L-ow."t>aL^V- beta 
 
 o>ee.vv. 
 
 wauci 
 
 XjJ^XJf 
 
 uTSU C.(m£MjdtoA~ k*f -1-e.cAev^Ai 
 
 a^-dL C-Oi^rejci«Arc5Lfe& 
 
 \ 
 
 
Library 
 
 OF THE 
 
 University of NortH Carolina 
 
 This book was presented by the family 
 of the late 
 
 KEMP PLUMMEE BATTLE, '49 
 
 President of the University of North Carolina 
 from 1876 to 1890 
 
 CklS'o ?* 
 
OFFICIAL REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 History Committee 
 
 OF THE 
 
 wr 
 
 GRAND CAMP, C. V., 
 
 Department of Virginia. 
 
 4> 
 By Hon. GEORGE L CHRISTIAN, 
 
 Chairman. 
 
 Read at Petersburg, Va., October 25th. 1901, and 
 
 Published by Order of the Grand 
 
 Camp of Virginia. 
 
 *& 
 
 A Contrast Between the Way the War was Con- 
 ducted by the Federals and the Way it was 
 Conducted by the Confederates, 
 Drawn Almost Entirely from 
 Federal Sources. 
 
 HISTORY COMMITTEE, 
 
 George L. Christian, Chairman. 
 R. T. Barton, Carter R. Bishop, R. A. Brock, 
 
 Rev. B. D. Tucker, John W. Daniel, James Mann, 
 R. S. B. Smith, T. H. Edwards, W. H. Hurkamp, 
 John W. Fulton, M. W. Hazlewood, Micajah Woods. 
 
 0. E. FLANHART PRINTING CO. , RICHMOND, VA. 
 
At the fourteenth annual meeting of the Grand Camp, C. V., 
 Department of Virginia, held in Petersburg, Va., on the 25th 
 day of October, 1901, Comrade N". V. Randolph offered the 
 following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That five thousand copies of the report of the His- 
 tory Committee, made by Judge George L. Christian, be printr 
 ed, and that a vote of thanks be extended to Judge Christian for 
 iia able report. Adopted unanimously: 
 
fa/x^w^^ 
 
 OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE 
 
 History Committee of the Grand Camp C. V., 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF VIRGINIA. 
 
 OCTOBER 15, 1901. 
 
 To the Grand Camp of Confederate Veterans of Virginia: 
 
 Before entering upon the discussion of the subject selected for 
 consideration in this report, your Comm i ttee begs leave to 
 tender its thanks to the Camp, and to the public, for the many 
 expressions it has received of their appreciation of its last two 
 reports. These expressions have come from every section of the 
 country, and they are not only most gratifying, showing, as 
 they do, the importance of the work of this Camp in establish- 
 ing the justice of the Confederate cause; but that this work 
 is also causing the truth concerning that cause to be taught 
 to our children, which was not the case until these Confederate 
 Camps effected that great result. Our report of 1899, prepared 
 by your late distinguished and lamented Chairman, Dr. Hunter 
 McGuire, was directed mainly to a criticism of certain histories 
 then used in our schools, and to demonstrate the fact that the 
 South did not go to war either to maintain or to perpetuate the 
 institution of slavery, as our enemies have tried so hard to make 
 the world believe was the case. That of 1900 was directed — 
 
 (1) To establish the right of secession (the real question at 
 issue in the war) by Northern testimony alone, and 
 
 (2) To establish the fact that the North was the aggressor in 
 bringing on the war, and by the same kind of testimony. 
 
 These two reports have been published, the first for two, and 
 the second for one year, and as far as we know, no fact contended 
 for in either has been attempted to be controverted. We feel 
 justified, therefore, in claiming that these facts have been estab- 
 lished. 
 
 HOW THE WAK WAS CONDUCTED. 
 
