`Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

WIS TV ^ | Dec 05, 2014 | Renee Standera

[aomagrat]

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS-TV) -

At this time in December 150 years ago, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman and his army were advancing on Savannah, leaving a wake of destruction behind. But the true wrath of Sherman's army was being reserved for South Carolina.

"He wanted to cripple the Confederacy," said retired University of South Carolina journalism professor Patricia McNeely. Since the campus survived the burning of Columbia, the Horseshoe was an appropriate place for our interview.

"He wanted them to give up fighting. He wanted them to lose faith in their leadership in the Confederacy. But most people have overlooked this. Because, when, when Columbia was burned, he blamed it on General Wade Hampton and the Confederates leaving cotton burning in the streets."

McNeely's book, Sherman's Flame and Blame Campaign explains a strategy that she says previous historians overlooked.

"This is a flame and blame campaign that I have found," McNeely said. "Sherman was providing all this disinformation early and during the Civil War and did not admit until 1875 in his memoirs that he had blamed the Confederates, namely General Hampton. For these reasons, everybody believed what he had said, the disinformation that he had spread, the propaganda that he'd deliberately used so nobody actually went through and saw the pattern of the burning and blaming."

[Mrs. Don-o]

Actually, I am not a pacifist although I admire principled pacifists, e.g. Mother Terese of Calcutta, whose pacifism never conflated with naivete, utopianism or cowardice.

My argument was from the Christian principles regulating Just War. Much of this can be found (is it still there?) in the UCMJ. Nor do I think Yankee soldiers were all depraved war dogs,and CSA'ers were all Marse Robert.

If, as you say the rate of civilian casualties was much power in the U.S. Civil War than in other civil was, then I give credit to soldiers and officers who were just.

Related: the mass die-off of black slaves--- hundreds of thousands of them --- as a (surely unintended) consequence of the Civil War and its aftermath.

[BroJoeK]

Mrs. Don-o: "the mass die-off of black slaves--- hundreds of thousands of them --- as a (surely unintended) consequence of the Civil War and its aftermath."

I've never seen that subject addressed directly, and would be most interested in a reasonably-short summary.
But have long suspected that when people throw out numbers like "50,000 civilians died", since there are no actual records, then if there's any reality to that number, it may refer almost entirely to rough estimates of slaves who died from economic & social disruptions of the war.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't have the book at hand, but maybe if you googled this author, Jim Downs, you'd find more info., He seems to be no dingbat, but on the scholarly side of the spectrum (Oxford University Press.)

I have to agree --- I suspect Downs would agree --- that statistics are hard to get with any precision, especially at a time when a census esp. of black slaves and freedmen was hardly exact. However, slaves appeared in property lists (e.g. estates, bequests) and they were enumerated decenially by the US. govt. in the antebellum days for apportionment purposes (House districts.)

So realistic estimates could be made.

[rustbucket]

Freeper 4CJ posted some stuff about what Sherman’s men did to his ancestors neighbor it was awful.

Here is a link to 4CJ's old post: Link

[BroJoeK]

Mrs. Don-o: "So realistic estimates could be made."

Statistical extrapolations only, that's what we have.
People look at the population growth rate from 1850 to 1860 and say, "if that same rate of growth had continued until 1870, then populations in 1870 would have been XX-thousands more than they were."
The difference between projected and actual they call "civilian deaths caused by war".

But what are we really talking about?

1. Men away at war don't father as many children.
   
2. Old people with reduced family care die sooner.
   
3. Economic migration and settlement patterns disrupted.
   
4. Slaves "set free" by military actions, no place to go, can't cope, victims of exposure, disease, etc.

However, actual data to support any of these factors is entirely lacking.

[stremba]

I don’t disagree with your point. From a contemporary point of view, there’s no doubt that very few on either side were truly thought of as war criminals. (BTW you also forgot about Maj. Henry Wirz, the commander of Andersonville Prison in Georgia who was executed after the war for the murder of Union POW’s held there). However, from a moral point of view, it makes sense to consider the question. The intentional targeting of civilians is considered to be a war crime by today’s standards. Sherman undoubtedly engaged in such conduct, so he did commit war crimes. I am only considering the question as a moral one, certainly not as a practical matter. What the heck would we do to Sherman anyway if we did come to the consensus that he committed war crimes?

