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.
"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."
The sheer, gut wrenching hatred of the Northern people toward the South, I find to be odd. What dreadful thing did the South do to the North other than attempt to seperate from them?
"Sherman's mission, as it was carried out in Columbia, profoundly affected the psychology of the North, too. By burning Columbia or letting it burn, Sherman gave his countrymen what they had been craving for nearly four years of war--clear and unadulterated victory, compounded of the defeat and punishment of the enemy. In 1864 and '65, his army had come to stand for momentum, while Grant was hunkered down near Petersburg. Even the mild-mannered Harriet Beecher Stowe, no friend of Sherman on the race question, declared as late as 1880, the passing of time having failed to revise her view, that she could see "God's flaming purgation of slavery from the land in the form of Sherman's march."
"Destruction of the fruits of labor and the tools and symbols of social identity was the strategy of all federal forces in the eastern theater. It had the approval of the President, of the people at home, and of the soldiers in the field. In this climate of consensus, where the distinction between enemy combatants and civilians evaporated, Sherman's concept of war came perilously close to replacing political policy itself."
And in closing the author says, "In the nameless quality which made the experience of the fire impossible to communicate, the burning of Columbia goes to the essence of the last phase of the Civil War, which set the stage for decades of unforgivingness and retribution, in a drama that has not yet played itself out."
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
And in closing the author says, "In the nameless quality which made the experience of the fire impossible to communicate, the burning of Columbia goes to the essence of the last phase of the Civil War, which set the stage for decades of unforgivingness and retribution, in a drama that has not yet played itself out."
Rose
Rose,
I disagree with that author's interpretation. It was the fact that Booth shot the one man who was insightful enough to realize what post war vengence Radical republican style would do and planned something that reunite with minimal bitterness on both sides. Columbia's burning is emblematic of what eventually happened, but to be taken as a defining psychological experience for the north, no.
Respectfully,
Matt
How can you say that with such a degree of certainty?
We have testimony from both Federals and confederates that the cotton was burning before the Federals entered the city. We know that cotton was all over, that it was strewn about like snow, that the wind was high, and we know how fire acts in cotton bales.
"Fires in cotton are notoriously difficult to extinguish, and though it was believed by those present that no danger remained from the cotton near the town hall, the smoldering bales were rekindled again later in the day, probably by the wind. Alderman Orlando Z. Bates later testified that he saw a small amount of cotton burning on Richardson Street about three-o'clock in the afternoon, and as Colonel John E. Tourtelotte rode through town toward camp between 3:00 and 4:00 P.M., he noticed several bales of cotton still on fire." [Marion B. Lucas, Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, p. 92]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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.
No. South Carolina College was at the southeastern end of the city, bordered by Sumter and Bull streets on the west and east, respectively, and Pendleton and Green streets to the north and south, respectively. The southern portion of the main part of the fire was about two-and-a-half blocks north northwest of her, so she could see that portion of the fire, but her vision was far limited to the north of that. There were a number of buildings in front of her, and her vision of what was happening on the streets was blocked by those buildings. She seems to have a very fertile imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Yes, Yankee eyewitness', no doubt, looking for some...any excuse to minimize the abominable behavior of the Union troops.
As I said, if someone wishes to believe one thing happened, they will believe it no matter what evidence is put in front of them. They are unwilling to disregard their preconceived ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
I have no personal ties to South Carolina.
No personal ties to South Carolina are necessary. All that's needed is a preconceived idea of what happened and an unwillingness to believe the evidence placed in front of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
You are asking me to believe these witnesses that claim the Confederates set fire to the town, inadvertently,
"That night, as the retreating Confederates streamed into town, there were several reports of robberies, violence, and riotous conduct on their part. Some of the stores on Richardson Street were broken into and their contents taken. A letter to the Richmond Whig, written from Charlotte on February 16:
'A party of Wheeler's cavalry, accompanied by their officers, dashed into town, tied their horses, and as systematically as if they had been bred to the business, proceeded to break into the stores along Main [Richardson] street and rob them of their contents.' " [Marion B. Lucas, Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, pp. 53-54]
Prof. Lucas also writes, "During the night of February 16-17, as the Confederate army withdrew, there was a complete breakdown in discipline. Straggling soldiers and town rabble created the 'wildest terror' as they plundered warehouses and stripped depots. In the midst of the chaos several fires broke out. 'The city was illuminated with burning cotton,' a Confederate officer wrote, describing the situation at three o'clock on the morning of February 17. Just how extensive these fires were is difficult to estimate, but at least two separate blazes can be located. One pile of cotton was seen burning that night on Blanding Street between Richardson and Sidney Park, and another fire was observed in the more than two thousand bales used for breastworks near the South Carolina railroad depot." [[Marion B. Lucas, Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, p. 68] He cites OR, Ser I, Vol LIII, p. 1050. This citation is a letter from Maj N. R. Chambliss to Gen Josiah Gorgas: "Dark came; the panic was at fever heat. I went to the railroad to see the cars loaded, but no supplies came. I walked to Trezevant's establishment (about two miles' and found the place deserted and not a wagon anywhere. I returned to the cars at 12 at night with the papers above alluded to and attempted to get a car, but found it impossible. My mechanics came up with their personal effects, and we found a car (freight) filled with some Treasury employés and their baggage. These we turned out by force, put aboard the ammunition (no easy task), and by dint of threats succeeded in getting the car switched on the train then about to start. In the meantime the city was in the wildest terror. The army had been withdrawn (3 a.m.), the straggling cavalry and rabble were stripping the warehouses and railroad depots, and the city was illuminated with burning cotton. The loss of ordnance, especially in machinery, was very great."
