Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rustbucket
You opened the subject of supposedly overblown accounts of Union depredations on civilian properties.

The original topic was Shermans campaign in Georgia and the southron claim of mass devistation, starvation, murder, pillaging, etc., etc. And there is considerable evidence to support the claim that the destruction of homes and looting of personal property has been way, way overblown. Was there destruction? Yes, since Sherman's goal was to remove Georgia's ability to support the war effort. And even your clip from Augusta paper supports the fact that it was that support that was the target of Sherman's actions. Medicine taken, which could support the confederate army. Livestock taken or destroyed, keeping it from being used by the confederate army. Gins burned, weakening the economy and its ability to support the confederate army.

Was there destruction visited upon the south? Yes. War is hard on civilian, always has been. The people of the south paid the price for their leaders actions, just as the civilains of every war have from Iraq in this century back to biblical time. Was the devestation worst in the south? Certainly, since that was where the bulk of the fighting was. But as confederate actions on the few times they campaigned in the North shows, similar actions were visited on the North. Had the confederates spent more time in the north then the damage would no doubt have been much worse. So if the North escaped the looting and the burning and the foraging it's because they didn't give the confederates the chance to do it.

442 posted on 01/21/2005 5:51:13 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
I don't doubt there were individuals in the Confederate armies who may have looted and destroyed enemy homes. But I have pointed out to you two Northern acknowledgments that two different Confederate invasions of the North had been relatively free of that.

Why was there this difference in behavior? A key difference was the leadership from their commanders. Union generals decried the behavior of their troops on many occasions but the instances of looting, marauding, and destruction were so widespread that they don't seem to have been very effective at stopping it. However, the moral authority of someone like Lee and the character of the regular Southern soldier seems to have made a difference.

Here is an example of Northern leadership from the Official Records:

HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF WEST VIRGINIA,
In the Field, at Rude's Hill, Va., May 30, 1864.

Major T. QUINN,
Commanding First New York Cavalry:

MAJOR: You will detail from your command 200 men, with the proper complement of commissioned officers, to proceed to Newtown to-morrow morning at 3 o'clock, for the purpose of burning every house, store, and out-building in that place, except the churches and the houses and out-buildings of those who are known to be loyal citizens of the United States. You will also burn the houses, &c., of all rebels between Newtown and Middletown. You will spare the house and premises of Dr. Owens, at Newtown, he having been very kind to our wounded soldiers; and where the burning of the house or out-buildings of the rebel shall not be burned. You will report back to these headquarters, making a written report of the expedition.

This by command of the major-general commanding [Hunter]:

I am, major, very obediently, yours,
[P. G. BIER,]
Assistant Adjutant-General.
And here is contrasting one from the South.

GENERAL ORDERS, Numbers 73. HDQRS. ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA, Chambersburg, Pa. June 27, 1863.

The commanding general has observed with marked satisfaction the conduct of the troops on the march, and confidently anticipates results commensurate with the high spirit they have manifested.

No troops could have displayed greater fortitude or better performed the arduous marches of the past ten days.

Their conduct in other respects has, with few exceptions, been in keeping with their character as soldiers, and entitles them to approbation and praise.

There have, however, been instances of forgetfulness, on the part of some, that they have in keeping the yet unsullied reputation of the army, and that the duties exacted of us by civilization and Christianity are not less obligatory in the country of the enemy than in our own.

The commanding general considers that no greater disgrace could befall the army, and through it our whole people, than the perpetration of the barbarous outrages upon the unarmed and defenseless and the wanton destruction of private property, that have marked the course of the enemy in our own country.

Such proceedings not only degrade the perpetrators and all connected with them, but are subversive of the discipline and efficiency of the army, and destructive of the ends of our present movement.

It must be remembered that we make war only upon armed men, and that we cannot take vengeance for the wrongs our people have suffered without lowering ourselves in the eyes of all whose abhorrence has been excited by the atrocities of our enemies, and offending against Him to whom vengeance belongeth, without whose favor and support our efforts must all prove in vain.

The commanding general therefore earnestly exhorts the troops to abstain with most scrupulous care from unnecessary or wanton injury to private property, and he enjoins upon all officers to arrest and bring to summary punishment all who shall in any way offend against the orders on this subject.

R. E. LEE, General.

450 posted on 01/21/2005 9:14:18 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson