Who Burned Columbia? split from Why did Davis destroy food meant for children?

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina

I was waiting for someone to zero in on that. But Confederates did not set the cotton on fire. And Sherman even admitted that he lied when he blamed Wade Hampton "to shake the people's confidence in him".

http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article13944398.html

Thousands of highly flammable and valuable cotton bales, each weighing 500 pounds, had been stacked in the streets – particularly Main Street, then known as Richardson Street – in preparation to be burned to keep them out of the hands of federal troops. The intent was published in the press.

But on the night of the 16th, Hampton ordered troops to not burn the cotton because there wasn’t transportation to haul the bales out of the city and the wind was dangerously high. But when Sherman and Union Gen. O.O. Howard entered the city at about 10 a.m. on the 17th, some bales were on fire. Sherman had to ride his horse on the sidewalk of Richardson Street to avoid the flames.

------------

A Union prisoner’s account said the (cotton) fires were set in retaliation for Camp Sorghum,” a prison camp in Lexington County near what is now Riverbanks Zoo, said Tom Elmore, author of the book “A Carnival of Destruction: Sherman’s Invasion of South Carolina.” “Every Confederate account but one said the cotton wasn’t burning when they left. If the Confederate accounts are correct, the only possible explanation would be escaped prisoners.

---------------

During and after the conflagration on the night of the 17th, Union soldiers torched the homes of prominent citizens. The three-story “fireproof” home of Dr. Robert W. Gibbs on Plain Street, now Hampton Street, across from the First Baptist Church, survived the main fire but was looted and torched, destroying world-class collections of books, paintings and historical and natural artifacts.

Wade Hampton’s plantation, Millwood, four miles from the city, was torched, as were the homes of Goodwyn, Confederate Secretary of the Treasury George A. Trenholm, Dr. Daniel Trezevant and many others.

“There is little doubt that (Union soldiers) would be out for revenge,” Hamer said, noting that Columbia was where the first Secession Convention in the South was held. “In the minds of the northern soldiers, these were the men that started the war.”

But McNeely noted that humble structures, stores and even a convent also were torched. Some Union soldiers also spread the fire using turpentine-soaked cotton as torches and impeded firefighting efforts by cutting fire hoses.

“They were destroying almost everything in their path” throughout the march from Savannah, she said. A Union cavalry general “called Barnwell ‘Burn-well’ after he torched it.”

So, was the torching of houses a political statement or a means of stealing loot?

“Yes,” Elmore said.

------------------

Hamer noted that Sherman actively tried to distance himself from the event in official correspondence and testimony after the blaze. “He couldn’t control his army of 60,000, who had been allowed to forage to feed themselves. And he and his high command underestimated the ability of the men to create havoc. I’m not absolving Sherman. But with that invading Army, something was going to happen.”

Elmore added that Union soldiers viewed South Carolina more harshly than the rest of the South, because the war started here. “It was like the anger for the Taliban on Sept. 12 (after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S.). It was a perfect storm. I don’t think Sherman ordered it. I think he allowed it.”

McNeely said Sherman knew all along that his men would burn the city, but failed to issue strict orders against it, as he had in Savannah. “It was part of his strategy. And when he finally did (stop the destruction), he said, ‘You should be grateful that I saved what’s left.’ He was in total control.”​
 
Last edited:
https://books.google.com/books?id=0... place and before Sherman entered it.&f=false

The Burning of Columbia - February 17,1865
The Last Confederate Soldier to Leave Columbia
By Lieutenant Milford Overley
9th Kentucky Cavalry


I was one of Hampton's rear guard, and was probably the very last Confederate to leave the city, yet I saw no cotton burning in the streets of Columbia, nor did I hear any order from any one to fire the cotton, but I did hear one just the reverse. It was given to a detachment, three companies, from the 9th Kentucky Cavalry that was ordered back to Columbia as a provost guard after the Confederates had evacuated the place and before Sherman entered it. I asked and obtained of Col. Breckinridge, the Brigade Commander, permission to accompany the detachment, and was present and heard this order given the officer commanding: "It is Gen. Hampton's order that you return to Columbia, bring out any straggling Confederates you may find, and see that no cotton is fired." Having no time to lose, the detachment immediately proceeded on its mission, passing down in front of Sherman's skirmish line, which was in plain view, and entering the city in advance of him. In the suburbs we met Mayor Goodwyn and other municipal officers in carriages, with a white flag, going out to surrender the city. During the parley, which, however, was a brief one, we hastily visited different streets in search of straggling Confederate soldiers, but found none, neither did we find any cotton burning. Falling back as the Federals advanced along the street, the detachment passed out toward the east. I remained in the city after the detachment had gone, just keeping out of the enemy's reach by falling back from street to street till pushed out by the advancing infantry (they had no mounted men in the city at that time), yet I saw no cotton burning in Columbia. Basing my conclusions on what I saw (the Federals, in possession of the city), on what I failed to see (any cotton burning in the street), and on what I heard (the order to see that no cotton was fired), I can safely say that the Confederates had no hand in the burning of Columbia, Gen. Sherman's official report to the contrary notwithstanding."
 
http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-...ment/military-affairs-nonnaval/shermans-march

In their march of 285 miles, which lasted 5 weeks, Sherman's army of 60,000 men cut a swath of between 20 and 60 miles through Georgia,


Quite obviously wrong. The troops marched in columns. They didn't cut a swath through Georgia. If they cut a swath they would have been marching in battle lines 20 to 60 miles in length across the state. So this source can't even get through the first sentence without being wrong.



destroying fences and crops, killing livestock, burning barns and factories as well as some houses, particularly those deserted by the planter class. It must be emphasized that Sherman's forces refrained from raping white women and from killing civilians.

This I find to be accurate. Anytime an army was in the area, fences were usually the first thing to go, used for cooking. Barns, livestock, and factories were legitimate targets. As said before, usually only vacant houses were burned, with the exception of reprisals.

Although many historians have rather carelessly called Sherman's campaign total war, it never became genocidal, nor had Sherman intended it to become so. Such limits were, of course, of scant comfort to the impoverished and malnourished civilians Sherman's army left in its wake.

Hard war, not total war.

On 22 December 1864, the day after the Confederate garrison of 10,000 had escaped the city, Sherman's army marched into Savannah on the sea, which Sherman announced to Lincoln and to the Union with his usual rhetorical vivacity: “I beg to present you as a Christmas gift, the city of Savannah, with 150 heavy guns and plenty of ammunition, and also about 25,000 bales of cotton.” A week earlier, George H. Thomas's force had destroyed John Bell Hood's Confederate army at Nashville, triumphantly completing the other half of Sherman's post‐Atlanta strategy. As Grant's Army of the Potomac was bogged down in trench warfare before Petersburg, Virginia, it was the Christmas victories of Thomas and Sherman that lifted Union spirits.

And when Sherman's troops left Savannah, the people of Savannah voted their thanks to the military governor, John White Geary, for his administration of their city.


On 1 February 1865, Sherman's army set off on its even longer sequel to the march to the sea, a campaign of over 400 miles up through the Carolinas, to come up behind Lee's army for one last, climactic battle if it was needed. As much of South Carolina was a swamp during winter, this part of Sherman's march was more an engineering than a fighting marvel: his troops cut down trees to make roads, bridges, and causeways at a pace of ten miles per day. Incapable of opposing Sherman militarily, Confederates could only watch in horror as Sherman's troops laid waste to the countryside at an even greater level of intensity than they had evinced in Georgia. Now almost all civilian homes were destroyed, and several cities were burned, including Columbia, the capital of South Carolina, although Confederates began the blaze by burning cotton bales in the street before departing.

Obviously wrong again. Though South Carolina did suffer more destruction than either Georgia or North Carolina, almost all civilian homes in the state were not burned.

As to Columbia, they are correct the confederates burned cotton bales in the street before departing; however:

"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." [Maj. N. R. Chambliss, CSA; O.R. Series I, Vol LIII, p. 1050]

Major Chambliss is not a Yankee source. He was a confederate quartermaster who told us that at 0300 on the 17th, "The city was illuminated with burning cotton." This is almost 8 hours before the first Union soldiers entered the city.

"In the confusion of the evacuation and occupation of Columbia, the city endured a series of fires, the first of which occurred during the early hours of the morning of February 16 when the Congaree River bridge was burned against Beauregard's orders. That action can with little doubt be attributed to a diligent soldier who was uninformed of Beauregard's intent or to a straggler bent upon delaying the enemy. The next fires, of unaccountable origin, were those of the burning cotton which Major Chambliss reported were illuminating Columbia at three o'clock on the morning of February 17. That same morning before daylight there was the enormous explosion at the South Carolina Railroad station, generally attributed to the recklessness of greedy plunderers carrying torches; when the Federal army entered the capital, the terminal was still smoldering. Also burning when the Federal troops entered the city was the Charlotte Railroad station, which Beauregard had ordered Hampton to burn as he withdrew his last forces. There was one other fire in Columbia when the Union army entered, the fire in the cotton on Richardson Street. When Sherman arrived at the town hall about noon, two of Columbia's volunteer fire companies, the Independent commanded by John McKenzie and the Palmetto of William B. Stanley, aided by several of Stone's men, were working to extinguish the fire in the 100 to 200 cotton bales in the area." [Marion B. Lucas, Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, pp. 90-91]

There were indeed fires set by drunken U.S. soldiers which contributed to the destruction of the city. These were not by order of anyone and instead were criminal acts perpetrated by drunken soldiers who had received the liquor from the townspeople of Columbia themselves.

