After General Sherman’s destructive march through Georgia at the end of 1864, he turned his army north to the Carolinas. When they reached Columbia, the capital of South Carolina, in mid-February 1865, the Union troops found the Confederates forces already evacuating.
According to Sherman, there was no plan to burn Columbia, aside from destroying strategic locations such as public buildings, railroad depots, and factories. Apparently, when his occupying soldiers entered the city, they found the Confederates had left bales of cotton burning in the city streets, which—when combined with gusting winds—were a disaster waiting to happen. But however the fires began, the fact remains that on the 17th and into the 18th, Columbia burned in a vast conflagration.
Although there were attempts to extinguish the fires, the situation was exacerbated by Union soldiers who looted the town and spread the fire, drunk on the widely available liquor and full of animosity toward the state seen as the “cradle of secession.” (For this lawless behavior, 370 soldiers were arrested.) When the fires died down on the 18th, Columbia was a city in ashes: as much as two-thirds of the city had been destroyed.
Sherman’s army pulled out on the 20th to continue north on its campaign. Sherman later remarked on the destruction of Columbia that “Though I never ordered it, and never wished it, I have never shed any tears over it, because I believed that it hastened what we all fought for—the end of the war.”
I take STRONG EXCEPTION to some of the statements made in Trevor’s article. In her article “Sherman’s War on Civilians in SC,” (Jan/Feb 2015 issue of “Confederate Veteran” magazine) Karen Stokes writes, quoting Robert Wilson, an Episcopal clergyman that “About dusk I saw three sky-rockets, red, white, and blue, go up. I asked one of the guards what that meant. He shook his head, and said, “Don’t ask me; you will know soon enough.” “In a very short time I saw fires springing up all around the City [of Columbia, S.C.]. I believe all of the evidence taken together proves beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that Sherman knew his troops intended to – and did – burn down the City of Columbia; that he heartily approved of this wholesale destruction of an American city that was now totally occupied, defenseless, and at his mercy.
I understand how it might be perceived that way. Similarly, that the Civil War was fought over taxes and “states rights”.
William… You are very correct. For 150 years now the Gubment that commited genocide has been doing everthing in its power to brain wash everyone and every new generation on what the war was actually about.
I am glad it seems you are not one who has been fooled. Ciao
We’re still fighting the civil war. Though the names have changed and the sides re-identified largely, the same useless arguments continue on to plague us in 2015. Voices of succession still sound the memory of southern recalcitrance and the racial hatred of some Americans wont seem to die out. The unity of the United States is still in peril and the notion of “One Nation Under God” is the new Dream.
Ferdinand Toval . Are you a former US Marine who served in D Co 3dMT Bn,, 3dMarDiv in 1957-8 timeframe at Camp Fuji, Japan? I was a young lieutenant who served with a man with a similar name. If that is you would you please contact me./// Mike McGrady, USMC retired
Racial Hatred? This is another example of some mindless “Libtard” automatically ascribing “racial hatred” to anyone that believes in freedom from an oppressive Federal Government. My friend, you have been brainwashed very well and don’t even know it. And as far as the “useless arguments” go, what would you propose that the middle class in America do? Just go ahead and cease to insist that our freedoms be restored? Just go ahead and surrender? Good Grief!!! In light of the Socialist/Communist take over of our nation in the last 150 years since the South lost it’s war for independence, it appears that another attempt at succession might be the only viable alternative. You sure as heck aren’t going to see any change by voting for Republicrats or Demopublicans … they are both one in the same.
The notion that our Civil War was fought over taxes and states rights is at best a blind view of reality and at worst a semantic cover of what actually happened. Understanding fully slavery was favored by some on both sides and both were guilty of incredible atrocities the south fought to preserve a way of life based on slave labor, the ownership of human beings. The most obvious changes in our country after the war were 1), we were a country and not just a group of states and 2) slavery was outlawed forever. We as a country, the USA won the war and we’re better because of it. It would be nice if we could just accept that now and move on.
You William are so very wrong . I had 17 ancestor who fought for the confederacy not a single one owned a slave they were to poor among other things.out of a hundred confederate troops on average only six were slave owners.
