Union troops used Confederate officers as human shields

newsleader ^ | April 24, 2004 | Terry Shulman

[stainlessbanner]

Saddam Hussein's devilish practice of using human shields isn't exactly new. It was pioneered by an American, in fact, during the last year of the Civil War.

"Your officers, now in my hands, will be placed by me under your fire, as an act of retaliation," Union departmental commander Gen. John G. Foster wrote his Southern counterpart in an edict, and with that a sordid new standard was set in the conduct of war.

[Polybius]

The thing that sill puzzles me about the Civil War is the great distances these men traveled on little or no roads.

I live close to Gettysburg and have visited often. It still amazes me how they got there in the first place. I guess they took I-95? Yea, sure.

Well, actually, they did stick to roads whenever possible when the army was on the march and the names of those roads have become as famous as other battlefield landmarks.

Even in battle, roads played a vital role. Lee's Army won the Battle of Chancellorsville with the discovery of a local road that allowed Stonewall Jackson to march his Second Corps to a point on the Union left.

[#3Fan]

What part of "on the average" do you have trouble understanding?

None. What I'm saying is there is really no difference when considering rural vs rural. Do you have something against me adding to your point?

The number of liberals in New York, Massachusetts and New England overwhelm the number of conservatives you may have in Indiana and Ohio.

Yes but to say a southern citizen is better than a northern citizen is misleading. You should really add the fact about percentage comparisons as it relates to rural vs urban.

Also, in the bombardment of Charleston, there were no Indiana or Ohio units. Yes, really. It's a very elementary point but it seems to have to be pointed out to people such as you who seems to think that the square acreage of counties who go for a certain candidate somehow has more meaning than the absolute number of citizens that vote for a candidate.

I made no mention of square acreage. I only pointed out that rural counties in the North have just as good a record as rural counties in the South.

Ummmm,....genius,.....an urban voter's vote carries just as much weight as a rural voters vote.

Yes, but when comparing North vs South, the percentage relationships of rural vs urban should be pointed out unless of course you would rather mislead by not relaying significant information.

What matters is the absolute number of voters.

When counting votes, yes. But, when saying one group of people is better than another, it's misleading to leave out such significant information. You were trying to imply that it was the area that makes a person better when in actuality it is a person's living status of rural or urban that is the factor, as the 2000 county-by-county results prove.

Yes, Northern states have more liberal, metro-sexual, left-wing, anti-American, anti-religious, U.N.-loving, Hillary-electing, America-hating voters than Southern states do and they happen to like living in cities rather than in rural areas so that they don't break a fingernail mending a fence or get their Gucci loafers muddy.

That's a little better. At least you did provide a little bit of significant information, it's less misleading than before. However, you are implying that they happen to congregate in cities when in actuality it is the cities that are the cause, not the result, so your post is still significantly misleading. As proof you'll find liberal, metro-sexual, left-wing, anti-American, anti-religious, U.N.-loving, Hillary-electing, America-hating voters in southern cities also.

[billbears]

I ask my co-workers to look around at what this nation of states has become today versus the federal republic the Founders of this nations designed. Most, even the yankees, will admit it's not. BTW, if I were you I'd look to the battles. Outnumbered almost 4 to 1, my ancestors held off the yankees for four years. Some fighting force you've got there....

[carton253]

Good Morning!

How is everything at home!

How's the new baby... is he letting you sleep? And how is Thomas?

Just wanted to say hey!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

... and do we really need to fight the Civil War yet one more time? The South lost. They were rejoined to the North. We are one country. The South is prosperous... in fact it is full of Yankees that have colored it Red.

Endlessly rehashing, endlessly pointing blame. Can't America move forward as one. Can we put the Civil War behind us? Can we acknowlege slavery sucked and then move on?

[carton253]

Until this post... I was liking you. :)

I would put Stonewall Jackson up against any General in the Union... He would have won, hands down!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL!

[Tax-chick]

We're doing well, baby is wonderful (new pictures on the Tax-chick page). Thomas lost two teeth this week and looks absurd, just in time for his First Communion.

I can't sleep because I'm reading FReeper Travis McGee's novel, "Enemies Foreign and Domestic." It's a real page-turner!

Hope you're doing well, too!