 Having then, we think, established the justice of the Confede- 
 rate Cause, and that the Northern people were responsible for, 
 and the aggressors in bringing on the war, and both of these facts 
 
by testimony drawn almost exclusively from Northern sources, it 
 is only left for us to consider how the war, thus forced upon the 
 South by the North, was conducted by the respective combatants 
 through their representatives, both in the Cabinet and in the 
 field? We fully recognize that within the limits of this report 
 it is impossible to do more than to "touch the fringe," as it were, 
 of this important inquiry. The details of the horrors of the four 
 years of that war would fill many, many volumes, and it is not 
 our purpose or desire to go fully into any such sad and harrowing 
 recital. We propose, therefore, only to give the principles of 
 civilized warfare as adopted by the Federal authorities for the 
 government of their armies in the field during the war, and then 
 cite some of the most flagrant violations of those principles by 
 some of the most distinguished representatives of that govern- 
 ment in the w r ar waged by it against the South. Of course, in 
 doing this we shall have to refer to some things very familiar to 
 all of us; but the repetition of them in this report would never- 
 theless seem necessary and proper to* its completeness." 
 
 In performing this distasteful task we wish, in the beginning, 
 to disclaim any and all purpose or wish on our part to reopen the 
 wounds or to rekindle the feelings of bitterness engendered by 
 that unholy and unhappy strife. As we said in our last report, 
 we recognize that this whole country is one country and our 
 country, and we of the South are as true to it, and will do as 
 much to uphold its honor and defend its- rights, as those of any 
 other section. But we are also true to a sacred past, a past which 
 had principles for which thousands of our comrades suffered and 
 died, and which are living principles to-day — principles which 
 we fought to maintain, and for which our whole people, almost 
 without exception, willingly and heroically offered their lives, 
 their blood and their fortunes; and whilst we do not propose to 
 live in that past, we do propose that the principles of that past 
 shall live in us, and that we will transmit these principles to our 
 children and their descendants to the latest generations yet un- 
 born. We believe that only by doing this can we and they 
 make good citizens of the republic, as founded by our fathers, 
 and that not to do this would be false to the memory of our dead 
 and to ourselves. 
 
 Then let us enquire, first, What were the rules adopted by 
 the Federals for the government of their armies in war? The 
 most important of these are as follows: 
 
 (1) " Private property, unless forfeited by crimes, or by of- 
 fences of the owner against the safety of the army, or the dignity 
 of the United States, and after conviction of the owner by court 
 
martial, can be seized only by way of military necessity for the 
 support or other benefit of the army of the United States." 
 
 (2) "All wanton violence committed against persons in the 
 invaded country; all destruction of property not commanded by 
 the authorized officer; all robbery; all pillage or sacking, even 
 after taking a place by main force; all rape, wounding, maiming, 
 or killing of such inhabitants, are prohibited under penalty of 
 death, or such other severe punishment as may seem adequate 
 for the gravity of the offence." 
 
 (3) "Crimes punishable by all penal codes, such as arson, mur- 
 der, maiming, assaults, highway robbery, theft, burglary, fraud, 
 forgery and rape, if committed by an American soldier in a 
 hostile country against its inhabitants, are not only punishable, 
 as at home, but in all cases in which death is not inflicted, the 
 severer punishment shall be preferred, because the criminal has, 
 as far as in him lay, prostituted the power conferred on a man 
 of arms, and prostituted the dignity of the United States." 
 
 JSTow, as we have said, these were the important provisions 
 adopted by the Federals for the government of their armies in 
 war. 
 
 General McClellan, a gentleman, a trained and educated sol- 
 dier, recognized these principles from the beginning, and acted 
 on them. On July 7, 1862, he wrote to Mr. Lincoln from Har- 
 rison's Landing, saying, among other things : 
 
 "This rebellion has assumed the character of a war; as such 
 it should be conducted upon the highest principles of Christian 
 civilization. It should not be a war looking to the subjugation 
 of the people of any State in any event. It should not be at all 
 a war upon populations, but against armed forces and political 
 organizations. Neither confiscation of property, political exe- 
 cutions of persons, territorial organization of States, nor forcible 
 abolition of slavery, should be contemplated for a moment.'' 
 