"When the Union soldiers of Colonel Stone's brigades entered the city, they were at once supplied by citizens and negroes with large quantities of intoxicating liquor, brought to them in tin cups, bottles, demijohns, and buckets. Many had been without supper, and all of them without sleep, the night before, and none had eaten breakfast that morning. They were soon drunk, excited, and unmanageable." [James Ford Rhodes, "Who Burned Columbia?" American Historical Review, Vol VII, No. 3, April, 1902, p. 491]

After the war a mixed American-British commission was empanelled to adjudicate claims of damage. They studied the Columbia case and heard from witnesses. They "disallowed all the claims, 'all the commissioners agreeing.' While they were not called upon to deliver a formal opinion in the case, the American agent was advised 'that the commissioners were unanimous in the conclusion that the conflagration which destroyed Columbia was not to be ascribed to either the intention nor default of either the Federal or Confederate officers.' " [Ibid., p. 490]

"The fire, of course, was a great tragedy, but it was not until the flames reached such proportions that they were observed by the men of the XV and XVII Corps encamped on the perimeter of the city that conditions reached their nadir. The raging fire was the invitation to stragglers, sightseers, and the curious that all such calamities attract, and consequently a steady stream of troops began to drift into town. Liquor was everywhere abundant, as it had been during the entire day, and new supplies were discovered readily. Soon an assortment of drunken citizens and refugees, both white and black, and 'the vilest vagabond soldiers, the veriest scum of the entire army,' roamed the streets. The appearance of this rioting mob, which continued to accumulate in intensity until it reached a crescendo between 2:00 and 4:00 A.M. on the morning of the eighteenth, greatly hampered the already hopeless attempts to control or localize the flames." [Marion B. Lucas, Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, p. 102]

As the best evidence tells us, the destruction of Columbia was a tragic accident. Retreating confederates set cotton on fire, and the burning embers were carried by the wind. Some cotton bales continued to smolder during the day, and the high winds whipped them into a blaze as well that evening, spreading more embers around. Some Union soldiers, drunk on the liquor provided them by well-meaning but mistaken civilians, set fires themselves, but the record shows that more Union soldiers tried to stop the fires but were unable to do so.


Many of Sherman's men broke ranks and joined in a night of burning and looting before they were disciplined; other Union troops extinguished the flames the next day. At Columbia, Sherman's men reached an apotheosis of destructiveness.

There were some soldiers who got drunk and set some fires, but they were few and far between. As seen above, Most Union soldiers tried to put the fires out.


Sherman had realized the potential for terror his army would bring to bear on the state that was the cradle of the Confederacy. “The truth is the whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance on South Carolina,” he had written on Christmas Eve, 1864. “I almost tremble at her fate but feel she deserves all that seems in store for her.” Sherman's men—his “bummers,” as they styled themselves—shared in this contempt for Confederates, especially those of the South Carolina gentry. “Nearly every man in Sherman's army say they are ready for destroying everything in South Carolina,” one private wrote home from Savannah before the campaign resumed, while another confirmed after they had finished that “in South Carolina, there was no restraint whatever in pillaging and foraging. Men were allowed to do as they liked, burn and destroy” (Fellman, Citizen Sherman, 222–24). Sherman and his men were attuned to one another and acted accordingly. They wanted to create a legend of invincible destructiveness, and they succeeded, landing a devastating blow on Southern morale as they marched and destroyed.

Sherman often said things that his actions didn't back up. This is not an exception.

Destruction in South Carolina was definitely greater than in Georgia and North Carolina, because the soldiers felt they deserved it, having started the war. Again, residents lost possessions, not their lives.
 
I was waiting for someone to zero in on that. But Confederates did not set the cotton on fire. And Sherman even admitted that he lied when he blamed Wade Hampton "to shake the people's confidence in him".

http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article13944398.html

Thousands of highly flammable and valuable cotton bales, each weighing 500 pounds, had been stacked in the streets – particularly Main Street, then known as Richardson Street – in preparation to be burned to keep them out of the hands of federal troops. The intent was published in the press.

But on the night of the 16th, Hampton ordered troops to not burn the cotton because there wasn’t transportation to haul the bales out of the city and the wind was dangerously high. But when Sherman and Union Gen. O.O. Howard entered the city at about 10 a.m. on the 17th, some bales were on fire. Sherman had to ride his horse on the sidewalk of Richardson Street to avoid the flames.