[agrarianlady]

My great great grandfather's brother was imprisoned at Andersonville.

At least he made it out. My family has a diary of two brothers (relatives of ours) who didn't. One watched his brother die and wrote until he was too far gone to write any longer. Both died of starvation.

[Badeye]

Less the references to "The Cause" I agree with you're assessment of the self inflicted logistical problems the South faced.

I don't see the current situation in the same light you do. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

[Eva]

My ancestor who survived Andersonville was the only member of his unit to survive. I don't think that he was there that long. He was first taken to Virginia, where he escaped from a train car with a few other prisoners, by crawling on the top of the box car and jumping off. The Confederates chased them down and he was shot (must have been just a flesh wound)and returned to the box car. A Northern soldier had a first aid kit and treated him.

At the end of the war, they loaded them onto another train and dumped them all out in the swamps of Florida. My relative was lucky enough to have a guy in the car who grew up in Florida and was familar with the area and led them out, although I don't imagine it would have taken much to follow the tracks north. After all that, the government put a uniform on him and took his picture for the records, but refused to pay him his pension because they couldn't find any records of his service due to the fact that he was a paid substitute for someone and the whole unit had been wiped out along with all their records.

[Badeye]

I stand correct on the name of the fort, thanks. So many forts, so little time.....LOL!

I agree with your comments regarding NB Forrest. However, there is a tendency among some to let a teensy bit of partisanship creep into these discussions.

Damning Grants acheivements in this phase of the war, given Halleck's aversion to doing Anything seems a bit harsh. Likewise, suggesting the victories were only due to incompetence of Southern commanders denies the fact that both sides were in effect "relearning" the art of war at the time. Both sides had their share of political generals...the Union obviously had more of them in the top tiers of command.

I think the benefit of hindsight, 140 plus years of it, is handy most of the time on this topic. However, it causes many to overlook the situation as it "was". Given what was happening in the Eastern Theater, it can't be overstated that these victories gave a serious boost to the Norths moral when all else was going badly for their side of this war.

Grant, for all his faults, never sat in place and screeched for reinforcements, ala McClellan, Hooker, Burnside, Butler, et all. All he did was fight....and win.

[Badeye]

I agree with most of your post. War gaming it out, its obvious the war never should have lasted as long as it did.

The only thing I question is what Lee's performance would have been like had he taken command of the Union Army. The historical record shows that the one weakness Lee had as a Commander was on the offensive. Both "invasions" of the North were disasters in terms of stated goals acheived and losses incurred. Lee, to be blunt, screwed up royally in the first instance, and only McClellan being McClellan saved his army at Antietam / Sharpsburg. The second "invasion" was fatally flawed from the moment Lee set Stewart loose from contact. While the case can be made that Stewart errored (understatement) in fact Lee as the commander should have known Stewart would be eager to regain some luster to his reputation in the wake of his being caught unaware by Pleasanton just prior to the second move north, in my opinion. His "weakness" or "fondness" depending on your viewpoint in regards to Stewart cost him the campaign. If not for the unsettled command structure within the Army of the Potomac the five days before Gettysburg (another understatement) Lee again could have easily been destroyed. (On a personal note, my hero for the engagement at Gettysburg will always be Buford, who doesn't get near the credit he deserves for his actions of June 30 and July 1st. Perhaps thats due to his death in the late fall of 1963 to illness....)

In short, on the defensive, Lee had a "gift" augmented heavily by Longstreet's theories of defensive warfare. He had no counterpart to Longstreet, however, for offensive operations, and his strong suit obviously didn't lie in that direction. Lee's greatest strenth, in my opinion, was his insight into the weaknesses of his various opponents, and his ability to divine correctly the exact time and place to counterattack.

I don't think anyone can make a strong argument that Lee would have been wildly sucessful as the Union Commander had he taken the offer. The North by definition was required to be on the offensive, which wasn't what Lee did best.

[commonerX]

""You would be surprised at how much the families of the Confederate States of America still resent what happened to their kin and their land. It would make it very difficult for them to seriously care what happened to some of the more egregiously involved states should they ever be attacked. They have not forgotten or forgiven.""