 "In prosecuting the war, all private property and unarmed 
 persons, should be strictly protected, subject only to the neces- 
 sity of military operations. All property taken for military use 
 should be paid or receipted for; pillage and waste should be 
 treated as high crimes; all unnecessary trespass sternly pro- 
 hibited, and offensive demeanor by the military towards citizens 
 promptly rebuked." 
 
 See 2 Am. Conflict (Greely), p. 248. 
 
 The writer's home was visited by the Army of the Potomac, 
 
both under McClellan and under Grant At the time McClellan 
 was in command guards were stationed to protect the premises,, 
 with orders to shoot any soldier caught depredating, and but 
 little damage was actually done; none with the consent or con- 
 nivance of the commanding general. But when the same army 
 came, commanded by Grant, every house on the place, except 
 one negro cabin, was burned to the ground; all stock and every- 
 thing else of any value was carried off. The occupants were only 
 women, children and servants; nearly all the servants were car- 
 ried off; one of the ladies was so shocked at the outrages com- 
 mitted as to cause her death, and the other and the children 
 were turned out of doors without shelter or food, and with only 
 the clothing they had on. So that the writer has had a real ex- 
 perience of the difference between civilized and barbarous war- 
 fare. To show how little the advice of McClellan, as to the 
 principles on which the war should be conducted, was heeded 
 at Washington, and it would seem stimulated in an opposite 
 course by his suggestions, we find in two weeks from the date 
 of his letter to Mr. Lincoln, just quoted — viz., on July 20, 
 1862 — -that General John Pope, commanding the "Army of 
 Virginia," issued the following order: 
 
 " GENERAL POPE'S ORDERS. 
 
 (1) "The people of the Valley of the Shenandoah and 
 throughout the regions of the operations of this army, living 
 along the lines of railroad and telegraph and along the routes 
 of travel in rear of the United States forces, are notified that 
 they will be held responsible for any injury done to the track, 
 line or road, or for any attack upon trains or straggling soldiers 
 by bands of guerrillas in their neighborhood." * * * * 
 "Safety of life and property of all persons living in the rear of 
 our advancing armies depends upon the maintenance of peace 
 and quiet among themselves, and of the unmolested movement 
 through their midst of all pertaining to the military service. 
 They are to understand distinctly that this security of travel is 
 their only warrant of safety. It is therefore ordered, that when- 
 ever a railroad, wagon road, or telegraph is injured by parties 
 of guerrillas, the citizens living within five miles of the spot 
 shall be turned out in mass to repair the damage, and shall, be- 
 sides, pay to the United States, in money or in property, to be 
 levied by military force, the full amount of the pay and sub- 
 sistence of the whole force necessary to coerce the performance 
 of the work during the time occupied in completing it. If a 
 soldier or a legitimate follower of the army, be fired upon from 
 any house, the house shall be razed to the ground, and the in- 
 
habitants sent prisoners to the headquarters of the army. If 
 an outrage occurs at any place distant from settlements, the 
 people within five miles around shall be held accountable, and 
 made to pay an indemnity sufficient for the case." 
 
 We defy investigation in the history of modern warfare to 
 find anything emanating from a general commanding an army 
 as cowardly and as cruel as this order. Just think of it: The 
 women, children and non-combatants, living within five miles 
 of the rear of an invading army, ordered to protect it from the 
 incursions of the opposing army, or upon failure to do this, 
 whether from inability or any other cause, to forfeit their lives 
 ■or their property. . 
 
 Again, this same commander, on July 23, 1862, issued the 
 following order: 
 
 "Commanders of army corps, divisions, brigades and detached 
 commands, will proceed immediately to arrest all disloyal male 
 citizens within their lines, or within their reach, in rear of their 
 respective stations. Such as are willing to take the oath of alle- 
 giance to the United States, and will furnish sufficient security 
 for its observance, shall be permitted to remain at their homes 
 and pursue, in good faith, their accustomed avocations. Those 
 who refuse shall be conducted south, beyond the extreme pickets 
 of this army, and be notified that if found anywhere within our 
 lines, or at any point within our rear, they will be considered 
 spies and subjected to the extreme rigor of military law" (i. e., 
 death by hanging). 
 
 See "The Army Under Pope," by Ropes, pp. 175-6-7. 
 
 This last order Mr. John C. Ropes, of Boston, a distinguished 
 Northern writer, one generally fairer to the South than others 
 who have written from that locality, criticises most harshly, and 
 he does this, too, although he is about the only apologist, as far 
 as we have seen, of this bombastic and incompetent officer. 
 
 General Steinwehr, one of Pope's brigadiers, seized innocent 
 and peaceful inhabitants and held them as hostages to the end 
 that they should be murdered in cold blood should any of his 
 soldiers be killed by unknown persons, whom he designated as 
 "bushwhackers." 
 
 On the very day of the signing of the cartel for the exchange 
 of prisoners between the Federal and Confederate authorities 
 (July 22, 1862), the Federal Secretary of War, by order of Mr. 
 Lincoln, issued an order to the military commanders in Virginia, 
 
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louis- 
 iana, Texas and Arkansas, directing them to seize and use any 
 property belonging to the inhabitants of the Confederacy, which 
 might be "necessary or convenient for their several commands," 
 and no provision was made for any compensation to the owners 
 of private property thus seized acid appropriated. 
 
 This order was such a flagrant violation of the rules of civilized 
 warfare — those adopted by the Federal Government itself,, 
 as hereinbefore quoted' — that the Confederate Government 
 sought to prevent it being carried into execution by issuing a 
 general order, dated August 1, 1862, denouncing this order of 
 the Federal Secretary, and those of Pope and Steinwehr, as 
 "acts of savage cruelty," violative "of all rules and usages of 
 war," and as converting the "hostilities hitherto waged against 
 armed forces into a campaign of robbery and murder against 
 unarmed citizens and peaceful tillers of the soil." And by way 
 of retaliation, declared that Pope and his commissioned officers 
 were not to be considered as soldiers, and therefore not entitled 
 to the benefit of the cartel for the parole of future prisoners 
 of war, and ordered that if Pope, Steinwehr, or any of their com- 
 missioned officers, were captured, they should be kept in close 
 confinement as long as the foregoing orders remained in force. 
 
 (See 1 South. His, Society Papers, 302-3.) 
 
 General Robert E. Lee, on receiving this order from the Con- 
 federate authorities, at once sent a communication to "The Gen- 
 eral Commanding the United States Army at Washington," in 
 which, referring to these orders of Pope and the Federal War 
 Department, he said: 
 
 "Some of the military authorities of the United States seem 
 to suppose that their end will be better attained by a savage war, 
 in which no quarter is to be given and no age or sex will be 
 spared, than by such hostilities as are alone recognized to be 
 lawful in modern times. We find ourselves driven by our ene- 
 mies by steady progress towards a practice which we abhor, and 
 which we are vainly struggling to avoid." 
 
 He then says : • 
 
 "Under these circumstances, this government has issued the 
 accompanying general order (that of August 1, 1862), which I 
 am directed by the President to transmit to you, recognizing 
 Major-General Pope and his commissioned officers to be in a 
 position which they have chosen for themselves — that of roh- 
 
hers and murderers — and not that of public enemies, entitled, 
 if captured, to be treated as prisoners of war." 
 
 At this day it may be safely said, that there are few, if any, 
 either at the North or in the South, who will question either 
 that General Lee knew the rules of civilized warfare, or that 
 he would have denounced those who were guilty of violating 
 these rules as "robbers and murderers," had they not been justly 
 entitled to this distinction. And let it be distinctly borne in 
 mind, that the order of the Federal Secretary of War was issued 
 by order of the President, Mr. Lincoln, and if he ever rebuked 
 Pope or Steinwehr, or any of the others, to whom we shall here- 
 after refer, for their outrages and cruelties to the Southern 
 people, the record, as far as we can find it, is silent on that sub- 
 ject, 
 
 GENERAL MILROY'S ORDER. 
 
 On the 28th November, 1862, General E. H. Milroy had an 
 order sent to Mr. Adam Harper, a man 82 years old, and a crip- 
 ple, one who had served as a soldier in the war of 1812, and vvho 
 was a son of a Revolutionary soldier, who had served through- 
 out that war, which was as follows: 
 
 "Mr. Adam Harper: 
 
 "Sir, — In consequence of certain robberies which have been 
 committed on Union citizens of this county by bands of guer- 
 rillas, you are hereby assessed to the amount of ($285.00) two 
 hundred and eighty-five dollars, to make good their losses, and 
 upon your failure to comply with the above assessment by the 
 8th day of December, the following order has been issued to 
 me by General R. H. Milroy: 
 
 "You are to burn their houses, seize all their cattle and shoot 
 them. You will be sure that you strictly carry out this order. 
 You will inform the inhabitants for ten or fifteen miles around 
 your camp, on all the roads approaching the town upon which 
 the enemy may approach, that they must dash in and give you 
 notice, and upon any one failing to do so, you will burn their 
 houses and shoot the men. 
 
 "By order of Brigadier-General R. H. Milroy. 
 
 "H. KELLOG, Captain Commanding Post." 
 
 Could the most brutal savagery of any age exceed the unrea- 
 soning cruelty of this order. (See 1 South. His. Society Papers, 
 p. 231.) 
 
GENERAL SHERMAN'S CONDUCT. 
 
 But we must go on. In the earlier part of the war, General 
 William T. Sherman knew and recognized the rules adopted by 
 his government for the conduct of its armies in the field; rnd 
 so, on September 29, 1861, he wrote to General Robert Ander- 
 son, at Louisville, Ky., saying, among other things : 
 
 "I am sorry to report, that in spite of my orders and en- 
 treaties, our troops are committing depredations that will ruin 
 our cause. Horses and wagons have been seized, cattle, sheep, 
 hogs, chickens taken by our men, some of whom wander for 
 miles around. I am doing, and have done, all in my power to 
 stop this, but the men are badly disciplined and give little heed 
 to my orders or those of their own regimental officers." 
 
 (See Sherman's Raid, by Boynton, page 23.) 
 
 Later on General Sherman said: "War is hell." If we could 
 record here all the testimony in our possession, from the people 
 of Georgia and South Carolina, who had the misfortune to live 
 along the line of his famous "march to the sea," during nearly 
 the whole length of which he was warring against, and depre- 
 dating on, women, children, servants, old men, and other non- 
 combatants (as to which he wrote in his telegram to Grant, "I 
 can make this march and make Georgia howl," Boynton, page 
 129), it would show that he had certainly contributed all in his 
 power to make war "Hell" as he termed it; and has justly 
 earned the distinction of being called the ruling genius of this 
 creation. 
 
 We will first let General Sherman himself tell what was done 
 by him and his men on this famous, or rather infamous, march. 
 He says of it in his official report: 
 
 "We consumed the corn and fodder in the region of country 
 thirty miles on either side of a line from Atlanta, to Savannah; 
 also the sweet potatoes, hogs, sheep and poultry, and carried off 
 more than ten thousand horses and mules. I estimate the dam- 
 age done to the State of Georgia at one hundred million dollars, 
 at least twenty millions of which enured to our benefit, and the 
 remainder was simply waste and destruction." 
 
 But we will introduce other witnesses, and these some of his 
 own soldiers, who accompanied him on his march: Captain 
 Daniel Oakley, of the Second Regiment, Massachusetts Volun- 
 teers, in Battles and Leaders, says this: 
 
 "It was sad to see the wanton destruction of property, which 
 was the work of 'bummers,' who were marauding through the 
 
9 
 
 country committing every sort of outrage. There was no re- 
 straint, except with the column or the regular foraging parties. 
 