This isn't anyone under Sherman's command. This is a confederate officer testifying that at 3AM the city was "illuminated with burning cotton" and that the army had just been withdrawn.
Lucas also says, "The Confederate army was pulling out of Columbia all during the night of February 16-17, and the order prohibiting the burning of cotton was not issued until 7:00 A.M. on the seventeenth, only three and one-half hours before the Union troops entered. In the confusion of the evacuation and the orders regarding whether or not the cotton was to be ignited, the chances for error were great, and while the issue is one of the most controversial of the entire episode, the conclusion is inescapable that cotton was burning on the morning of February 17, 1865." [Marion B. Lucas, Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, pp. 68-69] Lucas cites a letter from T. J. Goodwyn to Colin Campbell Murchison, dated June 8, 1866. Goodwyn, of course, was the mayor of Columbia.
One of the confederate stragglers pillaging inadvertently ignited some powder near the railroad depot, causing an enormous explosion at about 6 A.M. on the 17th. There were still confederates in the area. Hampton was still there at the time because he went to see Mayor Goodwyn after the explosion. [Marion B. Lucas, Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, p. 70]
"Having set the final retreat in motion, Hampton returned to the town hall and instructed Mayor Goodwyn to hoist a white flag. The mayor and aldermen John Stork, Orlando Z. Bates, and John McKenzie were given instructions where to find the advancing Union forces, and between 8:00 and 9:00 A.M. they rode out in a carriage to surrender Columbia.
"The burning of the Charlotte terminal by Butler between ten and eleven o'clock was one of the last acts of the evacuating Confederates. With the smoke of the burning railroad station on the horizon, the remnants of the forces defending Columbia, about five thousand strong, left the city." [Marion B. Lucas, Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, pp. 70-71]
Lucas' source for this is none other than Wade Hampton himself, in a deposition given for the Mixed Commission on British and American Claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
the Union army came along and the town folk got them drunk.
There was a superabundance of liquor in the town because merchants and others in Charleston had sent their supply to Columbia in anticipation of Sherman marching into Charleston. We have testimony from several sources that the townspeople gave liquor to the soldiers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Then the drunken Union solders tried to minimize the damage the Confederate forces created.
No. I didn't say that. Troops who were on duty tried to put the fires out. Some of the drunken soldiers did set some fires maliciously, as I clearly said before.
"Colonel Stone's brigade did not cross before 7 a.m., when he moved out in the direction of Columbia, meeting with little resistance. On his approach he was met by the mayor and other prominent citizens, who formally surrendered the city to his command. Colonel Stone moved his brigade into Columbia, taking possession of the public stores and buildings. A provost guard was at once organized and great exertions to preserve order and protect the city were made by all his officers; but the citizens had received our soldiers with bucketfuls of liquor, and the negroes, overjoyed at our entrance, piloted them to buildings where wine and whisky were stored, and for awhile all control was lost over the disorganized mass. On completion of the bridge the rest of the corps crossed and moved through the city to position on the Columbia Branch of the South Carolina Railroad. Toward dark Colonel Stone's brigade was relieved from duty and fresh troops moved into the city to clear it of the rioters, and, if possible, to preserve order during the night, but the citizens had so crazed our men with liquor that it was almost impossible to control them. The scenes in Columbia that night were terrible. Some fiend first applied the torch and the wild flames leaped from house to house and street to street until the lower and business part of the city was wrapped in flames. Frightened citizens rushed in every direction, and the reeling incendiaries dashed, torch in hand, from street to street, spreading dismay wherever they went. General Woods used every exertion to quell the riot, and his troops aided him in fighting the conflagration, and to their exertions is due the preservation of such portion of the city as escaped the fire. Toward morning General Oliver's brigade, of Hazen's division, was ordered into the city, and this force, in addition to that from the First Division, restored order. The next morning the provost system was more thoroughly organized, and, under command of Brevet Brigadier-General Woods, the city was perfectly quiet." [OR, Series I, Vol XLVII, Part 1, pp. 227-228]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
And...all during this time Southern "rowdies" were running through the streets setting fires to their neighbors homes.