I am sure there are a lot of African Americans that will never forgive or forget what the Rebels were fighting for. And how many suffered harsh abuses by there Rebel Masters. The right to maintain Human servitude is far more despicable then damaged property..

[SoCal Pubbie]

Losers always like losing.

[Badeye]

He he he....yeah, I can understand my Southern friends recoiling at the heresy I posted.....LOL!

Simple fact is most historians have noted at one time or another Lee himself wondered if Jackson would have been a disaster in the later stages of the war. The comment attributed to Lee in this regards was along the line that Jackson was a "wild animal, that left on his own would attack until not a man was left" which is a poor strategy when faced with overwhelming opposition. Did you know Jackson actually commissioned thousands of pikes for his troops?

That kind of thinking wasn't amenable to the new technology of warfare, as Malvern Hill, Fredricksburg, Gettysburg, and Cold Harbor demonstrated. Jackson's ability to move troops is unquestioned....however his blind faith in God Almighty caused him to be dangerous to his own command in my opinion. He simply believed whole heartedly that "God's Shield" would protect his men. Thats all well and good....right up until the point where you order a frontal assault against a heavily fortified and reinforced position that includes dozen's of cannon firing double and triple cannister.

This is why I have always doubted the claims of some that Gettysburg would have been different, in a positive way for the South. After walking the battlefield, reading most of the books on that particular campaign, I've come to the conclusion that if Jackson had survived Chancellorsville, and had been in command of his corps on July 1st, 1963....he would have been gutted in the waning hours of that day attempting to take Cemetary Ridge.

It would have been different, all right. The CSA's Second Corps would have been knocked out of the battle completely.

Just my opinion.

[commonerX]

I don't approve of using people as human shields. But these human shields were not citizens or unwilling participants of the war they were the enemy and at that time nothing was more desirable the an end to the war and they felt the Rebels wouldn't shoot their own. Slaves were forced against their will, not willing participants.

[PeaRidge]

"I view these posts as attempts to damage American pride and to establish moral equivalency between the US and its enemies."

Most of these posts are to remind some here that overzealous "American pride and moral equivalency" were the operative conditions that caused Northern men by the thousands to rush to sign up after New York ships tried to force their way into Charleston harbor in 1861.

Very few have been treated to the "moral equivalency" that was being used at the time to rationalize the invasion of the Southern states. Here is an example of the outcomes of that type of thinking:

12/1/1860 The New York Courier and Enquirer said:

"We love the Union because . . . it renders us now the equal of the greatest European Power, and in another half century, will make us the greatest, richest, and most powerful people on the face of the earth."

12/3/1860 When Congress convened, several Republicans, especially from the mid-western states, “swore by everything in the Heavens above, and the Earth that they would convert the rebel States into a wilderness.”

These were the comments of elected federal officials speaking on the floor of the United States Congress before any state seceded.

3/22/1861 The economic editor of the New York Times said,
“At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce, and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States.”

"The enemy" was the aggressor. The enemy was Lincoln.

[PeaRidge]

Apologies in advance for excessive use of bandwidth, but very few really have been exposed to what happened in South Carolina in 1865 at the hands of someone purported to:

"Sherman's view of the South itself,... He especially loved his time in the deep south."

Here is the real truth:

On February 17 (1865) at 3 a.m., a Union brigade was finally ferried across the river and with daylight began advancing on Columbia under the command of Colonel George Stone.59 The morning was “bright and beautiful”, but the soldiers were water-soaked and muddied, “having neither sleep nor breakfast.”60 Engineers immediately began laying pontoons for a bridge while Generals Sherman, Howard, Blair, Logan and Hazen watched from a high bluff.61

At 10 o’clock, just as the pontoon bridge was being completed62, the city’s mayor and several other prominent citizens met Colonel Stone outside the city to surrender Columbia. They received assurances that the city would be unharmed63 a promise later reaffirmed by Sherman with the exception of some public government buildings.64 At 10:30, Sherman led the rest of his occupying force across the bridge and headed straight for the city.65 At 11 a.m., as Stone’s leading brigade entered Columbia on its main street66, the last of Hampton’s men departed67 leaving a defenseless city of women, children and old men.

All the stores in Columbia, some of which had been looted by Confederate soldiers the previous night68, were closely built up for one mile down the city’s main street 69, which leads to the old capital building and the new one under construction beside it.

Bales of cotton were placed down the middle of Main Street by Confederate forces in anticipation of an order to burn them so as to keep the cotton out of Union hands. While the order never came, some bales were reported smoldering or on fire as Sherman’s troops entered the city. These were quickly controlled by Columbia residents.70 There were no fires of significance when the city was surrendered.71

The Stars and Stripes were raised over the State House dome and on top of the uncompleted State House, while “a heavy detail of men…was placed on patrol duty”.72

“We have conquered and occupy the capital of the haughty state that instigated and forced forward the treason, which has brought on this desolating war. The city which was to have been the capital of the Confederacy if Lee and the rebel hosts had been driven from Richmond is now overrun by Northern Soldiers.”—Major George Ward Nichols73

David P. Conyngham, Union army correspondent for the New York Herald, described Columbia. “It was famed for its fine public buildings, its magnificent private residences, with their lovely flower gardens, which savored of Oriental ease and luxury. It is hard to conceive of a city more beautifully situated, or more gorgeously embellished, with splendidly shaded walks and drives, with flowers, shrubberies, and plantations…Most of its stores and public buildings were of brick, while most of the private residences were framed, neatly painted, with piazzas hanging with plants and creepers….unsurpassed in the elegance of their finish, the beauty of their grounds, and the luxury seemed to pervade the place.”74

Conyngham witnessed Sherman’s entrance into Columbia. “General Sherman, accompanied by several other generals, their staffs and orderlies, forming a brilliant cavalcade, rode into the city amidst a scene of the most enthusiastic excitement. Ladies crowded the windows and balconies, waving banners and handkerchiefs…Negroes were grouped along the streets, cheering, singing, and dancing in the wild exuberance of their new-born freedom…Ringing cheers and shouts echoed far and wide, mingled with the martial music of the bands as they played ‘Hail, Columbia,’ ‘Yankee Doodle,’ and other national airs. It was, indeed, an exciting scene…”75

“The discipline of the soldiers, upon their first entry into the city, was perfect and most admirable. There was no disorder or irregularity on the line of march, showing that their officers had them completely in hand. They were a fine looking body of men, mostly young and of vigorous formation, well clad and shod, seemingly wanting for nothing…But, if the entrance into town and while on duty, was indicative of admirable drill and discipline, such ceased to be the case the moment the troops were dismissed.”— Columbia resident James Gibbes76

“This city was full of whisky and wine, and the colored people who swarmed the streets, set it out on the sidewalks by the barrel with the heads knocked in and tin cups provided; bottles and demijohns were passed liberally to the troops passing through the city to camp quarters.”—Private John C. Arbuckle77

As General Howard, whose troops were in charge of the city, established headquarters in a house near the university and went to sleep, General Sherman occupied a house not far away on the east side of town.78 Both were some distance from the troops who had taken over the streets of the city.

Until now Columbia residents had hoped that their fate would be much like Savannah’s where there had been no great destruction of personal property.79 That hope quickly faded in the afternoon hours.

“Our first trouble came about an hour after the entrance, when two horsemen rode into the yard, and came into the house, saying they had come to look for arms….they ransacked the house and helped themselves to all the small things they fancied.…At last they rode off, assuring us that they would call again. ”—Harriott H. Ravenel80

“About 2 to 3 P.M. the soldiers began breaking into the stores and banks…the plunder and destruction of valuable property was beyond description…I was passing the Bank of Charleston and the Commercial Bank of Columbia and found a squad of about fifty soldiers breaking them open and loading themselves with silver to the extent of their ability to carry….Every store in the city was sacked…there was a marked air of absence from all restraint and control.”— James Gibbes81

Out of fear for their property, residents began requesting Union guards for their homes and many were granted their requests.82 Even the Ursuline Convent on Main Street, after repeated personal assurances of safety by Sherman and just as adamant warnings of doom by Union soldiers, finally requested and received guards from the general.83





At dark, the night of terror began. As the signal officers of Sherman’s divisions shot off rockets in standard practice to show their locations, fires began to break out all over the city and neighborhoods.87 Soldiers carried pots and vessels of turpentine, kerosene or other flammable liquid in which they dipped balls of cotton, lit them and flung the fire balls over and under houses.88 The troops charged with patrolling the streets did nothing to stop the rioting.89