 * * The country was necessarily left to take care of itself and 
 became a howling waste. The 'Coffee Coolers' of the Army of 
 the Potomac were archangels compared to our 'bummers/ who 
 often fell to the tender mercies of Wheeler's cavalry, and were 
 never heard of again, meeting a fate richly deserved." 
 
 Another Northern soldier, writing for the "Detroit Free 
 Press," gives the following graphic account: After describing 
 the burning of Marietta, in which- the writer says, among other 
 things, "soldiers rode from house to house, entered without 
 ceremony, and kindled fires in garrets and closets and stood by 
 to see that they were not extinguished." He then further says: 
 
 "Had one been able to climb to such a height at Atlanta as 
 to enable him to see for forty miles around, the day Sherman 
 marched out, he would have been appalled at the destruction. 
 Hundreds of houses had been burned, every rod of fence de- 
 stroyed, nearly every fruit tree cut down, and the face of the 
 country so changed that one born in that section could scarcely 
 recognize it. The vindictiveness of war would have trampled 
 the very earth out of sight had such a thing been possible." 
 
 Again he says: 
 
 "At the very beginning of the campaign at Dalton, the Fede- 
 ral soldiery had received encouragement to become vandals. 
 
 * * * When Sherman cut loose from Atlanta everybody 
 had license to throw off restraint and make Georgia 'drain the 
 bitter cup.' The Federal who wants to learn what it was to 
 license an army to become vandals should mount a horse at 
 Atlanta and follow Sherman's route for fifty miles. He can 
 hear stories from the lips of women that would make him 
 ashamed of the flag that waved over him as he went into battle. 
 When the army had passed nothing was left but a trail of deso- 
 lation and despair. No houses escaped robbery, no' woman es- 
 caped insult, no building escaped the firebrand, except by some 
 strange interposition. War may license an army to subsist on 
 the enemy, but civilized warfare stops at live stock, forage and 
 provisions. It does not enter the houses of the sick and helpless 
 and rob women of their finger rings and carry off their clothing." 
 
 He then tells of the "deliberate burning of Atlanta" by Sher- 
 man's order, of the driving out from the city of its whole popu- 
 lation of all ages, sexes, and conditions in the fields of a deso- 
 
10 
 
 lated country to starve and die, as far as lie knew or cared. You 
 have only to read these recitals and you have the picture which 
 Sherman made and which he truly denominated "Hell." 
 
 The correspondence between Mayor Calhoun and two council- 
 men of Atlanta, representing to General Sherman the frightful 
 suffering that would be visited on the people of that city by the 
 execution of his inhuman order, and General Sherman's reply, 
 can be found in the second volume of Sherman's Memoirs, at 
 pages 124-5; we can only extract one or two paragraphs from 
 each. The letter of the former says, among other things: 
 
 " Many poor women are in advanced state of pregnancy, others 
 
 now having young children, and whose husbands, for the greater 
 
 part, are either in the army, prisoners, or dead. Some say, I 
 
 have such a sick one at my house, who will wait on them when 
 
 I am gone ? Others say, What are we to do ? We have no house 
 
 to go to, and no means to buy, build or rent any; no parents, 
 
 relatives or friends to go to." 
 
 ******* 
 
 "This being so (they say) how is it possible for the people still 
 here (mostly women and children) to find any shelter? And 
 how can they live through the winter in the woods- — no shelter 
 or subsistence, in the midst of strangers who know them i;ot, 
 and without the power to assist them much if they were willing 
 to do so." 
 
 "This (they say) is but a feeble picture of the consequences 
 of tins measure. You know the woe, the horrors and the suffer- 
 ing cannot be described by words; imagination can only con- 
 ceive it, and we ask you to take these things into consideration." 
 
