Col. William E. Peters and the burning of Chambersburg

Eric Wittenberg

1st Lieutenant
Keeper of the Scales
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Location
Columbus, OH
Col. William E. Peters commanded the 21st Virginia Cavalry in the summer of 1864. Prior to the war, Peters served as a professor of classics at Emory and Henry College, and after the war, he taught Latin at the University of Virginia 1866-1902, when he died.

When Brig. Gen. John McCausland ordered Peters to burn Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, on July 30, 1864 in retaliation for Maj. Gen. David "Black Dave" Hunter's burning of Lexington, Virginia that spring, Peters refused to obey the order. McCausland arrested him and told Peters to get his regiment out of the way, and the town was burned. Later that day, McCausland released Peters from arrest.

Peters was wounded and captured at the Battle of Moorefield, WV on August 1, 1864, when Brig. Gen. W. W. Averell's troopers caught up to and then thrashed McCausland and his cavalry.

The photo below is of Peters, taken late in life. There are no known wartime images of him.

John S. Mosby was a classmate of Peters's at the University of Virginia as youths, and then served with Peters in the 1st Virginia Cavalry in 1861. The following passage comes from Mosby's 1917 posthumously published memoir. I find this passage quite interesting indeed:

In the Marion company was William E. Peters, Professor at Emory and Henry College, who had graduated-in the same class in Greek with me at the University. When he and I were students reading Thucydides, we did not expect ever to take part in a greater war than the Peloponnesian. Peters had left his literary work to be a lieutenant of cavalry. He was made a staff officer by General Floyd in his campaign that year in West Virginia. For some reason Peters was not with Floyd when the latter escaped from Fort Donelson in February, 1862. Peters was a strict churchman, but considered it his duty to fight a duel with a Confederate officer. He became a colonel of cavalry. Peters's regiment was with McCausland when he was sent by General Early in August, 1864, to Chambersburg, and his regiment was selected as the one to set fire to the town. Peters refused to obey the order, for which he is entitled to a monument to his memory. Reprisals in war can only be justified as a deterrent. As the Confederates were holding the place for only a few hours, while the Northern armies were occupying a large part of the South, no doubt, aside from any question of humanity, Peters thought it was bad policy to provoke retaliation. General Early ordered a reprisal in kind on account of the houses burned in the Shenandoah Valley a few months before by General Hunter. As General Early made no mention of Peters in his book, I imagine it was because of his refusal to apply the torch to Chambersburg. On his return from this expedition, McCausland was surprised by Averill at Moorefield, and Peters was wounded and captured. He told me that he had expected to be put under arrest for disobedience as soon as he got back to Virginia.

To answer the inevitable question: yes, I am gathering material to eventually tackle the burning of Chambersburg, a topic that has long interested me. I have two projects to complete first, though.

362.jpg
 
It is always so moving to see a man of principle follow his conscience regardless of the consequences. Colonel Peters was able to keep his head while others lost their's in a desperate struggle. I admire this man for standing for what was right according to his values and may American always have these men.
Regards
David
 
It is always so moving to see a man of principle follow his conscience regardless of the consequences. Colonel Peters was able to keep his head while others lost their's in a desperate struggle. I admire this man for standing for what was right according to his values and may American always have these men.
Regards
David

Me too, David.
 
I have heard about this story my entire life. A bit of family history about my Great-Grandfather, Colonel William E. Peters. He ACTUALLY died March 22,1906 of pneumonia and is buried in the Sheffey Family Cemetery in Marion, Va.
 
Last edited:
To answer the inevitable question: yes, I am gathering material to eventually tackle the burning of Chambersburg, a topic that has long interested me. I have two projects to complete first, though.

University of Richmond
UR Scholarship Repository
Master's Theses Student Research
2008

The burning and reconstruction of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 1864-1870
Gordon Boyer Lawrence

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact
[email protected].

ABSTRACT
Although many studies of Chambersburg's devastation during the American Civil War have been researched, all have focused on the military actions taken by both sides during the conflict. This thesis instead attempts to explore some of the effects of military
actions upon the permanent civilian population.
The Introduction develops a sense of the events which transpired in the town on the fateful day of July 30, 1864, provides an overview of potential research subjects, and details sources available to complete successfully the research parameters outlined. The early development of the community is explored in Chapter 1. This data is necessary for a reader's understanding of Chambersburg's business and social structure at the dawn of the 1860's. Chapter 2 narrates events which occurred within the town during the period 1860-1864 with some analysis of the effects upon thy civilian population during that time. The third chapter deals extensively with studies conducted in the areas of migration patterns, and occupational changes that transpired from the burning event to the end of the decade. Research was conducted upon the permanent household heads as to their wealth during the decade of study and resultant changes. Further study delved into patterns of recovery from the destruction caused by the burning. Additional findings were enumerated in the conclusion.
Although a wealth of material was uncovered by the research, only several selected areas were developed for this project. Some of these undeveloped areas are pointed out in the conclusion. Chambersburg survived as the only northern town touched by wide-spread devastation caused by the sectional conflict. In this respect, the town mirrored numerous southern communities who sustained similar fates. The reaction of the population was much the same as in that region. A few left for other locales, but the majority of permanent residents banded together and, sheltering their own, stoically began the laborious process of rebuilding the town, its wealth, and their individual lives.



Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

  • The burning and reconstruction of Chambersburg Pennsylvania 1864.pdf
    18.2 MB · Views: 11
James Madison University
JMU Scholarly Commons
Masters Theses The Graduate School
Spring 2013

Retaliation with restraint: Destruction of private property in the 1864 Shenandoah Valley Campaign
Jeannie Cummings Harding
James Madison University

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]

Abstract
The Second Shenandoah Valley Campaign in 1864 created new challenges for commanders, soldiers, and civilians on both sides. Pressure on General Grant and President Lincoln to end the war quickly precipitated an increase in the use and severity of hard war policies in the South. Meanwhile, Confederate Lieutenant General Jubal Early worked against his foe, implementing hard war in southern Pennsylvania in a desperate attempt to maintain his supply base in the Shenandoah Valley. Soldiers and civilians found themselves caught in the middle of an increasing cycle of destruction that they seemed to find equally demoralizing.

Three towns suffered significant damage resulting from hard war tactics between June and October 1864: Lexington and Dayton, Virginia, and Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. Together, raids in these three locales reveal the changing nature of the war in regard to private property and the effect new policies had on soldier and civilian morale. In each town that summer and fall of 1864, commanders and enlisted men exercised restraint in the midst of destruction. Often, men from both sides had been involved in or witnessed more than one of these raids, contributing to the effectiveness of these incidents as case studies.

To say that the level of destruction steadily increased from June to October would be an oversimplification. Yet the destruction did seem to become less discriminate and more widespread as the campaign progressed. Concurrently, the level of distress soldiers
and civilians expressed also increased with each incident, prompting soldiers to go to new lengths in circumventing orders to spare private property. Each instance was sparked by some sentiment of retaliation, and causal relationships existed among all three. In every instance, without fail, the men and civilians caught in the middle expressed profound regret. Both sides decided that hard war had limits



Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

  • Retaliation with restraint_ Destruction of private property in th.pdf
    734 KB · Views: 32
Back
Top