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.
In short, there are far too many problems with Simms for him to be considered totally reliable.
I don't consider Simms clerical mistakes in listing owners and buildings burned a lack of credibility. His account of Father J.J. O'Connell may or may not be incorrect. Simply because O'Connell didn't write about it doesn't make it a lie. Father O'Connell may have considered being knocked down an accident and the rough handling as less important than the person that witnessed it. The possible explanations are endless and no further a stretch of the imagination than Lucas seems to use at times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Though the charge that rockets signaled the fire has been extensively articulated by Columbians--the number of general accounts grew steadily as the years passed--it is difficult to believe that the relationship was anything more than coincidental." [Marion B. Lucas, Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, pp. 150-152]
It's doubtful that the accounts grew, but rather more and more were recognized and recorded as the years passed. For Lucas to wave his hand at the Columbian's eyewitness accounts in favor of Sherman's men's accounts makes his credibility suspicious and I have to wonder what his agenda is.
I think Lucas overlooked this eyewitness account from one of Sherman's own:
“About dusk the city was set on fire and from then until midnight the fire raged and as the wind was blowing fiercely the sight is said to have beggared description -- It was indeed grand as seen from our Camp. The streets were full of drunken soldiers, guards, firemen women and children &c. -- All was confusion & excitement and as the wind was very high it was just impossible to extinguish the flames. The boys were loaded with delicacies. Tobacco was plenty - more than we know what to do with - Most of it was taken from the stores in the city. The burning of Columbia does not reflect much credit on our army - A very disgraceful affair - but whisky done it and not the soldiers.”(emphasis belongs to the author)--C. C. Platter, Adjutant, 81st Ohio Infantry [Volunteers], 4th Division, XVth Army Corps
Of course the whiskey did it, it couldn't have been the Union army.
Everyone knew Columbia would burn under Sherman's invasion of the city. It was never thought otherwise, except for a few hours after he promised the mayor that all would be safe. Why would he not burn Columbia? After all the fire and destruction he left in his wake, to spare the capitol of South Carolina, the state he and the Northerners hated the most and blamed the war on, would not be logical.
“Isaac Hayne came away with General Chesnut. There was no fire in the town when they left. They overtook Hampton's command at Meek's Mill. That night, from the hills where they encamped, they saw the fire, and knew the Yankees were burning the town, as we had every reason to expect they would.” --Mary Chestnut
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
It's interesting that whenever the confederate accounts are subjected to any bit of scrutiny they fall apart. The burning of Columbia remains a tragic accident.
Fancy footwork can seem to discredit anything, but that doesn't make it accurate or true. You have to ignore certain witnesses in favor of others, which is what it appears Lucas has done. At any rate, I don't consider soldiers running through the streets with torches and kerosene and starting fires to be an accident. That did happen and witnesses from both sides claim it.
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
I don't consider Simms clerical mistakes in listing owners and buildings burned a lack of credibility. His account of Father J.J. O'Connell may or may not be incorrect. Simply because O'Connell didn't write about it doesn't make it a lie. Father O'Connell may have considered being knocked down an accident and the rough handling as less important than the person that witnessed it. The possible explanations are endless and no further a stretch of the imagination than Lucas seems to use at times.
It's more than clerical errors. He makes claims that are simply not corroborated. The fact is that Simms had an agenda, and when an historian tries to verify his account, his account is found wanting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
It's doubtful that the accounts grew, but rather more and more were recognized and recorded as the years passed. For Lucas to wave his hand at the Columbian's eyewitness accounts in favor of Sherman's men's accounts makes his credibility suspicious and I have to wonder what his agenda is.