 To this pathetic appeal Sherman coolly replied on the 
 next day, his letter commencing as follows: 
 
 "I have your letter of the 11th, in the nature of a petition 
 to revoke my orders removing all the inhabitants from Atlanta. 
 I have read it carefully, and give full credit to your statements 
 of the distress that will be occasioned, and yet I shall not revoke 
 my orders, because they were not designated to meet the humani- 
 ties of the case, but to prepare for the future struggles in which 
 
 millions of e'ood people outside of Atlanta have a deep interest," 
 &c * * * 
 
 After he had started on his "march to the sea" he gives an ac- 
 count of Low the foraging details were made and carried out 
 each day, and concludes by saying: 
 
11 
 
 "Although this foraging was attended with great danger imd 
 hard work, there seemed to be a chami about it that attracted 
 the soldiers, and it was a privilege to be detailed on such a 
 party." 
 
 "Lastly, they returned mounted on all sorts of beasts, which 
 were at once taken from them and appropriated to the general 
 use, but the next day they would start out again on foot, only 
 to repeat the experience of the day before. No doubt (he says) 
 many acts of pillage, robbery and violence were committed by 
 these parties of foragers, usually called 'bummers,' for I have 
 since heard of jeivelry taken from women and the plunder of 
 articles that never reached the commissary," &c. * * * 
 
 (See 2 Mem., page 182.) 
 
 He not only does not say that he tried to prevent his army 
 from committing these outrages, but says, on page 255, in re- 
 ferring to his march through South Carolina: 
 
 "I would not restrain the army, lest its vigor and energy 
 should be impaired." 
 
 He tells on page 185 how, when he reached General Howell 
 Cobb's plantation, he "sent word back to General Davis to ex- 
 plain whose plantation it was, and instructed him to spare 
 nothing." 
 
 To show what a heartless wretch he was, he tells on page 194 
 about one of his officers having been wounded by the explosion 
 of a torpedo that had been hidden in the line of march, and on 
 which this officer had stepped He says: 
 
 U I immediately ordered a lot of rebel prisoners to be brought 
 from the provost guard, armed with picks and spades, and 
 made them march in close order along the road, so as to explode 
 their own torpedoes, or to discover and dig them up. They 
 begged hard, but I reiterated the order, and could hardly help 
 laughing at their stepping so gingerly along the road, where it 
 was supposed sunken torpedoes might explode at each step." 
 
 It may be fairly inferred, from General Sherman's middle 
 name (Tecumseh), that some of his ancestors were Indians. But 
 whether this be true or not, no one can read this statement of 
 his without being convinced that he was a savage. But he 
 was not only a confessed savage, as we have seen, but a con- 
 fessed vandal as well. He says, on page 256, in telling of a 
 night he spent in one of the splendid old houses of South Caro- 
 
12 
 
 lina, where, lie says, "the proprietors formerly had dispensed a 
 hospitality that distinguished the old regime of that proud State." 
 "I slept (he says) on the floor of the house, but the night was so 
 bitter cold, that I got up by the fire several times, and when it 
 burned low I rekindled it with an old mantel clock and the wreck 
 of a bedstead which stood in the corner of the room — the only act 
 of vandalism that I recall done by myself personally during the 
 war.". Since the admissions of a criminal are always taken as 
 conclusive proof of his crime, we now know from his own lips 
 that General Sherman was a vandal. 
 
 But we also find, on page 287, that he confessed having told 
 a falsehood about General Hampton, so that we cannot credit his 
 statement that the foregoing was his only act of vandalism. In- 
 deed, Ave think we have most satisfactory evidence to the con- 
 trary. (It will be noted, however, that Sherman makes a dis- 
 tinction between his personal acts of vandalism and those he 
 committed through others.) A part of this evidence is to be 
 found in the following letter from a lieutenant, Thomas J. 
 Myers, published in Vol. 12, Southern Historical Society Papers, 
 page 113, with the following head note: 
 
 "The following letter was found in the streets of Columbia 
 after the army of General Sherman had left. The original is 
 still preserved, and can be shown and substantiated, if anybody 
 desires. We are indebted to a distinguished lady of this city for 
 a copy, sent with a request for publication. We can add nothing 
 in the way of comment on such a document, It speaks for itself." 
 