Do you really think the other 94 would take a chance on dying so six rich guys could own slaves? After the first battle the whole army would have quit
Saying the South seceded because of their want to keep slavery is just like saying a wife wants to leave her husband not because he beats her but because she wants to keep smoking and he don’t like it. It is just moronic. The south was not so stupid to believe that with the advent of the industrial age that slavery was going to prevail… Duh, they were about money so they knew there was more money in machinery.
Here are some facts you are not aware of or simply prefer to IGNORE. The northern press & politicians pursued the belief since The South was an agrarian society w/limited industry & universities, we were sub-human.
Just like today, National press, unchallenged,
will and does attempt to manipulate the truth.
If you are galvanized to accept that same old song, you will remain locked in the same mindset of those years. The southern states rebelled against the heavy hand of pompous
politicians whom perceived themselves better than poor southerners. Their prejudice against poor, hard scrabble people is what ignited the ire of proud people. Slavery wasn’t even a consideration-! How can an intelligent, thinking person accept the media lie, we fought so hard for rich people to keep nigger slaves is pure trash.! I ask you this simple question: Would you abandon your wife, children, home, fortune to defend some rich persons ownership of other people?? He’ll no you would not and we did not do THAT either!!!! My Gosh, do you have the capacity to think for yourself.or are you also confined to the uninformed ignorance of 1860s??
i totally agree with you william. i am a u.s. historian , specialty the 19th century and i believe you are so right in the words you wrote. thank you for making that statemen. how long are we going to go on fighting a war that should never have been started and killed so many so horrifically. let us learn from our mistakes.
marla
If by “moving on” you mean putting our heads in the sand to hide, well you go right ahead. But you should look at the freedoms lost. It was a shame the only freedom seeking people left in this country at that time were in the southern rebellion. The propaganda of the press is not a recent occurrence.
Absolute nonsense.
The most obvious change was the wanton destruction of our Constitution. Wake up and smell the coffee… Open your eyes and ears… it is all around you.
Another beliver of the lie. Don’t read stuff that was wrote after the war. Go back and read the real history of how the north was keeping southern products from being sold overseas. How they didn’t want the south from buying cheaper products from England instead of from them. It was nothern greed that caused the war.
Not a single slave was brought over here by a southern ship. And when you check out the stock market next time just remember that slave trading is what started it all on Wall Street.
Lost Cause nonsense is apparently still alive and well among our commentators. Read a few books written in the last 40 years by professional historians, please.
Will the USA and Canada ever be at peace.
Both have much the same problem,
Both Countries have people that want to seperate.
Then let the oppressed peoples go their own way.
To anyone interested in what Sherman and his army did to South Carolina, the city of Columbia,and helpless civilians both black and white, I suggest you read “South Carolina Civilians in Sherman’s Path”. These are stories, in their own words, of survivors of Sherman’s wrath. These stories were collected by Karen Stokes and published in 2012 by the History Press in Charleston, SC. (www.historypress.net)
What so called “rights” was the South fighting for besides owning slaves???
Pam,
It is pretty well accepted, at least among those who have studied the causes of the War Between the States, that while slavery permeated the thinking of some Northerners (especially the so-called abolitionists), the war was not fought to free the slaves. It wasn’t until 1863, over two years after the war had begun, that Lincoln decided to issue his emancipation proclamation.
This edict only freed some of the slaves, and certainly not those in the border states and other places, if you will read what it says. You see, he could not afford to antagonize the border states where slavery existed, states which had not declared for the Confederacy, states that he wanted to keep in the Union. As a matter of fact, he stated many times during his campaign in 1860 for the presidency, that he had no intention or interest to freeing slaves.
(It is not my intention to give you a history lecture, but while the war ended up freeing slaves, one cannot go back and put slavery into the formula as to why the war was fought, as many history-challenged people do, people who seek simple answers to complex matters).
So the war was not fought to end slavery, but to keep the southern states in the Union by force of arms, or to ‘preserve the Union’, as Lincoln stated. And to do this, he called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South.
