplinary action for disobeying orders, if there were such orders?
Rose-
T-shirt worn by a soldier in Iraq, Nov. 2004.
SOUTH CAROLINA: "Enduring Northern oppression for over 140 years."
When invaders defeat your army, loot and burn your cities, they write history to suit themselves. Of course they weren't in the wrong, they were the victors. If they had shot women and children in the streets, instead of leaving them to starve, that would have been right too, because they were the victors. The "I was on the winning side" attitude shows up today, anything contrary to their opinion is null and void.
Rose-
T-shirt worn by a soldier in Iraq, Nov. 2004.
SOUTH CAROLINA: "Enduring Northern oppression for over 140 years."
When invaders defeat your army, loot and burn your cities, they write history to suit themselves. Of course they weren't in the wrong, they were the victors. If they had shot women and children in the streets, instead of leaving them to starve, that would have been right too, because they were the victors. The "I was on the winning side" attitude shows up today, anything contrary to their opinion is null and void.
olerebel,
Can you give some examples of "Northern oppression" that South Carolina has had to endure for the past 140+ years? Who, precisely, are these Northerners who are oppressing South Carolina? And is it possible to be victorious and in the right? Just curious...
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
{Wild_Rose says: If you have ever tried to burn a cotton stuffed mattress, you know cotton won’t blaze, it smolders. Can smoldering cotton blow enough ember from the streets to the buildings to start a fire?}
Most, if not all, the cotton used to stuff mattresses has been treated to be fire-retardant.Therefore, it will smolder instead of blaze.
Raw cotton Is not treated and will catch fire and burn much more readily.
Take a Q-Tip, pull the cotton off one end, but don't ball it up. Watch what happens when you apply a flame to it or even the other end that still has the cotton attached. It does not smolder, but burns.
Also, smoltering cotton blown about, can hold enough embers to catch other items on fire when dry.
Chuck in IL.
How can you say that with such a degree of certainty? Since none of us were there we can only rely on the word of others.
A number of Miss LeConte's statements seem to indicate that (being in the center of the city at the University Campus) from the third floor of her home she could see much of the city. Indeed, most of what she writes is about what she watched happen.
Nevertheless we have several eyewitnesses who confirm it.
Yes, Yankee eyewitness', no doubt, looking for some...any excuse to minimize the abominable behavior of the Union troops.
Those who don't wish to believe something will never believe it no matter how much evidence is placed in front of them. However, those interested in the truth of history put aside their prejudices and go with what the evidence says.
I have no personal ties to South Carolina. It isn't a matter of "not wishing to believe", it is a matter of the credibility of the one doing the telling. You are asking me to believe these witnesses that claim the Confederates set fire to the town, inadvertently, the Union army came along and the town folk got them drunk. Then the drunken Union solders tried to minimize the damage the Confederate forces created. And...all during this time Southern "rowdies" were running through the streets setting fires to their neighbors homes.
I don't think one needs be prejudiced in order to question such a story.
Miss LeConte was not everywhere in the city. She is only one person and her impression is not necessarily accurate. We have eyewitness testimony of southern civilians who were imprisoned [and I doubt she spent much time in the jail socializing with the prisoners] setting fires after they were released.
Are you saying the Union troops released the Southern prisioners to do mischief in the city?
I believe Miss LeConte established that she could see much of the city. I see no reason to doubt her account of what happened simply because she is a Southern woman and she isn't telling it like the Northern eyewitnesses claim it happened.
Saturday afternoon, Feb. 18th.
"What a night of horror, misery and agony! It is useless to try to put on paper any idea of it. The recollection is so fearful, yet any attempt to describe it seems so useless. It even makes one sick to think of writing down such scenes - and yet as I have written thus far I ought, while it is still fresh, try even imperfectly to give some account of last night. Every incident is now so vividly before me and yet it does not seem real - rather like a fearful dream, or nightmare that still oppresses." Be careful of that all-inclusive "all." As we know, for example, owners of twenty or more slaves were exempt from serving in the Army. Additionally, those who were in jobs considered essential to the war effort were exempt from serving in the Army. Or are you claiming the railroad, for example, was run by women?
According to Miss LeConte there were virtually no young men in the city other than the doctors at the hospital. I'm sure this doesn't mean there wasn't one, five or even a dozen in a town of 20,000, but it was uncommon and rare, I believe is her message.
They were busy putting out fires caused by the burning cotton that was spread by the high winds.
The Union troops were too busy putting out fires to stop the rowdy Southern boys that were starting them? Gracious...I'm speechless.
Miss LeConte is repeating rumors she heard. Rumors are seldom reliable.
Miss LeConte didn't indicate that this (Union soldiers cutting fire hoses)was something she was told by someone else. Yet, you claim with certainty that it was a rumor being repeated.
She appears to be repeating rumors spread around the town.
Only on a couple of occassions did Miss LeConte repeat a story that was told her by someone else. When she did, she named the source. Most of her story is first hand, eye witness accounts. (Every incident is now so vividly before me and yet it does not seem real - rather like a fearful dream, or nightmare that still oppresses.")
Thank you for supporting my position.
So you would maintain that Sherman's troops had no respect for his authority? If that is your position, I wasn't supporting it. I was questioning it. I still do.