------------

A Union prisoner’s account said the (cotton) fires were set in retaliation for Camp Sorghum,” a prison camp in Lexington County near what is now Riverbanks Zoo, said Tom Elmore, author of the book “A Carnival of Destruction: Sherman’s Invasion of South Carolina.” “Every Confederate account but one said the cotton wasn’t burning when they left. If the Confederate accounts are correct, the only possible explanation would be escaped prisoners.

---------------

During and after the conflagration on the night of the 17th, Union soldiers torched the homes of prominent citizens. The three-story “fireproof” home of Dr. Robert W. Gibbs on Plain Street, now Hampton Street, across from the First Baptist Church, survived the main fire but was looted and torched, destroying world-class collections of books, paintings and historical and natural artifacts.

Wade Hampton’s plantation, Millwood, four miles from the city, was torched, as were the homes of Goodwyn, Confederate Secretary of the Treasury George A. Trenholm, Dr. Daniel Trezevant and many others.

“There is little doubt that (Union soldiers) would be out for revenge,” Hamer said, noting that Columbia was where the first Secession Convention in the South was held. “In the minds of the northern soldiers, these were the men that started the war.”

But McNeely noted that humble structures, stores and even a convent also were torched. Some Union soldiers also spread the fire using turpentine-soaked cotton as torches and impeded firefighting efforts by cutting fire hoses.

“They were destroying almost everything in their path” throughout the march from Savannah, she said. A Union cavalry general “called Barnwell ‘Burn-well’ after he torched it.”

So, was the torching of houses a political statement or a means of stealing loot?

“Yes,” Elmore said.

------------------

Hamer noted that Sherman actively tried to distance himself from the event in official correspondence and testimony after the blaze. “He couldn’t control his army of 60,000, who had been allowed to forage to feed themselves. And he and his high command underestimated the ability of the men to create havoc. I’m not absolving Sherman. But with that invading Army, something was going to happen.”

Elmore added that Union soldiers viewed South Carolina more harshly than the rest of the South, because the war started here. “It was like the anger for the Taliban on Sept. 12 (after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S.). It was a perfect storm. I don’t think Sherman ordered it. I think he allowed it.”

McNeely said Sherman knew all along that his men would burn the city, but failed to issue strict orders against it, as he had in Savannah. “It was part of his strategy. And when he finally did (stop the destruction), he said, ‘You should be grateful that I saved what’s left.’ He was in total control.”​

I give you the results of these historians:

"Confederate policy, however, was that as the Union army advanced into the South, the stored cotton was to be burned; with Sherman in central South Carolina the authorities knew what had to be done. Consequently, on February 14, Beauregard, through General Hampton, ordered the post commander to move both Confederate and privately owned cotton outside the city to be burned. Unfortunately, the lack of transportation made it impossible for Major Green to carry out this order, so he decided to roll the bales into the streets, with the idea of burning the cotton there. The next day, February 15, the order to burn the cotton was published in the Columbia newspapers. During the fifteenth and sixteenth most of the cotton was moved into the streets." [Marion B. Lucas, Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, pp. 64-65]

So up to the 16th, the order was to burn the cotton.

In compliance with this order hundreds of bales of cotton were moved into the streets by the confederates themselves. They moved the cotton out of storage and into the streets.

"At about eight o'clock on the night of February 16 Wade Hampton learned that he had been promoted to Lieutenant General and placed in command of the cavalry operating in South Carolina. Shortly thereafter, when he met with Beauregard to discuss Columbia's evacuation, Hampton urged that the cotton not be burned because it would endanger the city. Beauregard was apparently of a similar opinion but, for reasons never explained, delayed a final decision until the next morning. Early on the seventeenth, upon assuming his command, Hampton once again discussed with Beauregard the problems involved in firing the cotton placed in the streets. The South Carolinian reiterated his position that the cotton should not be burned because the stiff wind blowing out of the northwest would spread the flames and destroy the entire town. Hampton argued further that Sherman obviously could not take the cotton with him and perhaps it might be spared the Federal torch. Beauregard concurred.

"Hampton's order not to burn the cotton, issued at approximately seven o'clock in the morning, was the first he gave on February 17 after assuming command." [Ibid., pp. 66-67]

So the decision not to burn the cotton wasn't made until the morning of the 17th, with Hampton's order not going out until 0700, 17 Feb. The late time of the order is very significant:

"The order could not be issued through the post commander, Major Allen J. Green, under whose authority it [the original order to burn the cotton] was originally published, since he had fled the city the previous morning. The matter was further complicated by the fact that the order could not be published in the newspapers, and with the confusion that existed in Columbia it was going to be exceedingly difficult--if not impossible--to see that every soldier became aware of the new order. Finally, Hampton did not post guards over the cotton during the evacuation either on the night of the sixteenth or the morning of the seventeenth." [Ibid., p. 67]

So Hampton did order the cotton to not be burned, but there was no way to transmit that order because he issued the order only three and a half hours prior to the Union forces entering the city, and it was too little and too late because the burning had already started.