(But what about Ft. Sumter, you might cry. The South started it! Ah, that requires a longer answer than I have space for, and will not address it here. Lincoln had ample time and many opportunities to prevent the shelling of Sumter. He chose to refuse to negotiate that issue, and it is widely believed that in refusing to discuss the surrender of Sumter, he hoped Sumter would be fired upon, giving him an excuse for his invasion of Virginia (First Bull Run battle).
You state above that the southern soldiers were fighting for the right to own slaves, which is way too simplistic a view, plus being a wrong one. The southern soldier fought, first and foremost, because his country was invaded by an army, a more valid reason for him to fight than to keep slavery as a southern institution. As someone stated above, very few soldiers owned slaves. Some of the officers did, Northern as well as Southern.
Because Lincoln’s army was not faring very well against the Southern armies, and in fact, Union forces had pretty much lost every major battle up to then (1863), and the fact that Northerners were losing interest in continuing what was supposed to have been a quick little war, it was then that Lincoln injected a further aim to the war, and that was, in effect, to free the slaves (but only some of them).
I shall stop here, but I hope you will research the causes of the war, and why the South fought.
The so called right to continue their way of life that ALSO had nothing to do with slavery…. Don’t be an igno and make a statement that is clearly only the sheep teaching of your grade school civics class where they are paid to brain wash you not give you the facts so you can make up your own logical mind. The plain simple truth is the Southern people and its government on a whole had nothing to do with Keeping slavery in perpetual motion… They knew it was coming to an end, and so did the north, the north did not want the south to continue to more profitable in their way of life than they were and they saw the writing on the wall, if the South was to secede and continue on its way then the south would have been done and over the whole slavery thing within 10 to 15 years but also would have had a richer soil to produce goods. And also the North was worried that the Territories to the west would want to join the Confederacy not the fake Union of trader states. Please go seek the truth and then you will be free from the lies of Lincoln and his elite idiots.
To John….Wow… Now I am a happy person for a moment. I see there are those who have actually decided to find the truth and are not afraid to tell it. I have always wondered about those people who I get into a discussion with that somehow know so much about the War but I listen and discover they have never read one book about it, but are only yakking at the mouth about what they were tought in grade school and some little article they read 6 years ago or so… I at that point just tell them to go read a book, and point out Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s “The Real Lincoln” that book will shut up most anyone except those fools who are unwilling to admit they were wrong this whole time, you always have those. Thank you for knowing the truth, I’ve been a scholar of the “War between the States” for 30 years… Read over 300 books, both sides of the story and that my friend is how you what is real, the lie dies when you get all the facts. Ciao from an Italian midwest guy.
Share your utopian garbage w/your Muslim
nigger-!
Same reason that led to the revolt against
The British Crown and the Boston Tea Party-!
It’s known as over Taxation-!!!! Perhaps you have heard of it?????? Excuse me I should have known? You voted for Obama twice!!!!!!
In that case, dwell in your ignorance, I’m sure you must be happy-! God willing, you can’t breed!
Don’t you ever do any real historical research? Or have you just sat around and let the Liberal Press and Hollywood fill your head with utter nonsense?
Slavery, and its spread into western territories, was an issue between the two sections of the country in the 1850’s, and was ultimately a major cause of secession which led to war. There was violence by abolitionists, most notably John Brown, who wanted to free the slaves, but certainly there was no intent by national leaders to go to war to resolve the issue. Southern politics were dominated by plantation owners, though plantation owners were a small proportion of the total population of the South. Southern members of Congress defended slavery. Of the three major candidates for president in 1860, Lincoln represented the Radical Republican Party, many of whose members supported the abolition of slavery. Lincoln won the election with a minority of the total votes in the country. Several states seceded as their politicians declared they would if Lincoln were elected.
Though the shelling of Fort Sumter was the first incident of the war, no military response came immediately from the Union forces. When Virginia seceded, the Union army attacked southern forces at Bull Run a few days later and the war was on. The South’s policy was to fight a defensive war to preserve the right to secede from the Union. The Union was clearly focused on preventing the secession of the southern states. Abolition of Slavery became a military
objective under the President’s war powers two years later with the Emancipation Proclamation.