That's what the actual historical record shows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
I don't think one needs be prejudiced in order to question such a story.
One needs to be prejudiced to dismiss the evidence that supports it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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?
Somebody released the prisoners, whether it was Union troops or someone else. There's no evidence as to motivation for the release of the prisoners, but the prisoners did do mischief in the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
I believe Miss LeConte established that she could see much of the city.
A look at a map of the city showing the locations of the buildings, which Prof. Lucas provides in his book, shows she could not see what she appeared to claim she could see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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.
There is plenty of reason to doubt her account. First of all, there are the buildings blocking her view from what was happening in other parts of the city. Secondly, she was a 17-year-old girl, and it's highly doubtful any family would allow their 17-year-old daughter out of the house in the presences of enemy troops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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.
Again, there were prisoners in the jail, there were men at the railroad depots, there were men in Columbia's volunteer fire companies, two of which were combating a fire in 100 to 150 cotton bales, with the help of several Union soldiers, as Sherman arrived at the town hall at about noon on the 17th.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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.
Fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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.
Miss LeConte was not in a position to see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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.")
She does seem to have a fertile imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Thank you for supporting my position.
So you would maintain that Sherman's troops had no respect for his authority?
In fact, the opposite. Your disparaging of that particular view supports my position.
"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."
The sheer, gut wrenching hatred of the Northern people toward the South, I find to be odd. What dreadful thing did the South do to the North other than attempt to seperate from them?
Not hard to figure out where Ellen Sherman's enmity came from. Southerners started the war and were responsible for her husband being away from her and for the deaths of some of their friends. Did you notice Emma LeConte's loving view of "Yankees?"
"Sherman's mission, as it was carried out in Columbia, profoundly affected the psychology of the North, too. By burning Columbia or letting it burn, Sherman gave his countrymen what they had been craving for nearly four years of war--clear and unadulterated victory, compounded of the defeat and punishment of the enemy.
But he never establishes that Sherman burned Columbia, nor does he ever establish that Sherman allowed Columbia to burn. The historical record shows that Sherman didn't order Columbia to be burned, and it shows clearly that Union officers and soldiers tried to help put the fires out.
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.
Thank you for posting this, Dawna. From this it appears clear that Columbia was not burned on Sherman's orders but rather by escaped southern convicts and some drunken soldiers. We have additional evidence that shows cotton was burning and burning cotton was being spread by the wind. By "a just retribution to the state of South Carolina," I think he's talking about an Act of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"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)
He's talking about a specific group of people in Kentucky who were firing at Union soldiers in trains. The parenthetical "in the South" was added in by someone who was trying to deceive you, Dawna.
[quote=cash]Not hard to figure out where Ellen Sherman's enmity came from. Southerners started the war and were responsible for her husband being away from her and for the deaths of some of their friends.
*****
Poor suffering Mrs. Gen. W.T. Sherman. She had to be all alone and away from her husband due to the actions of ALL Southerners; including pregnant women and toddlers. Her husband really showed ALL Southerners the price for being away from his 'loving' wife and her righteous "enmity" was revenged!
Not hard to figure out where Ellen Sherman's enmity came from. Southerners started the war and were responsible for her husband being away from her and for the deaths of some of their friends.
*****
Poor suffering Mrs. Gen. W.T. Sherman. She had to be all alone and away from her husband due to the actions of ALL Southerners; including pregnant women and toddlers. Her husband really showed ALL Southerners the price for being away from his 'loving' wife and her righteous "enmity" was revenged!
Cash, I don't doubt that cotton was smoldering in the streets and I know there was strong winds that night. What I don't know, and I don't think anyone else does either, is if embers from the cotton started any structural fires. The bales were in the street away from property. Whisps of embers being carried on the wind may not have been strong enough to start a fire on a structure.