“The streets were crowded with murdering groups of demons from all the corps in the army.”—David Conyngham 90

“The boys…were spreading the conflagration by firing the city in a hundred places.”—Captain S.H.M. Byers91

“Universal license to burn and plunder was the order of the day.” —Union Officer Thomas G. Myers92

“Such an awful sight! The…street filled with a throng of men, drunken, dancing, shouting, cursing wretches, every one bearing a tin torch or a blazing lightwood knot. The sky so dark a half hour before, was already glowing with light, and flames were rising in every direction.”—Harriott H. Ravenel93

Sherman, who had just finished supper at his headquarters, stepped out into the yard, “saw the darkness lit up with the lurid hue of conflagration” and remarked, “They have brought it on themselves.”94



The fierce wind, which had been blowing since about two that afternoon, was helping to spread the fire, making “a tornado of flame”. Most efforts to stop the fire were futile.97 However, the area around General Howard’s headquarters, including the buildings on the college campus being used as hospitals, was saved by the work of Union soldiers and hospital workers.98

Pillaging continued throughout the city. Women and men, black and white were robbed of their valuables at gun and knife point.99 Black women were raped.100

Soldiers pulled children about their beds while plunging long knives repeatedly between them into the mattresses looking for hidden treasures.101 Outside, hundreds of men were “probing the ground with their bayonets or iron ramrods, searching for buried treasures.”102

“Such a scene…drunken soldiers, rushing from house to house, emptying them of their valuables, and then firing them…”—David Conyngham103

“A crowd had burst in and … spread themselves over everything, and from that time until morning a roaring stream of drunkards poured thought the house, plundering and raging, and yet in a way curiously civil and abstaining from personal insult.”—Harriott H. Ravenel104

The streets were now also full of terrified women, children and old men seeking safety in the park, lunatic asylum and other open places to avoid the “devouring fire”.105

“Many wandered about wringing their hands and crying; some sat stolid and speechless in the street watching everything that they had go to destruction.” –Captain S.H.M. Byers106

“Shrieks, groans, and cries of distress resounded from every side. Men, women, and children, some half naked, as they rushed from their beds, were running frantically about.”—David Conyngham107

“It was a most fearful night…The illumination was more brilliant than I am able to describe…Not only the glare of the flames, but the millions of sparks and cinders that filled the air all helped to make an illumination that far surpassed the brightness of day….The storm of fire…raged with unabated fury.”—James Gibbes108

At about 11 p.m., the students and most of the nuns at the Ursuline Convent fled to a nearby church. “We marched through the blazing streets with the precision of a military band….Father O’Connell led the procession, a crucifix held high above his head. The main body of nuns followed…then the pupils, the smaller between the larger for protection. Not a cry; not a moan. Even the drunken soldiers seemed silenced for a little while by this grand sight of Church triumphing over War! The roaring of the fire, the scorching flames on either side as we marched down Blanding Street…”—Sara Aldrich Richardson109

Midnight came and a brigade of Union troops south of the city was finally sent into the streets to arrest disorderly soldiers and citizens. About 2500 men were arrested “including officers of nearly every grade…”110 Because he did not have a pass, even Captain Byers, who had been helping a family escape the fire, was taken into custody.111 Other soldiers, like Private Abruckle who was aiding citizens in the streets reach safety, were allowed to remain in the city to help.112

Yet, the pillaging and burning continued by men “ruder and fiercer.”113

The guards assigned to the Ursuline Convent began their own rampage of the building forcing the remaining nuns to leave. “Fire was falling so thick that it burned the veils and dresses of the nuns on their way to join their sisters in the graveyard” of the church nearby.114

“About two o’clock in the morning, the house behind ours, and the one across the street, burnt down, and ours seemed in such danger that we took the four little children, whom we had kept in bed, and my mother took them across the street into the academy square, where many burnt-out people had taken refuge.”—Harriott H. Ravenel115

About 3 a.m., the cross above the Convent fell116 and an hour later the winds subsided.117 Then with the light, reveille sounded and the soldiers remaining in the city immediately returned to their ranks.118