In contrast to many people’s impression today, the South was not mainly made up of large plantations with numerous slaves. By far the largest number of southerners were descended from early Scots-Irish immigrants and lived on small farms of 100 acres or less and were engaged mostly in subsistence agriculture. Only a few of these people as well as a small number of free Blacks owned slaves at that time. The confederate soldier fought ferociously to defend his state against invasion and not to protect the planter’s way of life. Unfortunately, the rich planters dominated politics and the defense of their interests probably led to secession and war.
Sources re objectives for start of the war :
(1) In his acceptance letter to be a presidential candidate in 1864, General McClellan stated, “The preservation of our union was the sole avowed object for which the war was commenced.”
(2) “The Civil War, the Final Year” edited by Aaron Sheehan Dean, page 562.
Answer by Rev. Garrison Frazier speaking for Black ministers in interview with Gen. Sherman and Sec. of War Stanton re their understanding of the war:
“the object of the war was not at first to give the slaves their freedom, but the sole object was at first to bring the rebellious states back into the union and their loyalty to the laws of the United States.” This interview was reported in an official War Department Report Feb. 1, 1865.
If you are interested in the destruction of Columbia. After the war, Columbia’s people tried to get payment from the US government for violation of the terms of surrender as Sherman pledged the city would not be destroyed. The people picked a leading citizen to make a report of the holocaust and petition congress for compensation. A man with a sterling reputation both in the north as well as the south. A founding member of the New York College of Physicians and Surgeons and probably the leading cardiologist in the United States. Dr Daniel Heyward Trezevant was my ggg grand-uncle. He was Mary Chestnut’s personal physician and is mentioned in her diaries. Even after losing 2 sons in the war, he was a voice of reason and healing. Although in old age, he continued guiding his state and city during the hardships of reconstruction.
I suggest you google his name or you can find the story on Ancestry.
Very honorable family, these Trezevants.
To RJ Was Dr. Trezevant successful?
There were many events in the war, both just and unjust, that were subject to discussion, then and now. Given that most people were very ignorant, and news was received by word mouth over the back yard fence, I would imagine many soldiers on both sides fought more because of peer pressure than anything else.
The Southerner fought to defend his homeland and most Northerners were paid by other Yankee cowards to be their substitutes to die at the hands of Southern marksmen. The difference was that you had Patriots of the South fighting mostly Federal mercenaries.
Jeff Davis & Alec Stephens are smiling in their graves (Alec seldom smiled when alive). They won! If States had been able to violate Federal law with impunity, there would have been no War Against the States. Under a Democrat President from ILL., they can! Witness legal Thc & gay marriage.
What does Obama have to do with either legal THC or gay marriage? Yeah, I know. He’s responsible for all evil and don’t forget the bad NE weather – all his fault.
May the South rise again! Although out-manned and out-supplied, the Southern soldier was rarely ever out-fought. It is a tribute to the superiority of Southern soldiers over their Federal oppressors that the Southerner wrote a proud chapter in this nation’s history. Southerners are now know for their dedication to toughness, bravery, and patriotism; all because the Confederate soldier left behind a tradition of Honor… which is far beyond anything the villains of the Federal Army ever displayed… evidenced by the burning of Columbia, South Carolina. The Yankees showed no honor in their war against defenseless women and children. They took out their vengeance against the defenseless people because the Confederate soldier, man for man, whipped them nearly every time. General Lee didn’t do that to the people of Pennsylvania when he invaded that state.
If the north cared so much for the “slaves”, why did they “free” 4 million of them with no place to go ? Many of them stayed with their previous owners because they had a roof over their heads and food in their bellies.
That is more than the north did for the freed man. We fed millions of them and we had starving families too.
Who pays an average of $1500.00 for a worker, then beats them so they can’t work and produce a living for them both ? Do not believe that “beat the slave” propaganda. Be smarter than that.