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Ole Rebel, I know you speak the truth, but I just can't seem to help but tell the "other side" at times.
I realize that Emma LeConte was a very young woman and she was probably terrified, but she writes with such authority and vividness of her accounts that I have no doubt that everything she said was either true or true as she beleived it to be. She didn't write rumors, she wrote mostly about what she knew and saw. Only a couple of times did she repeat what someone else had told her and she made note, by giving the speakers name, that it was third hand information.
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
{Wild_Rose says: If you have ever tried to burn a cotton stuffed mattress, you know cotton won’t blaze, it smolders. Can smoldering cotton blow enough ember from the streets to the buildings to start a fire?}
Most, if not all, the cotton used to stuff mattresses has been treated to be fire-retardant.Therefore, it will smolder instead of blaze.
Raw cotton Is not treated and will catch fire and burn much more readily.
Take a Q-Tip, pull the cotton off one end, but don't ball it up. Watch what happens when you apply a flame to it or even the other end that still has the cotton attached. It does not smolder, but burns.
Also, smoltering cotton blown about, can hold enough embers to catch other items on fire when dry.
Chuck in IL.
Mattresses aren't stuffed with cotton much anymore. They mostly use synthetic materials. They didn't begin using flame retardant untill sometime around the 1970's. Old cotton mattresses made prior to that time didn't flame, they smoldered. I know they could produce embers, especially in strong wind, but enough to burn a city? It's hard to imagine. I guess if you have never seen one of those old mattresses burn it sounds plausable. And, I'm not saying it couldn't happen, only that I question it.
More especially hard to believe when eyewitnesses saw soldiers setting fires and the fact that Sherman's men were known for their burning people out of their houses in the past. It doesn't stand to reason that they would stop with Columbia.
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
More especially hard to believe when eyewitnesses saw soldiers setting fires and the fact that Sherman's men were known for their burning people out of their houses in the past. It doesn't stand to reason that they would stop with Columbia.
Rose:
It doesn't stand to reason, especially since South Carolina was the revenge state.
An excerpt from the Fiery Trail: Thomas Osborn, A Union Officer's Account of Sherman's Last Campaign.
8 FEB 1865 - Columbia surrendered to the Federal forces - subsequently burned. "... when the brigade occupied the town the citizens and negroes brought out whiskey in buckets, bottles and in every conceivable manner treated the men to all they would drink. ... The negroes, escaped prisoners, state convicts, and such other people as would all went into the work of pillaging with a will. By this time all parties were willing to assist it on... The negroes piloted the men to the best places for plunder, and both men and negroes by evening were setting fires rapidly... One cannot conceive of anything which would or could make a grander fire than this one, excepting a larger city than Columbia.
The city was built entirely of wood, and was in most excellent condition to burn. The space on fire at midnight was not less than one mile square, and one week before, sheltered from 25,000 to 30,000 people. The flames rolled and heaved like the waves of the ocean; the road was like a cataract. The whole air was filled with burning cinders, and fragments of fire as thick as the flakes of snow in a storm. The scene was splendid - magnificently grand. The scene of pillaging, the suffering and terror of the citizens, the arresting of and shooting negroes, and our frantic and drunken soldiers... this I will leave for the present for the imagination of those who choose to dwell upon it... I have in this war seen too much... and choose rather to remember the magnificent splendor of this burning city... I believe the burning of the city is an advantage to the cause and a just retribution to the state of South Carolina.
"There is a class of people (in the South), men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order."General William T. Sherman, to General Thomas Ewing (Order # 11)
"May all Southerners be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing." Mrs. Sherman William T. Sherman
The Burning of Columbia: "Such an awful sight! The street filled with a throng of men, drunken, dancing, shouting,cursing wretches, every one bearing a tin torch or a blazing lightwood knot. The sky so dark a half hour before, was already glowing with light, and flames were rising in every direction." Harriott H. Ravenol (South Carolina Women in the Confederacy)
Eliza Andrews: The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl (24 Dec. 1864):
"About three miles from Sparta we struck the "burnt country," as it is well named by the natives, and then I could better understand the wrath and desperation of these poor people. I almost felt as if I should like to hang a Yankee myself. There was hardly a fence left standing all the way from Sparta to Gordon. The fields were trampled down and the road was lined with carcasses of horses, hogs, and cattle that the invaders, unable either to consume or to carry away with them, had wantonly shot down, to starve out the people and prevent them from making their crops. The stench in some places was unbearable; every few hundred yards we had to hold our noses or stop them with the cologne Mrs. Elzey had given us, and it proved a great boon.
The dwellings that were standing all showed signs of pillage, and on every plantation we saw the charred remains of the ginhouse and packing screw; while here and there lone chimney stacks, "Sherman's sentinels," told of homes laid in ashes. The infamous wretches! I couldn't wonder now that these poor people should want to put a rope arond the neck of every red-handed "devil of them" they could lay their hands on. Hayricks and fodder stacks were demolished, corncribs were empty, and every bale of cotton that could be found was burnt by the savages. I saw no grain of any sort except little patches they had spilled when feeding their horses and which there was not even a chicken left in the country to eat."
It seems not only were the "Shermans" well suited to one another, but also that the devastation to the South was a little more than Sherman's 'ponderous spiel.'
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