As for the bomber crews, I think you can give them a pass, but possibly hold their leaders responsible to some degree. Targeting factories or other facilities that produce goods for the enemy’s war effort is considered legitimate under the laws of war. Thus, for instance, bombing a factory or sinking a merchant ship carrying war material is legitimate military activity. Unless I am mistaken, bomber crews were never ordered to “go and destroy Dresden”, but rather, “destroy the munitions factory in Dresden.” This is an important distinction for whether or not to hold the crews themselves responsible. The fact that the bombers were not precise enough to destroy only the factory without collateral damage was not the crews’ problem. The leaders undoubtedly hid behind this fact to conceal their true intention, which was certainly the destruction of the city itself. Again, as a practical matter, I would have not expected prosecution of personnel in Allied air commands, but the argument for their responsibility can be made.

[stremba]

I think that your point regarding the relatively good behavior of soldiers on both sides of the Civil War is certainly a valid one. However, the fact that the war was conducted in a generally honorable fashion does not mitigate the moral responsibility of those who did commit dishonorable actions. Any number of civilians intentionally killed constitutes a war crime.

Is it a valid defense for a murderer in a criminal trial to point out that the society in which he lives has the lowest murder rate in the world? Obviously not. You seem to be using a similar defense for those men who committed war crimes during the Civil War.

[BroJoeK]

stremba: "As for the bomber crews, I think you can give them a pass, but possibly hold their leaders responsible to some degree."

Sorry, but the principle is the same with those bomber-crew leaders as with Sherman's "march to the sea".
In both cases, the purpose was to destroy, not only the enemy's physical ability to support their military, but also their will to fight.

Remember: you don't ever win a war until the enemy gives up the fight.
Giving-up-the-fight is a matter of both rational and emotional choice -- the enemy must, must, MUST feeeeeel defeated, otherwise you'll just have them back at your throat again in a few years.
That was the LESSON #1 from the First World War.

So the question, then and now, is whether an enemy can be forced to give-up-the-fight without having suffered major destruction?
In other words: is there a "kinder and gentler" way to win a war than by killing people and destroying their stuff?

Of course, the Great Moral Minds of our Age are firmly convinced there must be a better way: "smart bombs", "precision guided weapons", "shock & awe", invisible drones, etc., etc.

But, perhaps even you, stremba, have noticed?
When was the last time we truly won a war?

[BroJoeK]

stremba: "Is it a valid defense for a murderer in a criminal trial to point out that the society in which he lives has the lowest murder rate in the world?
Obviously not.
You seem to be using a similar defense for those men who committed war crimes during the Civil War."

You assume that the question has been fully adjudicated, and firmly established that some forces in our Civil War did commit "war crimes".
The truth of the matter is that, by their own standards and even by ours today, very few Civil War units committed "war crimes".
I listed some candidates for "war crimes" in my post #169 above, but the only one on that list actually charged & hanged, again, was Champ Ferguson: for the murder of 53 civilians.
Ferguson is the exception which proves the rule: very few Civil War "war crimes".

Of course, if you wish to redefine the term "war crime" to satisfy our most pristine moral code, then you could possibly define the entire conflict as a "war crime", and hang every one of them -- Union, Confederate, military, civilians: anybody who supported the bloody war, hang them all for your pristine definition of "war crimes", right?

Oh? You don't like that idea? Seems a bit extreme, does it?
Then why would you even consider imposing today's standards on ancestors who obviously knew in their own minds, what was a "war crime" and what wasn't?

[1010RD]

Prof. Schweikart has some interesting insights into the American way of war. I believe he’s absolutely right that a people, used to liberty, living in a republic and not wanting to every lose or waste the lives of their beloved husbands, fathers, or sons, have long demanded that materiel and the lives of the enemy be wasted first.

A persistent CO element in all our wars has helped, reinforced more recently by idiotic doves in the peace movement for whom no war is ever justified. Professor, is that your opinion, too?

[stremba]

Even at that time, the intentional killing of civilians is what I am referring to as war crimes. The soldiers of the Civil War would certainly have understood this type of killing as being a war crime, although I doubt that they would have used that exact language. They would have considered such killings “dishonorable” or something along those lines, but the point is the same.

Given that, I conceded your point that such crimes were not widespread. I would certainly not want to hold ALL the participants responsible for war crimes. There were in fact two men executed for war crimes after the war - you forgot about the commander of Andersonville Prison Camp, Henry Wirz. Nonetheless, war crimes were committed that were not punished. The winners of wars very rarely are held accountable for war crimes, so I suspect that there is very little chance that anyone in the Union army would have been prosecuted. As for Confederates, I think that Lincoln’s attitude was to allow the South to rejoin the Union on easy terms and put the whole thing behind us. Certainly, widespread prosecution of people involved in war crimes would have been contrary to that goal. Only the most egregious offenders were prosecuted, therefore. That does not mean that others were not guilty of war crimes.