"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." [Ibid., p. 68]

As Lucas writes, "The conclusion is inescapable that cotton was burning on the morning of February 17, 1865." [Ibid., p. 69]

"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." [Ibid., p. 92]

Also, as to looting, the Union soldiers weren't the only ones. "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.' " [Ibid., pp. 53-54]

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. [Ibid., 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." [Ibid., pp. 70-71]

As Bell Wiley writes in his introduction to Lucas' text, "Professor Lucas concludes that the burning of the city resulted from a series of fires, beginning with cotton ignited by Southerners as they were leaving Columbia. The fire smoldered in the huge piles of cotton bales that had accumulated in 'Cotton Town' on Richardson Street, thus converting that portion of the city into a firetrap. City firemen, with the help of the vanguard of Federal invaders, tried hard to bring the initial conflagration under control, but a brisk and persistent wind rekindled the flames, and new fires were started by resident hoodlums released from prison, by blacks celebrating their new-found freedom, and by poorly disciplined Union soldiers. Many of the incendiaries were intoxicated on liquor dispensed by well-meaning citizens of the city or seized in raids on grogshops and distilleries. Burning cotton and shingles borne through the air by the wind spread the flames rapidly until about three o'clock in the morning of February 18, when a belated roundup of drunks by the Federal provost marshal and the abatement of the wind enabled firemen, soldiers, and local civilians to get the situation under control." [Ibid., p. 12]

"References to the culpability of escaped Federal prisoners are also numerous, but the charges cannot be sustained because of the absence of eyewitness accounts. Evidence is clearer about the part played by one of Columbia's criminals in spreading the fire. Bill Morris, who escaped from jail during the confusion of the entrance of the Union army, was recognized by several citizens during the night as he set fire to houses and outbuildings." [Ibid., p. 103]

So the burning of Columbia was caused by rowdies, most of them southerners, and kept alive by the wind. Federal soldiers actually helped bring the fire under control and prevent further damage.

Troops who were on duty tried to put the fires out. Some of the drunken soldiers did set some fires maliciously.

"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]

More evidence:

"Sherman and Howard led the way into the city after the mayor surrendered it, the streets littered with broken furniture and other household items left there by pillaging Confederate soldiers and civilians. The railroad depot and a large storage building had been burned to the ground. Bales of cotton piled in the middle of many streets had been torn open, and lint was flying around, catching in trees and bushes. The scene reminded Sherman of a 'northern snow-storm.' The first Union troops into the city turned to trying to extinguish fires in a number of the cotton bales. So many were burning, in fact, that Cump had to ride his horse along the sidewalk to avoid them." [John F. Marszalek, Sherman: A Soldier's Passion for Order, pp. 322-323]

"An American and British commission established under the 1870 Treaty of Washington absolved Sherman's army of responsibility, but Confederate sympathizers were not convinced. Southern publications like Confederate Veteran regularly accused Sherman of incinerating Columbia." [Ibid., p. 325]

"It seems clear now that neither Sherman nor anyone else was solely responsible for the fire. It was an accident of war. Hampton and his soldiers set fire to the cotton bales that fueled the fire, but it was released Southern civil prisoners, former slaves, and some Union soldiers, many of these groups intoxicated by the liquor provided by town's people or stolen from storage areas, who set other fires. The Union high command worked valiantly to extinguish the blazes, but the high winds made their task impossible. 'The principal demons in the drama were cotton, whisky, and wind,' a later historian surmised. Sherman phrased it more bluntly in later years, refusing to accept the blame for the Columbia fire. 'Had I intended to burn Columbia,' he said in 1881, 'I would have done it just as I would have done any act of war, and there would have been no concealment about it.' " [Ibid., p. 325]

"Before the Fifteenth Corps left Columbia on February 20, Sherman had it destroy several foundries, the state arsenal jammed with weapons, and a factory that printed Confederate money." [Ibid., p. 325]

"One word about Columbia. It was not burned by orders, but expressly against orders and in spite of the utmost effort on our part to save it. Everything seemed to conspire for its destruction. The streets were full of loose cotton, brought out and set on fire by the rebels before they left,--I saw it when we rode into town. A gale of wind was blowing all that day and that night, and the branches of the trees were white with cotton tufts blown about everywhere. The citizens themselves--like idiots, madmen,--brought out large quantities of liquor as soon as our troops entered and distributed it freely among them, even to the guards which Gen. Howard had immediately placed all over the city as soon as we came in. This fact is unquestionable, and was one chief cause of what followed." [Henry Hitchcock, Marching With Sherman: Passages from the Letters and Campaign Diaries of Henry Hitchcock, pp. 268-269]
 
But lets concede for the sake of argument that the United States army did burn Columbia. How many people died? Did it hasten the total collapse of the rebellion?
 
I'll put together some accounts and we can judge accordingly. I'll take some time and go through some books, and in the meantime, here's a small portion of a longer account as food for thought.

I find that were I to continue in describing the incidents of that eventful night that I would greatly lengthen what I, at first, intended as merely an account of the conflagration, so I will conclude; but must mention that I was present in the office of Governor Orr, some time in 1867, when Gen . Howard, then visiting Columbia, was there. Seeing Gen. Hampton across the street, I hailed him from the window, and when he entered Governor Orr introduced him to Gen. Howard. The first thing Gen. Hampton said was: “Gen . Howard, who burned Columbia?Gen. Howard laughed and said: “Why, General, of course we did.” But afterward qualified it by saying: “Do not understand me to say that it was done by orders.” - Account of James Gibbes, Philadelphia Times​
 
8th. W ere you in Columbia on the night of the burning?
A Yes, sir.
9th. By what means was the city burned ?
A. By General Sherman’s army of United States troops. I saw a man, with the uniform of a United States soldier on, enter the store of Mr. Robert Bryce, on the block immediately opposite where Mr. Browne kept his store, and with a fire brand about four feet in length, wrapped on one end with canvas, put fire to the store of Mr. Bryce under the roof. All the buildings in that neighborhood were destroyed on both sides of the street. Previous to the general conflagration, I saw a number of soldiers pass me with tin cans and balls of cotton tied up with cord. In an hour or two the city was in flames. A United States soldier told me himself that he set fire to Col. Clarkson’ s house. The United States soldiers were then all over the city. They appeared to have selected the northwest corner of every square on Main street, in the city, and fire broke out simultaneously from different portions of the city. The wind blew strong from the northwest at the time. Houses standing in detached grounds of from 3 to 40 acres were burned at the same time. There were ‘no other soldiers in the city at the time, except the United States soldiers under General Sherman. - from the Deposition of Wm. D. Stanley,
Sworn to and subscribed 2-7-1872 before Albert M Boozer, U. S. Commissioner Circuit and District Courts for District of South Carolina


http://books.googleusercontent.com/...677C-I3AoZQx_Z54Ujlp-qcXaGeiNQXlu6U2fVtRHsmfC
 
Last edited:
8th. W ere you in Columbia on the night of the burning?
A Yes, sir.
9th. By what means was the city burned ?
A. By General Sherman’s army of United States troops. I saw a man, with the uniform of a United States soldier on, enter the store of Mr. Robert Bryce, on the block immediately opposite where Mr. Browne kept his store, and with a fire brand about four feet in length, wrapped on one end with canvas, put fire to the store of Mr. Bryce under the roof. All the buildings in that neighborhood were destroyed on both sides of the street. Previous to the general conflagration, I saw a number of soldiers pass me with tin cans and balls of cotton tied up with cord. In an hour or two the city was in flames. A United States soldier told me himself that he set fire to Col. Clarkson’ s house. The United States soldiers were then all over the city. They appeared to have selected the northwest corner of every square on Main street, in the city, and fire broke out simultaneously from different portions of the city. The wind blew strong from the northwest at the time. Houses standing in detached grounds of from 3 to 40 acres were burned at the same time. There were ‘no other soldiers in the city at the time, except the United States soldiers under General Sherman. - from the Deposition of Wm. D. Stanley,
Sworn to and subscribed 2-7-1872 before Albert M Boozer, U. S. Commissioner Circuit and District Courts for District of South Carolina
Link to above
Link was fixed and verified.
 
