This takes me back to some of the very the first posts we exchanged. Here was one of mine to you. Real reason shown in blue:
To: Non-Sequitur
Let's see what the 1863 US Army instructions issued by Lincoln say about retribution:
Art. 27. The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation than can the law of nations, of which it is a branch. Yet civilized nations acknowledge retaliation as the sternest feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage.
Art. 28. Retaliation will, therefore, never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and moreover, cautiously and unavoidably; that is to say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence, and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution.Now let's see whether General Early's actions satisfy the US Army guidelines. Here are some words from Early reported in the Philadelphia Age at the time:
I was very reluctant, and it was a most disagreeable duty, to inflict such damage on these citizens; but I deemed it an imperative necessity to show the people of the Federal States that war has two sides. I hope and believe it has had, and will have a good effect. I saw with much pleasure, since then, an able article in the National Intelligencer, which called upon the north to consider gravely whether such a mode of warfare as they had inaugurated is likely to yield a success commensurate to its cost.As regards your claim of bad actions by Lee's troops in Pennsylvania, I imagine there might have been a few instances of pillage. There was certainly normal foraging to support the army, a standard feature of warfare from both sides. However, I take the word of the Chambersburg resident whose report I cited earlier that Lee's troops were not generally known to have committed many outrages. If there had been wanton destruction by Lee's forces, as there was by Hunter's, the Union propagandists of the time would have never stopped talking about it:
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. But while the comparative good conduct of the Confederates in Pennsylvania is admitted, it must also be remembered that there was no bushwhacking of them, nor depredations committed upon their trains.671 posted on 9/4/02 11:12 AM Central by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 661 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Since posting that, I've learned from the Official Records that in fact there was bushwacking against the Confederates on this expedition. And, more importantly, as a result of Chambersburg, Lincoln almost banned house and town burning by the Union army. At the very least, Chambersburg made the latter day vandals and visigoths from the North think twice. So, Early almost met his objective of stopping the burning of Southern houses and towns.
Burning Chambersburg caused roughly the same economic damage (2 million dollars) in Chambersburg that Union General Hunter had earlier caused to civilian property in the Shenandoah Valley. Hunter damaged a thousand homes and left a 60-mile path of destruction in the Valley that I documented on that thread.
Your 'couple of houses and VMI' comment followed my post above.
And the ransom demand? When all is said and done could VMI and the valley not be the real reasons after all? It was simply a failed extortion?
And I believe that no army [that of the CSA] was ever composed of men more thoroughly imbued with moral principle. As a rule, they were men who recognized the obligation to be just and honest and merciful, and to respect the rights of others, even in time of war. Never flinching from conflict with armed foemen, their moral training and disposition forbade them to make war upon the weak and defenceless. To their everlasting honor stands the fact that in their march through the enemy's country they left behind them no fields wantonly laid waste, no families cruelly robbed of subsistence, no homes ruthlessly violated. "In no case," says an English writer, "had the Pennsylvanians to complain of personal injury, or even discourtesy, at the hands of those whose homes they had burned, whose families they had insulted, robbed and tormented. Even the tardy destruction of Chambersburg was an act of regular, limited and righteous reprisal." The Pennsylvania farmer, whose words were reported by a Northern correspondent, paid to the Southern troops no more than a merited tribute when he said of them: "I must say they acted like gentlemen, and, their cause aside, I would rather have 40,000 rebels quartered on my premises than 1,000 Union troops."
Southern Historical Society Papers, R. A Brock, ed., Richmond, VA: Southern Historical Society, Vol XXII, 1894, pp. 368-9
From the journal of Colonel Freemantle, an English officer accompanying the Southern army, we take these sentences:
"In passing through Greencastle we found all the houses and windows shut up, the natives in their Sunday clothes, standing at their doors regarding the troops in a very unfriendly manner. I saw no straggling into the houses, nor were any of the inhabitants disturbed or annoyed by the soldiers. Sentries were placed at the doors of many of the best houses, to prevent any officer or soldier from getting in on any pretence.... I entered Chambersburg at 6 P.M.... Sentries were placed at the doors of all the principal houses, and the town was cleared of all but the military passing through or on duty.... No officer or soldier under the rank of a general is allowed in Chambersburg without a special order from General Lee, which he is very chary of giving, and I hear of officers of rank being refused this pass.... I went into Chambersburg again, and witnessed the singularly good behavior of the troops toward the citizens. I heard soldiers saying to one another that they did not like being in a town in which they were very naturally detested. To any one who has seen, as I have, the ravages of the Northern troops in Southern towns, this forbearance seems most commendable and surprising."A Northern correspondent said of the course pursued by General Jenkins, in command of Ewell's cavalry: "By way of giving the devil his due, it must be said that, although there were over sixty acres of wheat and eighty acres of corn and oats in the same field, he protected it most carefully, and picketed his horses so that it could not be injured. No fences were wantonly destroyed, poultry was not disturbed, nor did he compliment our blooded cattle so much as to test the quality of their steak and roast."
Of the feeling of the troops these few words from the letter of an officer written to one of his family will convey an idea: "I felt when I first came here that I would like to revenge myself upon these people for the devastation they have brought upon our own beautiful home--that home where we could have lived so happily, and that we loved so much, from which their vandalism has driven you and my helpless little ones. But, though I had such severe wrongs and grievances to redress, and such great cause for revenge, yet, when I got among these people, I could not find it in my heart to molest them."
Such was the treatment of the people of Pennsylvania by the Southern troops in obedience to the order of the commander-in-chief. Lee in person set the example. A Southern journal made the sarcastic statement that he became irate at the robbing of cherry-trees; and, if he saw the top rail of a fence lying upon the ground as he rode by, would dismount and replace it with his own hands.
Ibid., pp. 292-294
NOTE. This article, published in the Baltimore American, March 28, 1909, and written by Lieut. Fielder C. Slingluff, who was a member of the First Maryland Cavalry, C. S. A., and is now a prominent lawyer, citizen, clubman and churchman of Baltimore, Md., was sent for publication by Captain Frederick M. Colston, of the same place. The letter, beside the following: "As an act of simple justice and for historical accuracy, I ask you to publish this, as an addenda to the Rev. Dr. Seibert's account of the burning of Chambersburg," contained a clipping from the Baltimore Sun of April 26, 1909, as follows: "Sheridan, like Sherman, indulged his proclivities for pillage and destruction only after the last vestige of Confederate military organization had vanished from his front, and it was on a people incapable of armed resistance that vengeance was wreaked. Some idea of the pitiless and wanton devastation wrought in the valley may be gathered from the report of a committee appointed just after the close of the hostilities by the county court of Rockingfham to estimate the havoc inflicted on the property of noncombatants under Sheridan's orders in that county alone:"Dwellings burned, 36; barns burned, 450; mills burned, 31; fences destroyed (miles), 100; bushels of wheat destroyed, 100,000; bushels of corn destroyed, 50,000; tons of hay destroyed, 6,233; cattle carried off, 1,750 head; horses and hogs carried off, 3,350 head; factories burned, 3; furnace burned, 1. In addition, there was an immense amount of farming utensils of every description destroyed, many of them of great value, such as reapers and threshing machines, also household and kitchen furniture, and money, bonds, plate, etc., pillaged.