His agenda is the truth, unlike Simms. The accounts grew over the years and magnified themselves just like the false claims about Sherman's march through Georgia grew over the years and magnified themselves so now we have people who seriously claim Sherman burned every house in their town and then take you outside to view all the lovely antebellum homes in their neighborhood without realizing how they just disproved their own claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
“About dusk the city was set on fire and from then until midnight the fire raged and as the wind was blowing fiercely the sight is said to have beggared description -- It was indeed grand as seen from our Camp. The streets were full of drunken soldiers, guards, firemen women and children &c. -- All was confusion & excitement and as the wind was very high it was just impossible to extinguish the flames. The boys were loaded with delicacies. Tobacco was plenty - more than we know what to do with - Most of it was taken from the stores in the city. The burning of Columbia does not reflect much credit on our army - A very disgraceful affair - but whisky done it and not the soldiers.”(emphasis belongs to the author)--C. C. Platter, Adjutant, 81st Ohio Infantry [Volunteers], 4th Division, XVth Army Corps
Note he says he was in camp when the fires started. So he didn't see who started them. He came into the city and saw lots of drunken soldiers, firemen, guards, women, and children.
[quote=Wild_Rose] Everyone knew Columbia would burn under Sherman's invasion of the city. It was never thought otherwise, except for a few hours after he promised the mayor that all would be safe. Why would he not burn Columbia? After all the fire and destruction he left in his wake, to spare the capitol of South Carolina, the state he and the Northerners hated the most and blamed the war on, would not be logical.
In other words, your mind was made up from the beginning, so stop putting the facts in front of you because you're not interested in what really happened?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
“Isaac Hayne came away with General Chesnut. There was no fire in the town when they left. They overtook Hampton's command at Meek's Mill. That night, from the hills where they encamped, they saw the fire, and knew the Yankees were burning the town, as we had every reason to expect they would.” --Mary Chestnut
And yet we have Maj Chambliss in the OR saying that the town was illuminated with burning cotton at 3 A.M., well before the first Union troops entered the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Fancy footwork can seem to discredit anything, but that doesn't make it accurate or true. You have to ignore certain witnesses in favor of others, which is what it appears Lucas has done. At any rate, I don't consider soldiers running through the streets with torches and kerosene and starting fires to be an accident. That did happen and witnesses from both sides claim it.
It's not "fancy footwork" to test the testimony for credibility and find it lacking. It's what real historians do.
There are those who are unable to free themselves of their prejudices and will never believe the truth regardless of the evidence put in front of them.
The truth is that there was a combination of things--burning cotton spread by the wind, southern civilians who set fires, and drunken Union soldiers who set fires, that led to the burning of Columbia. It was not done by Sherman, and Sherman and his officers and men on duty tried to help put the fires out. It was primarily an accident.
It was investigated thoroughly after the war by the Joint American-British Commission, who determined it was an accident of war.
It's more than clerical errors. He makes claims that are simply not corroborated. The fact is that Simms had an agenda, and when an historian tries to verify his account, his account is found wanting.
What agenda did Simms have other than attempting to record the events of that night that Columbia burned. He had nothing personal to gain from lying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
The accounts grew over the years and magnified themselves just like the false claims about Sherman's march through Georgia grew over the years and magnified themselves so now we have people who seriously claim Sherman burned every house in their town and then take you outside to view all the lovely antebellum homes in their neighborhood without realizing how they just disproved their own claims.
I've never heard of anyone doing that, but I believe it's fair to say that everyone is prone to exaggerate every now and again, even Northerners and Union soldiers. Also, you have to realize that sometimes events become exaggerated in peoples minds. It doesn't mean they are liars, only that their perspective may be different from the next persons. But, the old proverb, "Where there's smoke there's fire" holds more than a little truth, generally, and the citizens of Columbia held the Union army responsible for largest part of the tragedy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Note he says he was in camp when the fires started. So he didn't see who started them. He came into the city and saw lots of drunken soldiers, firemen, guards, women, and children.