Last edited:
I have been for many years President of a fire company ; I have been connected with the fire department for thirty years. From my experience therein, I judge that the fire was the work of incendiaries and not of accident. I explain this in this way: the fires occurred in twenty or thirty different places at the same time, and so far from each other that they could not have been connected. United States troops told me, in my store in the morning, that I would "see hell to-night;" that they wouldn't leave one store upon another. The parties who made the remarks were United States troops, and belonged to General Sherman's army. - from the deposition of John McKenzie

http://books.googleusercontent.com/...677C-I3AoZQx_Z54Ujlp-qcXaGeiNQXlu6U2fVtRHsmfC
 
Last edited:
The officers of General Sherman's army told me that all cotton would be burned and all public buildings destroyed. This is all I know of General Sherman's ordering the cotton to be burned. The shed under which the cotton was stored was private property. Gen. Sherman's army took possession of Columbia at about 11 o'clock, A. M. At the time he came in, the city was under its civil officers, and was surrendered to him by them. The Confederate forces had left the city that same morning, and had held military possession until they left. My impression is, that Gen. Beauregard was in command. Gen. Wade Hampton held a position as one of the commanding officers. There was a good deal of cotton piled in the streets of the city prior to its occupation by the Federal forces, with the intention that it should be burned, and an order was issued to that effect ; but none was burned before the coming in of the Federal troops, and the order was not obeyed, and a portion of the cotton was not burned until the last day of the occupation by the Federal troops, a portion was piled in Main or Richardson street, in the neighborhood of the old Courthouse ; at this place there was about two hundred (200) bales ; the rest of the cotton was piled in different parts of the town, principally in and about the portion of town called Cotton-town. - W. B. Williams
Sworn to before me, this 15th April, 1872. JNO. F. PORTBOUS, U. S. Commissioner.

http://books.googleusercontent.com/...677C-I3AoZQx_Z54Ujlp-qcXaGeiNQXlu6U2fVtRHsmfC
 
"An American and British commission established under the 1870 Treaty of Washington absolved Sherman's army of responsibility, but Confederate sympathizers were not convinced. Southern publications like Confederate Veteran regularly accused Sherman of incinerating Columbia." [Ibid., p. 325]

Do we have a link or reference to this An American and British commission report.
 
Wasn't there some political unrest in South Carolina during reconstruction? Something like the JJJ, or WPA, of SEC? I only ask because affidavits without cross examination may omit some biases in the affidavits.
Though I don't disagree with the affiants, the soldiers of the United States had been at war a long time, and were far from home. Columbia was going to burn, one way or t'other. Moreover they undoubtedly felt that by February 1865 they had whipped the rebels and the war was continued only protect the higher ups in the Confederacy.
 
Wasn't there some political unrest in South Carolina during reconstruction? Something like the JJJ, or WPA, of SEC? I only ask because affidavits without cross examination may omit some biases in the affidavits.
Though I don't disagree with the affiants, the soldiers of the United States had been at war a long time, and were far from home. Columbia was going to burn, one way or t'other. Moreover they undoubtedly felt that by February 1865 they had whipped the rebels and the war was continued only protect the higher ups in the Confederacy.
Let's try to have references, please.
Thanks
 
Do we have a link or reference to this An American and British commission report.

Mixed Commission on British and American Claims: Burning of Columbia. I don't see it online, but I found this:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.ed...xed Commission on British and American Claims

It claims to have Howard's and Sherman's testimonies.

After the war a mixed American-British commission was empanelled [sic] to adjudicate claims of damage. They studied the Columbia case and heard from witnesses. They “disallowed all the claims, ‘all the commissioners agreeing.’ While they were not called upon to deliver a formal opinion in the case, the American agent was advised ‘that the commissioners were unanimous in the conclusion that the conflagration which destroyed Columbia was not to be ascribed to either the intention nor default of either the Federal or Confederate officers.’ ” [James Ford Rhodes, “Who Burned Columbia?” American Historical Review, Vol VII, No. 3, April, 1902, p. 490]

Sherman has an excerpt showing O. O. Howard's testimony in his memoirs, p. 980. At the end is a notation by Sherman that "Judgment in these cases was for the United States." [p. 987]

“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.
 

Quite obviously wrong. The troops marched in columns. They didn't cut a swath through Georgia. If they cut a swath they would have been marching in battle lines 20 to 60 miles in length across the state. So this source can't even get through the first sentence without being wrong.





This I find to be accurate. Anytime an army was in the area, fences were usually the first thing to go, used for cooking. Barns, livestock, and factories were legitimate targets. As said before, usually only vacant houses were burned, with the exception of reprisals.



Hard war, not total war.



And when Sherman's troops left Savannah, the people of Savannah voted their thanks to the military governor, John White Geary, for his administration of their city.




Obviously wrong again. Though South Carolina did suffer more destruction than either Georgia or North Carolina, almost all civilian homes in the state were not burned.

As to Columbia, they are correct the confederates burned cotton bales in the street before departing; however:

"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." [Maj. N. R. Chambliss, CSA; O.R. Series I, Vol LIII, p. 1050]

Major Chambliss is not a Yankee source. He was a confederate quartermaster who told us that at 0300 on the 17th, "The city was illuminated with burning cotton." This is almost 8 hours before the first Union soldiers entered the city.