I’m not sure who the author is, but the statement:
“Apparently, when his occupying soldiers entered the city, they found the Confederates had left bales of cotton burning in the city streets, which—when combined with gusting winds—were a disaster waiting to happen. But however the fires began, the fact remains that on the 17th and into the 18th, Columbia burned in a vast conflagration.”
is in error based on the reference the author chose as a link!
The actual link referenced says:
“Augusta papers of the 25th ult. state that the conflagration in Columbia occurred through the igniting of a quantity of cotton by sparks from the public buildings, which had been fired by the orders of General Sherman.”
How this could be translated to lit bales of cotton on fires in the streets left by the retreating Confederate troops is clearly incorrect, if not intellectually dishonest.
This is a reason why I would never join Fold3. This example proves there is nothing more visible in nature than bias and ignorance in action.
I think we cannot know how to see things then from our perspective of living in the now. Many who witnessed slavery, including Pres. Lincoln, saw it as a great sin and felt the Civil War was a consequence of offence to God, that the sufferings of the war were evidence of the wrath of God for such offenses. If that be so, just think what might be in store now for the immorality that has become the norm in American Society. Perhaps that is what we ought to be pondering now.
The Civil War was fought because the Southern States were being very/too successful in their intensive campaign to ensure that most of the new States that would soon be joining the Union would be slave States thereby enabling the Southern plantation aristocracy to completely control the National government so it could continue its utterly brutal treatment of slaves (under the “system”) that had, in 50 years, pushed the production of cotton from 100 pounds per slave per year to 500 pounds per year with virtually no new technology.
The North (who had no use for slaves because they had no large scale farming or large scale anything where illiterate uneducated untrained workers could be used) resisted and when the Republicans were successful in electing the first President from Illinois, the South saw they they had lost their campaign and decided to pull out. Because the planters/ aristocracy knew they had no moral justification or way to defend slavery or their insistence on continuing to expand slavery into areas where cotton could not be grown, they retreated behind the concept of State’s rights to justify their political actions and that is still the banner they wave today to rally the masses.
By 1840, South Carolina was the wealthiest area in the entire WORLD and the planters and cotton traders there (and the plantation aristocracy elsewhere) saw Charlotte as being the logical choice to be the Capitol of an enormous agricultural nation spread across the Great Plains, Texas, and into the West. If the South had prevailed in this vision, it would have been the North that would have pulled out of the Union and the South probably would have let them go.
The slogan (and the thinking the produced it) that you see on Tee shirts “Save Your Confederate Money, Boys, The South’s Gonna Rise Again” is still very much alive in many areas of the South and still promoting its grim message. Listen between the lines to much of the political rhetoric you hear today and you can hear the clear echoes of 150 years ago.
It is not a “grim message”, it may be the last viable option for an oppressed people to throw off the shackles of an out of control government. Let me guess… you are a Communist that voted for Ovomit.
In my previous message,I inadvertently referred to Charlotte when I meant to say Columbia.
Looks like the war continus on. sad to say, I had relatives on both sides of the arguement.
One from the Wisconsin group died at Andersonville. The other four made it home. The one whom I bare the same name where in the Alabama regiment.
Sorry to say I don’t remember which one. I think it was the 29th.
In the end, There is a great lose of life, Mammed people who carry the scares on for generations. Irreguardless of the reasons it was started for, Shamefull distruction from both sides, In the end, posterity is still pointing fingers.
When I was growing up in Oklahoma, back in 1960 or so, I remember that there were black kids in school with me, We said the PLedge and then sang Dixie, I still love that song. Prayer was taken out of school along about 63.
So after all is said and done how far have we come in reuniting our selves into a
unified nation?. We’re still sqabeliing. over things that don’t really matter any more that happend almost two hundred years ago.
Are we not still all Americans?. Or are we still divided?
Mistake, THere were NO black kids in school.
We are divided now more than ever thanks to the current ( and I hate to even give the Antichrist the title of President…he does not deserve it) Commander-in-Grief. Aren’t we all still Englishmen? I mean after all, there was no difference between the War for Independence during the 1700s and the War for Independence in 1861…carrying out your logic.
