I have said that [Claims of damage by Sherman's troops are overblown]. And considering some of the claims made around here - every structure burned, every farm field salted, womes stolen, horses raped - it isn't hard to do.
I guess whether damage on civilian items was excessive or overblown depends on your point of view. Every building wasn't burned, everything was not stolen or broken, etc., but the damage was quite extensive. You should have tried your statement out on my now deceased Georgia in-laws, whose parents and grandparents had seen Sherman's troops come through their farms.
Your statement in the following post started a long chain of posts about damage by Northern soldiers. [Link]
To: Wampus SC
There sure were a lot of pictures of the damage alleged to have been done by Sherman's troops. Who faked those pictures? And how? And when?
No, Sherman's army did a great deal of damage to industrial targets like factories, storehouses, railroad facilities, cotton gins, and the like. Items that supported the confederate war effort. What seems to have been badly overblown over the years are claims of damage to purely civilian properties.
387 posted on 01/20/2005 5:12:45 PM CST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
There followed a long series of posts describing documented damage by Federal troops in various places. Here's one focusing mainly on damage by Sherman's troops using the words of Federal commanders in the Official Records. I'll leave the bold red font off in the following two posts since much of the screen would be red.
To: Non-Sequitur
I'll expand on my quote from Jacob Hoke of Chambersburg, PA:
The three gentlemen from whom I have quoted - Early, Imboden, and Slingluff, - refer to the humane manner in which General Lee conducted his campaign in Pennsylvania in 1863, and claim that no wanton destruction of private property was made. This is freely admitted. With the exception of the railroad buildings in Chambersburg, and one or two buildings on the field of Gettysburg, no houses or barns were destroyed. Private property was taken for the use of the army, but, except in a few cases by stragglers, the regulations of seizure laid down by General Lee in general orders No. 72, and issued specially for the Pennsylvania campaign, were strictly observed.With respect to your post of Sherman's orders, let's look at the actions of some of his soldiers in Georgia and the Carolinas. Union commanders weren't very effective at curbing looting, burning, etc.
Col. Acker, 9th Michigan Cavalry, Dec 19, 1864: "During that day we marched thirty-nine miles and took six prisoners. 20th, Companies B, C, and D, being detached for a scout to Griswold Station in charge of Captain Ladd, meeting the enemy, but keeping them at bay, burned the town, destroying the railroad, cutting the telegraph wire, burned a train of cars."
General Howard (Union) to General Sherman, Dec. 28, 1864: "I regret to say that quite a number of private dwellings which the inhabitants have left, have been destroyed by fire, but without official sanction; also, many instances of the most inexcusable and wanton acts, such as the breaking open of trunks, taking of silver plate, &c."
Brevet Major General Williams (Union) to the Twentieth Corps, Robertsville, SC, Jan. 31, 1865: "The indiscriminate pillage of houses is disgraceful and demoralizing to this Army. The houses in this vicinity, of free negroes even, have been stripped of the necessary bedclothes and of family apparel. Brigade commanders will at once take measures to put a stop to these infamous practices. ... The brevet Major-general commanding the corps expects the hearty co-operation of all officers to put a stop to practices disgraceful to our arms and shocking to humanity."
General Sherman, Feb 1865: "Vacant houses being of no use to anybody, I care little about, as the owners have thought them of no use to themselves. I don't want them destroyed, but do not take much care to preserve them."
Gen. Howard (Union), Feb. 9, 1865, General Field Orders No. 9, issued near Binnaker's Bridge, SC: "The attention of the general commanding has been called by officers of our own army to the wanton and indiscriminate destruction of private property, burning of dwelling houses, plundering and pillaging the houses of the few poor people who have remained at home ..."453 posted on 01/21/2005 2:16:13 PM CST by rustbucket [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Non-Sequitur
Thaddeus Stevens' iron mill was a legitimate military target as were any supplies in it. As far as the looting of mill worker homes, if it occurred as you say it did, it shouldn't have happened. I gather such looting was not widespread, unlike the looting and burning by Northern troops in the South that I've been documenting in these posts to you.
Here are some more instances of the behavior of Northern soldiers:
Major General Gillmore (Union) to General Hatch (Union), South Carolina, Mar. 1, 1865: "I hear from all sides very discouraging accounts of the state of affairs in Charleston; that no restraint is put upon the soldiers; that they pilfer and rob houses at pleasure; that large quantities of valuable furniture, pictures, statuary, mirrors, &c., have mysteriously disappeared ..."
General Howard (Union), Brightsville, SC, to General Logan (Union), Mar. 7, 1865: "General Blair reports that every house in his line of march to-day was pillaged, trunks broken open, jewelry, silver, &c., taken."
General Logan (Union) to General Howard (Union), January 7 - March 31, 1865 report: "In accordance with your Field Order, Numbers 29, I moved the corps from McPhersonville to Hickory Hill, breaking camp at 7 a.m. Before the rear of my column passed through McPhersonville I regret to inform you that the village was in flames. This was doubtlessly induced by the desertion of their houses by the entire population, for on our entrance into the village not a human being was to be found."
General Howard (Union), Field Orders No. 175, November 22, 1864: "The crime of robbery and arson have become frequent throughout this army."Your turn.
468 posted on 01/21/2005 4:32:44 PM CST by rustbucket [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
You correctly pointed out to me once that the Charleston looting wasn't done by Sherman's troops. You were right. They were General Gilmore's troops (Union).
I recently made a copy from the old newspapers of an extensive report by Louisiana officials after the war documenting pillage, robbery, etc, by Federal troops there. It took many issues of the paper to cover it. Each issue usually had two to three 30-inch long columns of small print about this barbarity, some of it by officers. Even I was amazed. Much of it probably came about from the opportunity for mischief afforded army troops who were staying in enemy territory, but unfortunately it really appeared to be a systemic problem with the Union army.
I was wondering how you were going to spin this one. Yes, it depends on your point of view. To the civilian who had his gin burned and his larder emptied then no doubt Sherman's men were the second coming of the Huns. And I am sure that you can come up with any number of individual accounts of damage. What will that prove? The complete truth no doubt lies somewhere between your claim of mass destruction and my belief that Sherman's men targeted primarily military, government, industrial, or transportation targets. So what do we do now?