My real point is that it doesn't matter if it was the cotton that started some of the fires or not. Sherman's men made sure the city burned. It doesn't matter who did or did not give them whiskey, no one made them drink it. On top of that, "being drunk", as an excuse, is the sorriest excuse I can think of. The OR that you quote said, "...but the citizens had so crazed our men with liquor that it was almost impossible to control them." Does that not sound ludicrous to you? He is blaming Columbians for the drunk soldiers and consequently for their actions. Amazing. One would think that the citizens held the poor Union soldiers down and poured liquor down their throats.
I don't know about prisoners in jail. A city of 20,000 wouldn't have enough prisoners (considering the low male population at the time) to do a lot of damage and why would they even want to? There was a prison with approximately 1,200 Union men near by. Perhaps these are the prisoners that you refer to?
"The truth is," wrote Union Gen. Sherman shortly before leaving Savannah, "the whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance upon South Carolina. I almost tremble at her fate, but feel she deserves all that seems in store for her." (emphasis mine)
Whether Columbia was burned by Sherman's command or by his apathy for the welfare of Columbia is of no consequence. He is equally guilty for what happened, either way. It is claimed that he had promised his men free reign in South Carolina. That would account for his turning a blind eye to what was happening directly under his nose.
Regarding Miss LeConte's view of a large portion of the city, what buildings are you referring to that blocked her third floor view? She indicated that she had a clear view of the area she describes. I see no reason to call her a liar. There seems to be little motivation for her to lie.
Cash: "She does seem to have a fertile imagination."
No, the fact is that she is all too aware that her nightmares are real and she describes them in vivid detail. To credit her hellish experiences to her "fertile imagination" does her grievous injustice.
Cash: "In fact, the opposite. Your disparaging of that particular view supports my position."
How so? I don't even know what your position is. Are you claiming that Sherman couldn't control his men or that he wouldn't control his men? He has already stated that he felt South Carolina deserved anything that befell her.
__________________ "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
Not hard to figure out where Ellen Sherman's enmity came from. Southerners started the war and were responsible for her husband being away from her and for the deaths of some of their friends. Did you notice Emma LeConte's loving view of "Yankees?"
Poor Mrs. Sherman. I'm sure the seperation from her husband was more than equal to the terror that Miss LeConte faced the night Columbia was invaded and burned. If being apart from her beloved Billy caused her that much distress and hatred for the Confederates, imagine how much more bloodthirsty for the Southerners she would have been had it been her city being burned, her safety that was threatened, her own self in danger of becoming homeless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
But he never establishes that Sherman burned Columbia, nor does he ever establish that Sherman allowed Columbia to burn. The historical record shows that Sherman didn't order Columbia to be burned, and it shows clearly that Union officers and soldiers tried to help put the fires out.
Regards,
Cash
I'm afraid the historical records have failed miserably in convincing Southerners that the Columbians burned their own city and that the women who claimed Union soldiers burned their houses (while they begged them not to) and stole or destroyed all food they had, were liars. In fact, I doubt too many Northerners, if they were honest, believe it either.
__________________ "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
Rose:
I have a map showing that every building on both sides of Main Street for 9 blocks was burned. To the west, several buildings were burned. To the east, a great many were burned next to the line, diminishing as the distance increased. Classical wind-spread fire pattern?
The straight line is not a sign of organized burning (that would have covered more streets with, probably, a shorter distance than 9 blocks). Even a group as small as a platoon would not have followed the pattern -- 5 or 6 on each side of the street could have had all the buildings burning, leaving the rest with nothing to burn.
If Miss LeConte's perch were on the very corner of the campus, she could have clearly seen the starting point of the fire 2.5 blocks away. Beyond that, she would have been unable to see any activity in the street -- only the blazing line. She'd have been one block to the east of that line -- looking across the hypotenuse of a right triangle 1 block by 2.5 blocks in the legs with quite a number of buildings in her line of sight.
The wind was blowing that night, and not just a wind. It was strong -- so strong that efforts to put out a fire were fruitless until the wind died down early the next morning. When the bales were set on fire, the wrapping was burned away settling loose the contents: golfball-sized wads of cotton. Recall some of the comments about cotton flying through the air like snow, sticking in the trees, and most likely the splintery wood shingles of nearly every building in Columbia. The wind comes up, more cotton is sent aloft, some of it aflame, some of it smoldering.
As to the jail population, it needn't have been all that many -- most with reason to be quite upset with the city: deserters, draft evaders, unionists, and the scum that seems to occupy the ratholes in any city, with the possible addition of a few frisky millhands, railroad workers and city employees confined until they sobered up. The Union prisoners were all officers -- every bit as refined and gentlemanly as their Confederate counterparts.
More later.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