It has been said that America is the hope of the Westerner or”Free World”. If that is true, then you ought to be thankful to God that there are still Patriots alive in the South today, because the South is the only hope for America. If the South was not right, then you would not see the Government/Media/Hollywood attacking anything and everything that is Southern. Or are you one who “drinks the Cool Aid”?
When you infer that slavery was the cause of the war, consider the fact that 30% of the people ( the South) were paying 80% of the National Taxes.In that regard, all Southerners were the slaves of the Yankee Government. Now today, you have 50% of the people paying 100% of the Taxes.
If you are a productive citizen or have worked to make something of yourself, are you not enslaved by the same Government that the Yankees fought for?
Hasn’t the current Yankee Government enslaved the descendants of the former slaves through dependency on welfare programs?
And you wonder if we are still divided? Come on John, where have you been? Divided? Hell Yes we are!!!
Sorry John, my comments were directed to Land Wayland in regards to the slavery issue.
All wars are fought by the poor and young to achieve what the rich politicians want!
Go back and re-read Walso’s post and note one small matter: Only a few of these people as well as a small number of free Blacks owned slaves at this time. This verboten topic is very difficult to research due in some part to fanciful liberal editing of history, but one that ought to be examined more thoroughly and addressed, especially in the Black community. I think that at its roots (pun intended) this explains an unfortunate truth even today in Black society. The little white lies (again, pun intended) that all southern whites were evil slave owners (flat wrong), there is any one simple reason for the war (wrong), that that reason was slavery (ridiculous), and that all blacks were (are?) victims (really ridiculous and wrong) are just that – elitist, lies. In researching, I wondered where slaves really actually came from (yes sure Africa, but how/why?). Again research is hard, but it is apparent that a great source of slaves were (black) slave-owning warring tribes themselves. A fair portion of those enslaved originally were slaves to start with, either “POW”s as it were, or born to it in Africa. This practice (blacks owning blacks) did perpetuate in practice in the US and by some anecdotal evidence may have existed for some time after Emancipation (note Lincoln’d proclamation did not free “all” salves by any stretch). This is a very sad human tragedy but one that should get it’s just due in history. Sadly I think the liberal elite – and very unfortunately, too much of the Black community – absolutely do not want to talk about this. Makes one wonder why. My theory: “victimized” blacks need help, guidance, “edjumacatuon”, welfare, healthcare, etc. etc. because those poor, silly (stupid?) blacks just “caint think fer theyselves now”…goodness, if they did, why they might vote Republican and we can’t have that now can we? Turns out during a 26+ year military career (plus four more Academy years) I’ve known tons of really great, smart, articulate, proud Blacks – officers and enlisted, as well as government civilians and defense contractors. Trust me, they aren’t “victims” and most don’t vote Democrat. Coincidence? I think not…
Excellent comments Mark. I would like to add that it was the New England Yankees who were involved in paying the blacks and Muslims that “caught” or “turned over” the captured Negroes to the slave trading Northerners who in turn brought them to the Western Hemisphere…at great profit I might add. Where is the great outcry against the North for profiting in the slave trade? What say the Liberal Historical Revisionists about this fact of history?
An intriguing discussion is worth comment. There’s no doubt that that you ought to publish more on this
subject matter, it might not be a taboo matter but generally people do not talk about these subjects.
To the next! Cheers!!
I enjoy looking through an article that will make men and women think.
Also, many thanks for allowing for me to comment!
Nonslave holding southerners was tied to the benefits of the slave economy (income) and it s institution (politics) . You have 2 inputs whe it comes to economic development/ wealth, labor and raw materials. Non slaveholding southerners fought because it did affect them directly. Non slave holders income came from slavery economics
And the Northern Economy was largely affected by the availability of cotton, so much so that when the South seceded the North/Federal Thugs had to pursue an economic war against the free people of the South. So now please tell me just what your point is.
My design as a docudrama wedding cinematographer makes every one
as visually interesting as the following, whether it be on Miami seaside in the sunlight or
a grey, rainy day in Manchester.