Destroying Buildings, private and public

16thVA

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Location
Philadelphia
What was the general attitude of the Federal and Confederate governments towards the destruction of buildings? I'm not talking generally about retribution or scorched earth policies, but what would have been considered legitimate reasons for destruction. Would private buildings used to house soldiers, equipment, supplies, horses, or even used as hospitals, be considered legitimate targets for destruction?
 
What was the general attitude of the Federal and Confederate governments towards the destruction of buildings? I'm not talking generally about retribution or scorched earth policies, but what would have been considered legitimate reasons for destruction. Would private buildings used to house soldiers, equipment, supplies, horses, or even used as hospitals, be considered legitimate targets for destruction?

The US tried to create a set of rule -- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lieber.asp -- which touch upon the subject.
 
One thing that plagues the Southern genealogy buff, such as myself, is that the US forces burned many a court house. File that under pure cussedness.
 
I asked because I was trying to get a handle on the burning of part of Sutton, Braxton County, WV, on Dec. 29, 1861 by a group of Confederate Partisan Rangers let by Capt. John Sprigg. The village was heavily secessionist, but the hotel, courthouse and a few other buildings were used by Union troops for housing, stables and dispensary. It was one of the garrison towns on the supply route from Clarksburg that supplied Gen. Cox (U.S) in Charleston. Those buildings were burned, the courthouse only partially burned. It seemed like they were legitimate targets, even though belonging to friendly civilians. Most of the courthouse burnings in WV were Union troops, Col. Siber (U.S) burned the Logan Courthouse a week later in 1862. Other courthouses in Fayette, Boone, Mercer and Morgan were burned.
 
And Im sure the Union soldiers had a fair trial before they were executed....

No trials necessary:

February 23, Kilpatrick to Wheeler:
I shall take no action for the present. If stragglers from my command are found in tbe houses of citizens committing any outrages whatever, my own people are directed to shoot them on the spot, and of course I expect officers and soldiers of your command to do the same.
 
I have at least three house-burning stories, maybe more unless the 4th is a different version of the third. These were handed down in the family and took place in Mississippi and Tennessee. The ones in Tennessee were randomly picked out for retaliation, not because their owners had done anything, but because guerrilla activity in both locations caused the Union military no end of headaches. I'll just bet both were done on the orders of Milroy, but can't prove it. The story from Mississippi seems to be a family legend somehow conflated with an actual burning detailed by Stark Young in one of his novels. In that version, the Union colonel gave the lady of the house five minutes to save whatever she could from the house, so she and her husband dragged their grand piano out onto the front steps. In the version handed down in my family, the location was Holly Springs, and the lady of the house had a few colorful words with the Union officer, prompting him to burn the house. Yet no house of any of my ancestors in Holly Springs was burned during the war, though many were raided for livestock, silverware and china.
 
No trials necessary:

February 23, Kilpatrick to Wheeler:
I shall take no action for the present. If stragglers from my command are found in tbe houses of citizens committing any outrages whatever, my own people are directed to shoot them on the spot, and of course I expect officers and soldiers of your command to do the same.

So they would take the time to see whether these men were stragglers or simply on patrol and foraging for food before they executed them? So do you think they cared whether a Union soldier they ran across was guility of an outrage or not before they executed them? I doubt it...
 
So they would take the time to see whether these men were stragglers or simply on patrol and foraging for food before they executed them? So do you think they cared whether a Union soldier they ran across was guility of an outrage or not before they executed them? I doubt it...

I remember reading where upper crust units like the Charleston Light Dragoons, known for fighting as gentlemen, stated they gave no quarter to any yankee in the early spring of 1865. One claimed to have killed twelve.

Then you have Wade Hampton and his SC cavalry coming to defend his homeland.

I don't deny many innocents were killed in retaliation for the crimes of others.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top