Yes. Also note that he said, "About dusk the city was set on fire...". Set on fire, not began to burn but, "set on fire". Why would a Union soldier, in a camp a mile away, assume the city was "set on fire"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Everyone knew Columbia would burn under Sherman's invasion of the city. It was never thought otherwise, except for a few hours after he promised the mayor that all would be safe. Why would he not burn Columbia? After all the fire and destruction he left in his wake, to spare the capitol of South Carolina, the state he and the Northerners hated the most and blamed the war on, would not be logical.
cash: "In other words, your mind was made up from the beginning, so stop putting the facts in front of you because you're not interested in what really happened?
I was speaking from the Columbia citizen's point of view. I quoted Mary Chestnut and explained why she would have believed the city would be burned by Sherman. Those were not my personal feelings, but they would have been the logical thoughts of most Southern people at that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
And yet we have Maj Chambliss in the OR saying that the town was illuminated with burning cotton at 3 A.M., well before the first Union troops entered the city.
Other eyewitness' don't corroborate his account. Others claim there was nothing burning when Sherman's troops arrived other than the smoldering cotton, which sat innocently in the middle of the road after the Union troops extinguished the fires, until around dusk when all H*** broke loose and numerous fires started almost simultaneously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
It's not "fancy footwork" to test the testimony for credibility and find it lacking. It's what real historians do..
In this case it's a little late to start looking for credibility. That should have been done 140 years ago. The trail is cold and what Lucas is doing is re-writting history. He is ignoring any eyewitness account that conflicts with the image of innocence he is attempting to portray in Sherman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
There are those who are unable to free themselves of their prejudices and will never believe the truth regardless of the evidence put in front of them.
I reckon that is true. You see a lot of that kind of thing on Civil War boards like this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
The truth is that there was a combination of things--burning cotton spread by the wind, southern civilians who set fires, and drunken Union soldiers who set fires, that led to the burning of Columbia. It was not done by Sherman, and Sherman and his officers and men on duty tried to help put the fires out. It was primarily an accident.
I agree to a point with that assessment, however I do not believe it was an accident. It was intentional. I believe that much is very clear. Also, troublesome are these unnammed Southern civilians. Who were they? Why were they set on burning Columbia? We can guess about their identities and motives all day long, but where is the proof? And what of Sherman's responsibility? Someone has to be responsible for the Union army's actions in Columbia. If not Sherman...who?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
It was investigated thoroughly after the war by the Joint American-British Commission, who determined it was an accident of war.
How many Southerners, Columbians in particular, were on that commission?
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
"I learn that my garden laid out with so much taste by my dear father's own hands has all been changed, the splendid forest leveled to the ground, the small enclosure allotted to his and my mother's remains surrounded closely by the graves of those who aided to bring all this ruin on the children and country. They are even planted up to the very door without any regard to common decency....Even savages would have spared that place...yet they have done everything to debase and desecrate it." Mary Custis Lee, 1866.
Cash:
Perhaps I have lost the plot yet again, for I see an enormous difference between Mrs. Lee lamenting the desecration of family graves and the destruction of Southern property by the Union army; and Mrs. Sherman's belief that 'all Southerns should be herded like pigs into the ocean.'
Wars are terrible things. You should not engage in one if you are not willing to suffer the possible consequences.
As to the original purpose of this thread you created, you have done well to show that war is a terrible thing. The old photos of destruction and desolation are not to be denied. The civilian population of South Carolina did suffer and suffer terribly from war's harsh hand, that also cannot be denied.
Although I still await solid evidence over 55,000 civilian dead to be laid at General Sherman's door by actions of his army or an admission this statement cannot be proven.
And I still await conclusive proof concerning violations of the Leiber Code, which I feel might have some merit.
While Mrs. Lee may lamnet over the destruction of Southern property and the desecration of family graves, she was alive to lament. Is it better to lose property than life or is it the other way round?