Even given that, you have given one example of a person prosecuted for war crimes and I gave you another. That proves my point - war crimes were indeed committed during the Civil War. Does the fact that widespread commission of war crimes did not occur really mitigate the responsibility of those few individuals who did commit war crimes? I think not.

[BroJoeK]

stremba: "Does the fact that widespread commission of war crimes did not occur really mitigate the responsibility of those few individuals who did commit war crimes? I think not."

No, but remember this thread relates to Lost-Causer claims that the entire Union army, especially its pathological war-criminal leader -- General Sherman -- should have been hanged, no hanging was too good for them.
No, they should have been tarred & feathered, then burned at the stake, because that's what they deserved.
You don't believe me?
Just ask some of the other posters here...

My point on this -- there's no contemporary evidence they were considered "war criminals", and proof-positive of that is: no Confederate leader who committed similar "crimes" as Sherman was ever charged or punished for it after the war.

Further, the theory of "total war" first developed in the 1860s was used again by President Roosevelt during the 1940s to defeat our most dangerous global enemies, and turn them into our closest allies.

Think about that, FRiend...

[rustbucket]

[StoneWall Brigade]: "Since when is freeper rustbucket a lost causer?
Last time I checked he was of the most objective person on here."

Many thanks, StoneWall Brigade.

[BroJoeK]: Yes, rusty is a credit to himself and Free Republic.
His posts are a delight and serious education to read, always appreciated.

Many thanks to you too, BroJoeK.

[BroJoeK]: But rest assured, rusty is not "objective", he is firmly committed to the pro-Confederate perspective, and will seldom if ever post anything opposing it.

I do take the Southern point of view, and I try to back it up with data I find and arguments that make sense to me. Since the Union armies were in Southern territory during most of the war, there is plenty of opportunity to find where Union soldiers did bad things. I expect the Union supporters on these threads like yourself to make pro-Union arguments, and they do. If I find information to refute their arguments, I'll post it if I have time and am not involved in something else that takes my time away from these threads. I've got lots of things to do outside of FreeRepublic which is why I've not posted much in the last year and a half.

I have access to old newspapers and a personal library of books on the war. While the old newspapers are certainly not always objective, I've found that they often contain much interesting history that didn't make it into the history books. So I do quote from them a lot. The Official Records and the Congressional Record are also good sources.

Re: objective. I have on occasion posted about bad things Confederates did or poor decisions they made. Whether that makes me objective or not, I don't know. In looking for 4CJ's old post that StoneWall Brigade mentioned above, I found that I had posted about some looting that Confederates did in the thread that contained 4CJ's post. See Post 100 of that thread. Also see Post 108.

[BroJoeK]

rusty: "I do take the Southern point of view, and I try to back it up with data I find and arguments that make sense to me.
Since the Union armies were in Southern territory during most of the war, there is plenty of opportunity to find where Union soldiers did bad things."

Thanks again, your posts never disappoint!

Somehow, overall behavior of Confederate troops has been obscured by mythology, such as: that Marse Robert's troops in the North paid for everything they requisitioned...

This report comes from Guelzo's recent book on Gettysburg, Lee's army marching north crosses into Pennsylvania, June 1863:

"What delighted the eye of an invading army might also destroy it, if the men in that army enjoyed plundering those delights enough to lure them from the march, from roll call, from fatigue duty, from the commands of officers, from the soldiers' communion with one another.

On June 21 [1863] (while Longstreet's and Hill's corps were still waiting to cross the Potomac), Robert E Lee issued the first of two general orders demanding that "no private property shall be injured or destroyed by any person belonging to or connected with the army."
Only authorized staff personnel, whether commissary, quartermaster's, or medical staff, would 'make requisitions... for the necessary supplies' on local authorities or inhabitants for 'necessary supplies' and they were to pay 'the market price for the articles furnished,' with receipts in duplicate.

In years to come, this order would be the source of limitless satisfaction to Lee's veterans, who would point to it as evidence of the South's gentlemanly and civilized restraint in the making of war.
What was forgotten was that Lee's restraining order only offered Confederate paper money for the requisitions; that those who were disinclined to take Confederate paper would be offered receipts and the supplies taken anyway; and that anyone trying to "remove or conceal property necessary for the use of the army" would have it confiscated outright.
This did not provide as much security as it seemed for the farmers and shopkeepers whose inventories were thus rendered fair game.

