BroJoeK's posts are always deceptive. The burning of Chambersburg was in retaliation for General Hunter's nighmarish terror in Virginia, only, in this case, the city of Chambersburg had an option, which the citizens of Virginia did not. Read carefully:
"July 28, 1864, [Confederate] General Early sent for [Brigadier General] McCausland to come to his headquarters at Martinsburg to explain to him orders which he was preparing for a raid into Pennsylvania. According to instructions McCausland was to take his brigade, General Bradley T. Johnson's, and Captain William G. McNutty's battery, totaling in all about 4,000 men, and proceed by way of Clear Spring and Mercersburg to Chambersburg. There he was to deliver a proclamation to the people demanding $100,000 in gold or $500,000 in greenbacks, in retaliation for damages done by [Union General] Hunter in the Valley of Virginia. If the people of Chambersburg refused, fifty of their leading citizens were to be arrested and their town was to be burned..."
"The burning of Chambersburg has been talked about a great deal and I have received my share (and more too) of abuse from the Federal side. I now [June 15, 1872] say that it was an act of war and such a one as recognized by all nations. Lextalionis is one of the rules of war and this comes clearly under the rule."
"[Union General] Hunter had gone into the valley and had done everything imaginable. Houses had been destroyed, leaving helpless women and children homeless and without shelter; furniture and bedding cut to pieces; old and young had been robbed of everything except the clothes they wore; families were left without a morsel of food. The scenes of want and misery were indescribable.... In retaliation for these acts, by Early's orders, I burned Chambersburg. I have no apology to make. My conscience is clear."
"[Union Generals] Sherman, Sheridan, and Hunter have been applauded for their depredations; for his McCausland has been unjustly condemned throughout the years, though [Union] General Grant justified him, saying:
"I have held and have so recorded my views officially, in substance, that the parole taken by officers and soldiers who were engaged in rebellion against the government, exempted them from trial or punishment for all acts of war, recognized by civilized governments, by order of their recognized superiors, so long as they observe, in good faith, the terms of their parole…"
"I would have been fully justified, by the laws of retaliation in war, in burning the town without giving the inhabitants the opportunity of redeeming it. For this act I alone am responsible, as the officers engaged in it were simply executing my orders and had no discretion left them. Notwithstanding the lapse of time which has occurred and the result of the war, I see no reason to regret my conduct."
[James Earl Brown, "Life of Brigadier General John McCausland." 1943]
Being justified by the words of General Grant is not usually something to be proud of, but, in this case, they tend to both clear the record of the Confederate, and expose the records of the Unionists.
Now you know why my Rule-of-Thumb is to never, ever believe a word BroJoeK says.
Mr. Kalamata
This is funny to a historian almost a comical mischaracterization "I assume by that is meant the people who plundered & burned their way through Union cities from Chambersburg, Pennsylvania to Lawrence, Kansas"
Confederate infantry in the Army of NoVa were required to stack arms in camp and when going to any towns nearby the encampment only the officers were armed ( too shoot any looters ). This was a standing order carried out even when in Union territory.