I do not dispute the willful destruction of Southern property during Sherman's march through South Carolina. I simply dispute the value of moral outrage expressed by those who supported the rebellion and then came up short on the losing side, as if war and rebellion would extract no effort or cost on their part, as if war could be confined to something nondestructive or unhurtful. As compared to the violence and destruction of later conflicts, the Union army under Sherman comes off as quite tame and subdued.
War is not fair nor is it subject to polite niceties. War is a blunt insturment, that hacks, bludgeons and crushes everyone and everything in its path and cannot be easily contained once it is unleashed by those who desire it, who willfully call upon it. You might as well begin a thread on Katrina and ask why it was so cruel to New Orleans and the surrounding countryside.
You excuse too much in those who courted the war and then blame too much on those who had to fight and finish it. You seem to think tens of thousands of empty chairs in the North, in otherwise intact homes, counts as nothing when compared to those in the South left alive with destroyed property and homes. As if any structure of wood and stone could compare to a single, live, human being.
It is well you show the horrible results of war. It should council caution to any and all who think it a possible cure for their ills. It should only be awakened if all else fails, instead of entered into for imagined and fleeting wrongs.
And it certainly should not be invoked for the 'liberty' of expanding an institution that enslaves, buys and sells human beings.
Sincerely,
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'll have to get back to you on this, Dawna, but in the meantime here are a couple samples.
"I learn that my garden laid out with so much taste by my dear father's own hands has all been changed, the splendid forest leveled to the ground, the small enclosure allotted to his and my mother's remains surrounded closely by the graves of those who aided to bring all this ruin on the children and country. They are even planted up to the very door without any regard to common decency....Even savages would have spared that place...yet they have done everything to debase and desecrate it." Mary Custis Lee, 1866.
"Aunt Maria has been very kind in offering us an asylum there and taking care of all of our things...Custis astonishes me with his calmness; with a possibility of having his early and beautiful home destroyed, the present necessity of abandoning it, he never indulges in invectives or a word of reflection for the cruel course of the Administration. He leaves that for his momma and sisters."
Mary Custis Lee
Letter to her husband
Regards,
Cash
Pardon my interruption, but comparing Mrs. W.T. Sherman's letter to Mary Custis Lee's letter to her husband is lacking in the "enmity" factor, greatly. Mrs. W.T. Sherman's letter invokes great hatred attitude to all southern people while Mrs. Mary Custis Lee's letter invokes a reflective mood of sadness for the destructiveness of war.
Cash, your comparison that Mary Custis Lee wrote similar commentary of "enmity" toward all Northerners fails entirely. Perhaps you have more sources on "Gen. R.E. Lee's wife" writing with "similar enmity" which will substantiate your claim that Mrs. Lee said 'things like that' against all northerners?
Alabaman-
Somewhere is another post, maybe another thread, someone mentioned that many houses were not burned by Sherman because they belonged to Freemasons. That is not likely, because Sherman was reportedly an atheist. As such, he was not a F&AM.
It's hard for me to imagine Lee to impress free blacks, when he wasn't a slaveowner himself.
Grant showed common sense near the end of the war when he still had slaves, and was asked why he had not freed them. His reply was that good help was hard to find.
I think it was Cash who made a statement that if you don't want a war don't start one.
If several carloads of troops were coming to reinforce a position near my community, compared to several ships coming to reinforce Ft. Sumter, I would take out the position, like Beauregard did Ft. Sumter. Had the Federals left the South alone, it is doubtful that Southern cities would have burned, Southern women and children would have suffered as they did. None of my ancestors died on yankee soil. They died protecting their homes. They were defenders, not agressors. They were no better men than I. I own no slaves, nor do I wish to, but I will protect my home today, as they did then.
Grant owned one slave for about a year when he was still struggling in St. Louis. He gave the man his freedom rather than selling him. Here is a man struggling to make a living and he gives away property worth several hundreds of dollars. "His" slaves were Julia's, and he weaned her of them during the war.
Lee was a slave owner. He inherited his father's slaves with the stipulation that they be freed within five years. "His" other slaves belonged to his wife.