But as the order was passed down from corps to division headquarters throughout the army, it did create a disciplined process which would keep the ordinary Confederate soldier from deputizing himself as his own chief provider.
It was not plundering that was undesirable, but uncontrolled plundering that led to uncontrollable soldiers sprawled across the countryside.
After all, Lee had already given orders to strip the Baltimore & Ohio workshops at Martinsburg of 'tools, machinery, and materials much needed by the railroads of the Confederacy,' and one of his principal rationales for coming north was to feed his army on the vast buffet of Pennsylvania farming.
Plunder would be good -- provided it was regulated.

Keeping up that caveat seems to have been harder than anyone expected.
'General Lee has issued orders prohibiting all misconduct or lawlessness and urging the utmost forbearance and kindness to all,' wrote an Alabamian.
But no sooner had the army crossed the state line than the march descended dangerously close to a free-for-all.
After all, 'the rebel officers and men' declared to anyone along the way who would listen that 'they had been fighting the war long enough in the South, and they were going to Pennsylvania to make it the battle-ground' -- which included 'taking what they pleased without paying for it.'
An apprehensive Dorsey Pender wrote his disapproving wife on June 28th, 'Until we crossed the Md. Line our men behaved as well as troops could,' but now 'they have an idea that they are to indulge in unlicensed plunder.'
Once encamped, rebel soldiers dispersed to 'forage after chickens, eggs, butter, vegetables, apple butter, honey, etc.'
Lee might issue 'orders against... unauthorized taking,' admitted one artillery lieutenant, but 'our boys lay waste the land on the sly.'
Jeremiah Tate marveled in a letter to his wife that 'when we first arrived in Pennsylvania we saw a fine time we got everything to eat that hart cood wish, such as mild and butter apple butter chickens honey molasses sugar coffee tea chease and Whiskey wines of all kindes, everything was cheap all it cost us was to go after it.'

Soldiers could get away with this because all to many officers preferred to invent excuses for ignoring Lee's order rather than invite outright disobedience.
In Evander McIvor's Law's Alabama brigade, 'there were ninety-five sheep skins in Law's camp.'
When 'someone spoke to' Law about the suspicious skins, 'he said that no man's sheep could bite his men without getting hurt.'
John Bell Hood was even more indulgent: 'Boys, you are now on the enemy's soil, stack your arms and do pretty much as you please.'

Once Ewell's corps reached the town of Chambersburg, the pillaging became even easier, given the concentration of stores and warehouses in a town of 5,000 inhabitants.
At nine o'clock on the morning of June 24th, Robert Rhodes division pulled itself together sufficiently to parade into Chambersburg, with a band tooting a reprise of 'The Bonnie Blue Flag,'
Dick Ewell, who had been traveling in a carriage with his crutches and prosthesis, set up command at the town bank, where he presented his formal requisition for supplies:

• 5,000 jackets and trousers,
• 50,000 pounds of bread,
• 500 barrels of flour,
• 5,000 bushels of grain
• and so forth

A hastily assembled civilian committee tried to bargain with Ewell, but to no avail.

Squads of Confederate soldiers began breaking open locked-up stores, and Chambersburg's 'grocery, drug, hardware, book and stationery, clothing, boot and shoe stores were all relieved of most of their remaining contents.'
Ewell's stepson, Campbell Brown, and another veteran staffer did some private foraging of their own in Chambersburg's shops, since Brown's mother had sent him off with a list of goods to pick up in Pennsylvania.
Ewell's chief engineer also had a list thoughtfully provided by his wife, which included 'about $100 worth of calico, wool delaine, bleached cotton, hoops, gloves, bread, gingham, pins &c&c' to be piled onto empty wagons heading south for resupply.

Confiscation soon degenerated into robbery.
'A group of Louisiana Tigers' stopped men on the streets and demanded their hats and boots; the pastor of the German Reformed Church, Benjamin Schneck, 'one of the best citizens of the place,' was stripped of his gold watch and $50 in cash.

Soon enough, robberies turned into simple vandalism.
Several Confederates broke into the Odd Fellows Hall and 'cut to pieces and destroyed a greater portion' of the lodge's regalia, 'broke open several of the desks and drawers, and mutilated everything they could lay their hands on.'
A 'respectable' soldier in the 15th Georgia said 'the streets of Chambersburg are strewn with gloves and fragments of goods.