"In the confusion of the evacuation and occupation of Columbia, the city endured a series of fires, the first of which occurred during the early hours of the morning of February 16 when the Congaree River bridge was burned against Beauregard's orders. That action can with little doubt be attributed to a diligent soldier who was uninformed of Beauregard's intent or to a straggler bent upon delaying the enemy. The next fires, of unaccountable origin, were those of the burning cotton which Major Chambliss reported were illuminating Columbia at three o'clock on the morning of February 17. That same morning before daylight there was the enormous explosion at the South Carolina Railroad station, generally attributed to the recklessness of greedy plunderers carrying torches; when the Federal army entered the capital, the terminal was still smoldering. Also burning when the Federal troops entered the city was the Charlotte Railroad station, which Beauregard had ordered Hampton to burn as he withdrew his last forces. There was one other fire in Columbia when the Union army entered, the fire in the cotton on Richardson Street. When Sherman arrived at the town hall about noon, two of Columbia's volunteer fire companies, the Independent commanded by John McKenzie and the Palmetto of William B. Stanley, aided by several of Stone's men, were working to extinguish the fire in the 100 to 200 cotton bales in the area." [Marion B. Lucas, Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, pp. 90-91]

There were indeed fires set by drunken U.S. soldiers which contributed to the destruction of the city. These were not by order of anyone and instead were criminal acts perpetrated by drunken soldiers who had received the liquor from the townspeople of Columbia themselves.

"When the Union soldiers of Colonel Stone's brigades entered the city, they were at once supplied by citizens and negroes with large quantities of intoxicating liquor, brought to them in tin cups, bottles, demijohns, and buckets. Many had been without supper, and all of them without sleep, the night before, and none had eaten breakfast that morning. They were soon drunk, excited, and unmanageable." [James Ford Rhodes, "Who Burned Columbia?" American Historical Review, Vol VII, No. 3, April, 1902, p. 491]

After the war a mixed American-British commission was empanelled to adjudicate claims of damage. They studied the Columbia case and heard from witnesses. They "disallowed all the claims, 'all the commissioners agreeing.' While they were not called upon to deliver a formal opinion in the case, the American agent was advised 'that the commissioners were unanimous in the conclusion that the conflagration which destroyed Columbia was not to be ascribed to either the intention nor default of either the Federal or Confederate officers.' " [Ibid., p. 490]

"The fire, of course, was a great tragedy, but it was not until the flames reached such proportions that they were observed by the men of the XV and XVII Corps encamped on the perimeter of the city that conditions reached their nadir. The raging fire was the invitation to stragglers, sightseers, and the curious that all such calamities attract, and consequently a steady stream of troops began to drift into town. Liquor was everywhere abundant, as it had been during the entire day, and new supplies were discovered readily. Soon an assortment of drunken citizens and refugees, both white and black, and 'the vilest vagabond soldiers, the veriest scum of the entire army,' roamed the streets. The appearance of this rioting mob, which continued to accumulate in intensity until it reached a crescendo between 2:00 and 4:00 A.M. on the morning of the eighteenth, greatly hampered the already hopeless attempts to control or localize the flames." [Marion B. Lucas, Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, p. 102]

As the best evidence tells us, the destruction of Columbia was a tragic accident. Retreating confederates set cotton on fire, and the burning embers were carried by the wind. Some cotton bales continued to smolder during the day, and the high winds whipped them into a blaze as well that evening, spreading more embers around. Some Union soldiers, drunk on the liquor provided them by well-meaning but mistaken civilians, set fires themselves, but the record shows that more Union soldiers tried to stop the fires but were unable to do so.




There were some soldiers who got drunk and set some fires, but they were few and far between. As seen above, Most Union soldiers tried to put the fires out.



Sherman often said things that his actions didn't back up. This is not an exception.

Destruction in South Carolina was definitely greater than in Georgia and North Carolina, because the soldiers felt they deserved it, having started the war. Again, residents lost possessions, not their lives.
Thanks for setting the record straight!
My teeth are getting worn down from grinding every time someone brings up Sherman burning Columbia....
 
This is it? We are supposed to care about this burning of a secessionist city after 700,000 young men in the prime of their lives died of disease and war violence fighting this tragic war?
Sherman and Sheridan were the agency of this destruction. But the ultimate cause was that Jefferson Davis would not acknowledge that his attempted rebellion was defeated.
 
This is it? We are supposed to care about this burning of a secessionist city after 700,000 young men in the prime of their lives died of disease and war violence fighting this tragic war?
Sherman and Sheridan were the agency of this destruction. But the ultimate cause was that Jefferson Davis would not acknowledge that his attempted rebellion was defeated.
Only want to keep the record straight? As you do.
 
Back
Top