Kind of nit-picking, but the old "Grant was a slaveowner and Lee was not" myth needs to be put away, never to be used again.
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
Wars are terrible things. You should not engage in one if you are not willing to suffer the possible consequences.Unionblue
Neil:
It is difficult not to engage in war when your country has been invaded.
"Although I still await solid evidence over 55,000 civilian dead to be laid at General Sherman's door by actions of his army or an admission this statement cannot be proven."
Neil, you might recall from a previous posting that I stated I had read "up to 50,000 civilians were killed by Sherman's army, and possibly more." I've read various accounts on estimates of the number of civilians murdered during Sherman's campaign, and you and others have guessed it be approximately 1,000. We'll never know for certain, but whether it was 1, 100, or 1,000, these people should not be forgotten.
"While Mrs. Lee may lamnet over the destruction of Southern property and the desecration of family graves, she was alive to lament. Is it better to lose property than life or is it the other way round?"
My guess is that the quality of one's life rates well with the gift of life; and for those people who suffered over $100,000,000 dollars damage to their state and personal property, their terror and sorrow may well have been a life time sentence.
"I do not dispute the willful destruction of Southern property during Sherman's march through South Carolina. I simply dispute the value of moral outrage expressed by those who supported the rebellion and then came up short on the losing side, as if war and rebellion would extract no effort or cost on their part, as if war could be confined to something nondestructive or unhurtful. As compared to the violence and destruction of later conflicts, the Union army under Sherman comes off as quite tame and subdued."
You would feel no moral outrage if someone invaded your country, destroyed your home, and devastated a large, geographical area of your state/country?
"War is not fair nor is it subject to polite niceties. War is a blunt insturment, that hacks, bludgeons and crushes everyone and everything in its path and cannot be easily contained once it is unleashed by those who desire it, who willfully call upon it. You might as well begin a thread on Katrina and ask why it was so cruel to New Orleans and the surrounding countryside."
No, war is not fair, particularly when the 'instrument in question' is invasion.
"You excuse too much in those who courted the war and then blame too much on those who had to fight and finish it. You seem to think tens of thousands of empty chairs in the North, in otherwise intact homes, counts as nothing when compared to those in the South left alive with destroyed property and homes. As if any structure of wood and stone could compare to a single, live, human being."
I think you presume far too much Neil, and if you think I have no symathy for the cold, empty chairs that were left in the North, you are sadly mistaken. Even now I grieve for the unnecessary waste of life (and potential) on both sides of this tragic conflict, and I'll never understand the knee-jerk reaction by a handful of both Northern and Southern politicians.
But I would remind you that not only did the South suffer a horrendous loss of life and limb, but their land and homes were also destroyed; and that particular tribulation was exclusive to the North.
"It is well you show the horrible results of war. It should council caution to any and all who think it a possible cure for their ills. It should only be awakened if all else fails, instead of entered into for imagined and fleeting wrongs."
It is well to show the horrible results of war, and I would guess that the boys who died for the Confederacy had their ideals firmly cemented, and their imaginations justly stoked.
Grant owned one slave for about a year when he was still struggling in St. Louis. He gave the man his freedom rather than selling him. Here is a man struggling to make a living and he gives away property worth several hundreds of dollars. "His" slaves were Julia's, and he weaned her of them during the war.
Lee was a slave owner. He inherited his father's slaves with the stipulation that they be freed within five years. "His" other slaves belonged to his wife.
Kind of nit-picking, but the old "Grant was a slaveowner and Lee was not" myth needs to be put away, never to be used again.
Ole
Ole,
Did Olerebel's post to me touch a nerve with you, or, do you have the 'Holiday blues?" :-)
Any Southerner who "aquired" a single slave by any means is summarily judged by neo-unionist as a "Southern slaveholder." So don't give Gen. Grant a hard time for being a slaveholder. When you are married, your property becomes your spouses property.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