From there, the vandalism veered into kidnapping of a very specific and lucrative sort.
In 1860, some 1,700 free black people lived in and around Chambersburg, Mercersburg, and Greencastle [neighboring towns].
A few were fugitives from slavery, and "free" only in fact, and for them the descent of the Army of Northern Virginia on south-central Pennsylvania was the beginning of 'a regular slave hunt.'
But not even those blacks whose families had been free for generations in Pennsylvania expected the Confederate armies to spend any time distinguishing between who was legitimately free and who was not.
Free black civilians working under Union Army contracts, as well as 'contrabands' who found refuge within Union Army camps, were all alike to the rebels, and when Harpers Ferry was overrun by Confederates in 1862, black fugitives 'who thought... the hour of freedom' had come, and who 'had gathered under the flag which to them was its starry symbol,' were roughly lined up along with the garrison's black teamsters, cooks, grooms, and ostlers, while Confederate soldiers and officers strolled down the lines, free to claim any of them as 'their property'.

A year later, the same opportunity presented itself in Chambersburg.
When Albert Jenkins' rough-hewn cavalrymen made their initial foray into the Cumberland Valley in mid-June, 'they took up all [the people of color] they could find, even little children, whom they had to carry on horseback before them' to be claimed or sold in the slave markets in Richmond.

One prosperous Chambersburg farmer, William Heyser, was shocked to discover that the Confederates had taken with them '250 colored people again into bondage'.
The infantry of Ewell's corps who followed on June 24th were even less fastidious about sweeping up any black people they could lay their hands upon.
George Steuart's Maryland brigade, looping westward to Mercersburg and McConnellsburg, threatened to 'burn down every house which harbored a fugitive slave, and did not deliver him up within twenty minutes,' and in Mercersburg twenty-one blacks were rounded up and driven south, including 'two or three' who 'were born and raised in this neighborhood.'
A local magistrate who protested taking 'free negroes' was abruptly told, 'Yes, and we will take you too, if you do not shut up!'

This might, in the larger scheme of the campaign, have seemed a waste of military time, but slaves were a valuable commodity.
As one farmer was told by Confederates who were escorting 'four wagon loads of women & children between Chambersburg & the Maryland line.' even the children 'will bring something.'
This was, after all, an army whose cause was inextricably bound up with the defense of black enslavement.
To have left Pennsylvania's blacks in undisturbed freedom would have been tantamount to denying the validity of the whole Confederate enterprise."

Similar events are recorded for other Pennsylvania towns, for example, York:

[Confederate General]" Early made his headquarters in the York County Court House, and once again the division quartermaster published the requisitions:

• 165 barrels of flour or 28,000 pounds of baked bread
• 3,500 pounds of sugar
• 1,650 pounds of coffee
• 300 gallons of molasses
• 1,200 pounds of salt
• 32,00 pounds of fresh beef or 21,00 pounds of bacon or pork
• 2,000 pairs of shoes or boots
• 1,000 pairs of socks and 1,000 felt hats
  
• and $100,000 in cash."

My point here is that Union troops were more often supplied from their own rail-heads and so didn't usually need to "live off the land", while Confederates always "lived off the land" when they went abroad.

[stremba]

Then I think we are either on the same page or talking past each other. I have never claimed that Sherman deserved to be hanged or that the entire Union army was comprised of war criminals. I have merely maintained that war crimes were committed by Sherman and others (as understood at the time, namely the making of war upon noncombatants) during the war. Painting Sherman as a monster who deserved to be executed is disingenuous, but then so is painting him as a totally honorable and innocent man. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[Joe 6-pack]

"I have merely maintained that war crimes were committed by Sherman and others (as understood at the time, namely the making of war upon noncombatants) during the war."

People would do well to read the correspondence sent between Sherman and John Bell Hood when Sherman was on the outskirts of Atlanta. There were several messages sent back and forth between emissaries. They pretty much reveal Hood as a desperate drama queen who knew he was in a tight spot, and Sherman as a no-nonsense tactician. In summary, they basically read as follows:

HOOD: Dear General Sherman, Your siege of the city and shelling of civilian positions is the worstest, most eeeeevil, dastardly and criminal act in all the entire history of warfare. You are a very, very bad man and you lead an army of demons who are doing nothing but perpetrating great acts of horror. I urge you in the name of all that is good and decent and holy to please leave us alone.