"The 18th of February dawned upon a city of ruins…Nothing remained but the tall, spectre-looking chimneys. The noble-looking trees that shaded the streets, the flower gardens that graced them, were blasted and withered by fire. The streets were full of rubbish, broken furniture and groups of crouching, desponding, weeping, helpless women and children….That long street of rich stores, the fine hotels, the court-houses, the extensive convent buldings, and last the old capitol, where the order of secession was passed…were all in one heap of unsightly ruins and rubbish.” –David Conyngham119

“Groups of men, women, and children were gathered in the streets and squares, huddled together over a trunk, a mattress, or a bundle of clothes.” –Major George Ward Nichols120

“The city was a scene of smoldering ruin.”—Private John C. Arbuckle121

“Around the charred ruin of their homes were grouped whole families, mourning and weeping over the terrible desolation. Who could see it and not feel that Justice had been avenged in this great curse on the city.”—Captain S.H.M. Byers122

“The truth is, last night our men got beyond our control.” –General Oliver Howard123

“I have never doubted that Columbia was deliberately set on fire in more than a hundred places.”—General William B. Hazen124

On the morning of February 20, Sherman’s army marched out of Columbia leaving behind 500 head of cattle in poor condition to feed the 7000 remaining residents.125 All public property surviving the fire had been destroyed except for the new capitol under construction, which Major George Ward Nichols thought was because it was such a beautiful work of art.126 “The capital building is far from completion, but, if ever finished, it will be the most beautiful architectural creation in this country.”127

Leaving with Sherman were thousands of refugees. “Old men, women and children, blacks and whites, rich and poor, on foot, with packs of every conceivable kind.”128

Private John C. Arbuckle--“In the parks and other vacant places were gathered multitudes of the destitute and homeless. Truly it was a scene of appalling distress and suffering…As our columns went by, the people gave vigorous expression to their desire for revenge, hissed and hooted, called us vile names, swore at us, spit upon us, not a few of the women undertook to lay violent hands upon us. While we could not seriously blame them for their abusive words and acts, being mainly innocent sufferers; nevertheless, here was the spot where they had sown the wind, and now at last had come the whirlwind.”129

Major George Ward Nichols--“Columbia will have bitter cause to remember the visit of Sherman’s army. Even if peace and prosperity soon return to the land, not in this generation nor the next—no, not for a century—can this city or the state recover from the deadly blow which has taken its life. It is not alone in the property that has been destroyed…that the most blasting, withering blow has fallen. It is in the crushing downfall of their inordinate vanity, their arrogant pride, that the rebels will feel the effects of the visit of our army.”130

[Badeye]

I'm familiar with this portrayal of what happened. Doesn't change my posts regarding Sherman in the least. Sherman did acknowledge the ongoing problem of keeping the troops under control, especially in South Carolina given it was the first state to leave the Union.

The fact remains Sherman's letters from prior to the war, during the war, and after the war reflect a man in conflict with himself and his own views of the South in general.

btw, I also completely understand the view of my friends south of the Mason Dixon when the topic is Sherman. I probably wouldn't feel charitable towards the man that gutted the South if the positions were reversed. But there is no denying the dozens of letters which demonstrate what his thoughts were during this time frame.

I

[Polybius]

What part of "on the average" do you have trouble understanding?

None. What I'm saying is there is really no difference when considering rural vs rural. Do you have something against me adding to your point?

You haven't "added" anything. You are just perpetuating your apparent lack of understanding of "on the average".

The number of liberals in New York, Massachusetts and New England overwhelm the number of conservatives you may have in Indiana and Ohio.

Yes but to say a southern citizen is better than a northern citizen is misleading.

I never said that. I mentioned that the Northern population, "on the average" and in absolute numbers is more liberal than the Southern population.

I went to a conference in San Fransico last month so, for three days, I was included in the day to day population of San Francisco. The fact that I was not gay or far left-wing in my politics did not change the fact that, on the average, the poulation of San Francisco is more gay and far left wing than any other city I have ever spent three days in.

Your point is that there is no difference in the population of San Francisco considering straight conservatives vs gay ultra-liberals.

You insist on comparing individual apples with orange populations.