Andersonh1's Abbreviated List of Alleged Southern Complaints against the Union Army

I'm not getting in on the atrocity debate. I'm just interested in the details of towns that Federals burned and why it happened. So here's another: Oxford, Mississippi, August 1864

http://www.thelocalvoice.net/oxford/150-years-ago-august-22-1864-the-burning-of-oxford-mississippi/

As General Smith took over the Oxford Square, he learned of Forrest’s attack on Memphis and realized that he was not fighting a large Confederate Cavalry, or even Bedford Forrest.

General Smith had been outwitted, and the attack on Memphis was completely embarrassing for the Union army. He was now in danger of being attacked by the Confederates on two sides.

Enraged, Smith ordered Oxford to be burned and the scene quickly devolved into absolute chaos.

Chaplin Elijah E. Edwards of the7th Minnesota kept a diary and sketchbook during his time in Smith’s army and he described the scene in Oxford:

“I saw everywhere scenes of riot and the wildest confusion. Many houses were in flames, and others were being plundered relentlessly by the mob consisting of mostly of soldiers, without guidance but acting as any unruly mob would do. They carried from the buildings all kinds of plunder most of which could not be any use to them. They carried mirrors, rocking chairs, vases, articles of wearing apparel, bedding, books. As the smoke grew denser the scene grew more weird and more like Hades. This piece of diabolical tomfoolery was capped by an exhibition that would scarcely be deemed possible, in a CIVIL war. A drunken man on horseback came galloping through the smoke, holding before him a grinning skeleton which he had stolen from a Doctor’s office. It is said that this vandal was a Surgeon’s Assistant. Whoever he was, and I did not want to know more, his act was the most revolting that I have to chronicle.”

Smith’s army marched out of town to the glow of a canopy of flames. Oxford was destroyed. There were no more businesses, supply depots, warehouses, no courthouse, and nearly every house in the area was torched.

Several buildings at the University of Mississippi were spared as they were being used as a hospital for soldiers of both armies.

The Episcopal Church near the Square was also spared and a handful of houses were saved, too.

But Oxford was a ghost of its former self and those citizens and soldiers who had fled the town in the wake of the arrival of the Union army had nothing to return to.

A.J. Smith never talked about why he ransacked and burned Oxford, but it is clear to most observers that his actions were in retaliation from being outwitted by General Forrest.
The OP of this thread is not complaining about Yankees, it is Yankee atrocities. If you ain't got none start a new thread about complaining about Yankees.
 
Smith’s army marched out of town to the glow of a canopy of flames. Oxford was destroyed. There were no more businesses, supply depots, warehouses, no courthouse, and nearly every house in the area was torched.


General A.J. Smith never talked about why he ransacked and burned Oxford, but it is clear to most observers that his actions were in retaliation from being outwitted by General Forrest.

I noticed that its a matter of speculation that General Andrew Jackson Smith burned the town in retaliation for being outwitted but I also noticed the mention of warehouses and supply depots going up in flames. I wonder if those were Confederate military buildings?

Edited - added word"supply"
 
I noticed that its a matter of speculation that General Andrew Jackson Smith burned the town in retaliation for being outwitted but I also noticed the mention of warehouses and supply depots going up in flames. I wonder if those were Confederate military buildings?

Could well be, and it would be entirely understandable if he went after military targets.
 
Could well be, and it would be entirely understandable if he went after military targets.

He would of had the right to torch the town if it was being used by the Confederate military. I can't readily find if that was the case but I'm going to check the O.R.s and a few of my books to see if I can find somehing.
 
Could well be, and it would be entirely understandable if he went after military targets.

I found the O.R. that talks about the burning of Oxford, MS, I've highlighted what I believe the pertinent parts:


POST COMMANDANT'S OFFICE,
Oxford, Miss., August 31, 1864.