SHERMAN: Dear General Hood. As per my previous correspondence, I have repeatedly made offers to provide for the safe evacuation of civilians from the city of Atlanta as far as my Army can guarantee their safety. You have declined same. I personally would rather not shell civilian positions, neighborhoods, churches, etc. If you would stop interspersing your soldiers and cannon amongst them, I would happily do so.

[Sherman Logan]

Some of your points are very well taken.

In the Gettysburg campaign Lee “paid” for most of the officially requisitioned supplies, but it was in money that had little or no value. Great propaganda for the CSA, but not much help to those who had their stuff taken. They would be reimbursed only if and when the CSA won their independence, and possibly not then.

However, your description of how southern soldiers behaved is very similar to the way northern soldiers had behaved in the South. And they were steadily getting less restrained in their behavior as the war went on.

Can’t find a reference at the moment, but but I remember an anecdote where Lee himself was approached by a PA farmer complaining about his property being taken without compensation.

Lee replied something like, “Yes, it’s very sad, but this is exactly what has been happening in Virginia for two years now.”

In which there is much truth.

Soldiers have always and everywhere behaved this way in enemy territory, and generally in friendly territory too.

The difference is that for most of our Civil War the theft and plundering was not supplemented by casual assault, rape and murder of civilians. Which historically most wars, especially civil wars, have been.

IOW, your general comments on this thread appear to be that Union soldiers misbehaved in the South in retaliation for CSA misbehavior for the comparatively limited periods when they were operating in Union areas. This is, I believe, exactly backwards.

Chambersburg was burned by Early in 1864 explicitly in retaliation for Hunter’s misbehavior in the Valley. It was the only goodsized northern town so treated. Quite a few southern towns burned.

[1010RD]

When one man views another man as inferior or a slave, this type of behavior results and has at every stage of human history, including our modern era. If we were talking about Democrats or Jihadis there wouldn’t be any argument.

[central_va]

As Lee’s soldiers moved into enemy territory, many of them were surely tempted to pillage and plunder Northern towns and fields in retaliation for the destruction Virginia had been enduring for close to two years. However, in general the Confederates behaved themselves during their invasion of Pennsylvania.

Recognizing the need to avoid turning public opinion against his troops, General Lee on June 22 had issued General Orders Number 72, admonishing his men to avoid injuring or destroying private property. The order also placed the army’s quartermaster corps in charge of appropriating goods for military use, all of which it would pay for in Confederate money, which, however, was worth only a fraction of Northern currency. If the owner refused to accept such payment, officers were to issue a receipt that enumerated the goods taken. Owners refusing to comply with requests for supplies would have their goods seized, but receipts would still be issued.

For the most part,the Southerners obeyed this order, but there were a number of exceptions. General Early contravened it when he burned the Caledonia Furnace, which was owned by Pennsylvania’s Radical Republican Congressman Thaddeus Stevens. Throughout the Confederate sojourn in Pennsylvania, relatively little violence took place between soldiers and white civilians.

www.explorePAHistory.com

[BroJoeK]

Sherman Logan: "Chambersburg was burned by Early in 1864 explicitly in retaliation for Hunter’s misbehavior in the Valley.
It was the only goodsized northern town so treated.
Quite a few southern towns burned."

Confederates attacked Chambersburg three different times: 1862 (Stuart), 1863 (Ewell) and 1864 (Early).
All involved pillaging and destruction of property, as well as kidnappings of African Americans.
Early's final attack in 1864 was just on a larger scale than before.

Sherman Logan: "...your general comments on this thread appear to be that Union soldiers misbehaved in the South in retaliation for CSA misbehavior for the comparatively limited periods when they were operating in Union areas.
This is, I believe, exactly backwards."

If you'll go back to review my listing in post #169 above -- you'll see atrocities began in 1862, with Lawrence, Kansas pillaged, burned & massacred by Confederates in 1863.

Of course, my listing is not complete, a longer list might show other towns looted or burned.
But they would not all be by Union troops, and some of the earliest (i.e., Lawrence) came at the hands of Confederates.
But to be clear: my point here is not to excuse anybody of any crime, but simply to emphasize that:

1. they had different standards back then, than we do today, and
2. neither side committed any crimes the other side had not also committed, and
3. at war's end, both sides decided they'd had enough and did not prosecute many cases of alleged war-crimes.

Imho, that's exactly the attitude we also should take today.