GENERAL: I have the honor to report that on the 7th instant I assumed command of this post, by order of Major-General Maury, and on the evening of the same day commenced the evacuation of said post by reason of the close proximity of the enemy, they having arrived at Abbeville, fourteen miles distant. During the night following and succeeding day succeeded in having removed to Grenada a large quantity of quartermaster's and commissary supplies. No property belonging to the Government was lost except fourteen bales of cotton taken from men captured running the blockade. This lot of cotton was at railroad depot ready for shipment, but owing to a stampede among some of the cavalry, who caused the train to leave without loading it, I ordered it burned.

Late in the evening of 9th instant the enemy's cavalry, under General Grierson, after a severe skirmish with General Chalmers, commanding, occupied the town, robbing and plundering indiscriminately men, women, children, and negroes. After twenty- four hours' occupation they retired to Abbeville.

From that time until 22nd Major-General Forrest occupied the place with his command, skirmishing every day within a few miles of the town; consequently, but little business done belonging to my department, save a few orders for transportation.

On the morning of the 22nd instant Major General A. J. Smith, U. S. Army, commanding, occupied the town with a large force of white and black troops. They retired the same day after burning 34 stores and business houses, court-house, Masonic Hall, 2 fine large hotels, besides carpenter, blacksmith, and other shops; also 5 fine dwelling-houses, among the latter that of Honorable Jacob Thompson. General Smith in person superintended the burning. He refused to allow the citizens to remove anything of value from their burning dwellings. General Smith's conduct, also his staff and men, was brutal in the extreme, they having been made mad with whisky for the occasion. The soldiers were licensed for any crime, such as robbery, rapine, theft, and arson. Since the reoccupation I have had no guards or supporting force, as the troops used here were returned to the reserve corps; have a promise from commandant of reserves to furnish me with men necessary to do the duty of this post. The country is swarming with deserters, and without a force of regular troops I fear little can be done to break up these clans of tories.

As soon as my force arrives be assured I will either make them leave the country or return to their commands. Blockade-running and intercourse with the enemy has been quite common here, and the severest punishment will have to be meted out to these law-breakers to compel them to cease this corrupting practice.

At present I cannot comply with paragraph III, General Orders, Numbers 102, department headquarters, calling attention of post commanders to General Orders, Numbers 48, Adjutant and Inspector General's Office, Richmond, May 27, 1864, as the last-named order has not been received. I have the honor to submit the above as my report for the past month. Hoping that it may be received, I am, with respect, your obedient servant,

CHARLES T. BISER,
Captain, Commanding Post.

OR Vol. 39, Pt. I, pp. 400-401


Edit to add -
The only possible justification General AJ Smith would have to burn the town would be its access to blockade runners off-loading their contraband but since I cannot find any Union report or statement that gives any reason for the burning, I'll have to agree that Smith had a severe case of the donkey because he got snookered by Forrest.
 
Last edited:
You're arguing using emotion rather than fact. As repugnant as the act may be especially to us in the 21st century, the bottom line is that reprisals that included ransoms and the burning of towns was not prohibited by the laws of war during the 19th century. Heck, we still used the same methods in Vietnam when a an American patrol would get fired on from a village we would retaliate by burning the village down. There were also numerous times that a village was burned because it was discovered that the inhabitants would provide refuge for the Viet Cong. But back to the Civil War...another form of retaliation used by both sides that is not acceptable to us today was the placing of prisoners in the line of artillery fire. The most famous example of this during the war was the Union's placement of 600 Confederate prisoners on Morris Island in the line of Confederate artillery fire emanating from Charleston, known as the Immortal 600.
Thanks for your response.
My response may indeed be emotional. It certainly is opinion.
I disagree with your characterization that "McCausland's burning of Chambersburg was an acceptable act...."
In General Order 73, Lee clearly stated his expectations: "The commanding general considers that no greater disgrace could befall the army, and through it our whole people, than the perpetration of the barbarous outrages upon the unarmed, and defenceless [sic] and the wanton destruction of private property that have marked the course of the enemy in our own country.
Such proceedings not only degrade the perpetrators and all connected with them, but are subversive of the discipline and efficiency of the army, and destructive of the ends of our present movement."< Clifford Dowdey, Editor, The Wartime Papers of R. E. Lee. (New York: Bramhall House, 1961), page 533.>
 
What is war like? The best young men go away to the army. The most courageous of them are gradually killed off. The sick and weak stay home. Law enforcement is weakened or disappears. Men like Ulysses Grant, who wanted to be a math professor, but who are very good at combat, get paid to direct: combat units.
Soon people who rather be at home on the farm or working in a tack shop, are carrying guns, and desperately want to go home. They are eating bad food, sleeping in camps, and getting shot at.
Pretty soon they are destroying everything that is related to the opponent.
But Sherman answered all these complaints when the war was still in process.
Our opponents have chosen war as their remedy. I say we give them all they want.
It is not a duel with muskets at 20 paces.
Nobody in the US Army cared about honor, darn it. They only cared about winning.
Or, "I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have nether fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell." --- William Tecumseh Sherman
 
Thanks for your response.
My response may indeed be emotional. It certainly is opinion.
I disagree with your characterization that "McCausland's burning of Chambersburg was an acceptable act...."
In General Order 73, Lee clearly stated his expectations: "The commanding general considers that no greater disgrace could befall the army, and through it our whole people, than the perpetration of the barbarous outrages upon the unarmed, and defenceless [sic] and the wanton destruction of private property that have marked the course of the enemy in our own country.
Such proceedings not only degrade the perpetrators and all connected with them, but are subversive of the discipline and efficiency of the army, and destructive of the ends of our present movement."< Clifford Dowdey, Editor, The Wartime Papers of R. E. Lee. (New York: Bramhall House, 1961), page 533.>

The orders regarding the Gettysburg Campaign of 1863 did not apply to 1864. Indeed, Early informed Lee of what he ordered McCausland to do, and Lee approved it.
 
Thinking further along these lines, I don't see any evidence in this thread that we agree on how to define an atrocity.

If, as an officer, I ordered the burning of a farm because the enemy had once slept in the barn, is that an atrocity or a legitimate act of war? If I ordered the burning of YOUR farm, even though you didn't give permission for the enemy to sleep in your barn, would you feel different? If I ordered the burning of YOUR farm while you were away, leaving your mother homeless, would that be an atrocity? If I ordered your mother out of her house in winter and then sadistically forced her to set fire to her own house, would that be an atrocity? Or are we still not being heinous enough? Should we say it was just a momentary lapse of my gentlemanly manners?
As @1SGDan, @jgoodguy and others have suggested, perhaps atrocity is the wrong word, particularly for some of these incidents.
Let's consider your hypothetical situations using R. E. Lee's expectations for his men given in General Order 73:
"The commanding general considers that no greater disgrace could befall the army, and through it our whole people, than the perpetration of the barbarous outrages upon the unarmed, and defenceless [sic] and the wanton destruction of private property that have marked the course of the enemy in our own country.
Such proceedings not only degrade the perpetrators and all connected with them, but are subversive of the discipline and efficiency of the army, and destructive of the ends of our present movement."< Clifford Dowdey, Editor, The Wartime Papers of R. E. Lee. (New York: Bramhall House, 1961), page 533.>
 
The orders regarding the Gettysburg Campaign of 1863 did not apply to 1864. Indeed, Early informed Lee of what he ordered McCausland to do, and Lee approved it.
Thanks for your response.
Timing is everything. As the citizens of Chambersburg learned, the incursion by Confederate forces on July 30, 1864 was going to be different than the two previous visits.
However, I posted General Order 73 to show Lee's general view on the subject of acts against non-combatants. There had been incidents he viewed as barbarous against Southern non-combatants, and in this order he clearly disapproves of that behavior.
I am aware that McCausland was 'just following orders'; I did not know Early had Lee's approval. Early took full responsibility and voiced no regrets for the decision, which he claimed was his alone.
I'd be interested to see more on Lee's approval. Can you direct me to a source?
 
As @1SGDan, @jgoodguy and others have suggested, perhaps atrocity is the wrong word, particularly for some of these incidents.
Let's consider your hypothetical situations using R. E. Lee's expectations for his men given in General Order 73:
"The commanding general considers that no greater disgrace could befall the army, and through it our whole people, than the perpetration of the barbarous outrages upon the unarmed, and defenceless [sic] and the wanton destruction of private property that have marked the course of the enemy in our own country.
Such proceedings not only degrade the perpetrators and all connected with them, but are subversive of the discipline and efficiency of the army, and destructive of the ends of our present movement."< Clifford Dowdey, Editor, The Wartime Papers of R. E. Lee. (New York: Bramhall House, 1961), page 533.>

Both the OP and thread title has been changed. Please note the changes.
 
Andersonh1's Abbreviated List of Alleged Southern Complaints against the Union Army


Good list to discuss.
I'm coming into this thread in mid-stream, and going all the way back to post one on page one, which seems to be a post by the moderator. It refers to something which I cannot see in this thread. After that, the moderator is a frequent poster, but I still can't find the thing he refers to in post one, page one. Can someone please explain?
 
I'm coming into this thread in mid-stream, and going all the way back to post one on page one, which seems to be a post by the moderator. It refers to something which I cannot see in this thread. After that, the moderator is a frequent poster, but I still can't find the thing he refers to in post one, page one. Can someone please explain?
I have 3 hats, plain old member, host and moderator. You are incorrect about the moderator.
 
I have 3 hats, plain old member, host and moderator. You are incorrect about the moderator.
I guess I stand corrected, but I still don't understand post one, page one, which appears to come from you, Sir. it reads:


Andersonh1's Abbreviated List of Alleged Southern Complaints against the Union Army


Good list to discuss.
 
Thanks for your response.
Timing is everything. As the citizens of Chambersburg learned, the incursion by Confederate forces on July 30, 1864 was going to be different than the two previous visits.
However, I posted General Order 73 to show Lee's general view on the subject of acts against non-combatants. There had been incidents he viewed as barbarous against Southern non-combatants, and in this order he clearly disapproves of that behavior.
I am aware that McCausland was 'just following orders'; I did not know Early had Lee's approval. Early took full responsibility and voiced no regrets for the decision, which he claimed was his alone.
I'd be interested to see more on Lee's approval. Can you direct me to a source?

[begin quote]
The act was done in retaliation for outrages committed by General David Hunter in the Valley of Virginia.

I thought it was time to try and stop this mode of warfare by some act of retaliation, and I accordingly sent a cavalry force to Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, to demand of the authorities of that town compensation for the houses of Messrs. Hunter, Lee and Boteler, upon pain of having their town reduced to ashes on failure to pay the compensation demanded. The three houses burned were worth fully $100,000 in gold and I demanded that, or what I regarded as equivalent in greenbacks. No attempt was made to comply with my demand and my order to burn the town was executed.

This was in strict accordance with the laws of war and was a just retaliation. I gave the order on my own responsibility, but General Lee never in any manner indicated disapproval of my act, and his many letters to me expressive of confidence and friendship forbade the idea that he disapproved of my conduct on that occasion. It afforded me no pleasure to subject non-combatants to the rigors of war, but I felt that I had a duty to perform to the people for whose homes I was fighting and I endeavored to perform it, however disagreeable it might be.
[end quote]

[Jubal A. Early, Autobiographical Sketch, p. 478]
 
The thread title may have changed, but my opinion still applies.

I'd say that if the Army of Northern Virginia wanted to make life easier on/give a mental and physical rest to their civilian population, farms, towns etc. they should have taken the war, started at Fort Sumter in April of 1861, north more often than they did and for longer stretches of time.
 
Back
Top