 The letter, which is a republication from the Alderson West 
 Virginia Statesman, of October 29, 1883, is as follows: 
 
 Camp near Camden, S. C, February 26, 1865. 
 My Dear Wife : 
 
 "I have no time for particulars. We have had a glorious 
 time in this State. Unrestricted license to burn and plunder was 
 the order of the day. The chivalry have been stripped of most 
 of their valuables. Gold watches, silver pitchers, cups, spoons, 
 forks, &c, &c, are as common in camp as blackberries. The 
 terms of plunder are as follows: The valuables procured are esti- 
 mated by companies. Each company is required to exhibit the 
 result of its operations at any given place. One-fifth and first 
 choice falls to the commander-in-chief and staff, one-fifth to corps 
 commander and staff, one-fifth to field officers, two-fifths to the 
 company. Officers are not allowed to join in these expeditions, 
 unless disguised as privates. One of our corps commanders bor- 
 rowed a rough suit of clothes from one of my men, and was sue- 
 
13 
 
 cessful in his place. He got a large quantity of silver (among 
 other things an old milk pitcher), and a very fine gold watch 
 from a Mr. DeS'aussure, of this place (Columbia). DeSaussure 
 is one of the F. F. V.'s of South Carolina, and was made to fork 
 out liberally. Officers over the rank of captain are not made to 
 put their plunder in the estimate for general distribution. This 
 is very unfair, and for that reason, in order to protect themselves, 
 the subordinate officers and privates keep everything back that 
 they can carry about their persons, such as rings, earrings, breast- 
 pins, &c, &c, of which, if I live to get home, I have a quart. 
 I am not joking. I have at least a quart of jewelry for you and 
 all the girls, and some No. 1 diamond pins and rings among 
 them. General Sherman has gold and silver enough to start a 
 hank. His sh-are in gold watches and chains alone at Columbia 
 was two hundred and seventy-five. 
 
 a But I said I could not go into particulars. All the general 
 officers, and many besides, have valuables of every description, 
 down to ladies' pocket handkerchiefs. I have my share of them, 
 too. 
 
 "We took gold and silver enough from the d — d rebels to have 
 redeemed their infernal currency twice over. * * * I wish 
 all the jewelry this army has could be carried to the Old Bay 
 State. It would deck her out in glorious style; hut, alas! it will 
 be scattered all over the North and Middle States. 
 
 "The damned niggers, as a general thing, preferred to stay at 
 home, particularly after they found out that we wanted only 
 the able-bodied men, and, to tell the truth, the youngest and 
 best-looking women. Sometimes we took them off by way of 
 repaying influential secessionists. But a part of these we soon 
 managed to lose, sometimes in crossing rivers, sometimes in 
 other ways. I shall write you again from Wilmington, Golds- 
 boro, or some other place in North Carolina. The order to 
 march has arrived, and I must close hurriedly. 
 
 "Love to grandmother and Aunt Charlotte. Take care of 
 yourself and the children. Don't show this letter out of the 
 family. 
 
 "Your affectionate husband, 
 
 "THOMAS J. MYERS, 
 
 "Lieutenant, &c." 
 
 "P. S. — I will send this by the first flag of truce, to be mailed, 
 unless I have an opportunity of sending it to Hilton Head. Tell 
 Lottie I am saving a pearl bracelet and earrings for her. But 
 Lambert got the necklace and breast-pin of the same set, I am 
 
14 
 
 trying to trade him out of them. These were taken from the 
 Misses Jamison, daughters of the President of the South Caro- 
 lina Secession Convention. We found these on our trip through 
 Georgia. 
 
 "T. J. M." 
 
 "This letter is addressed to Mrs. Thomas J. Myers, Boston^ 
 Mass." 
 
 This letter was published in the Southern Historical Society 
 Papers, in March, 1884. About a year thereafter one Colonel 
 Henry Stone, styling himself "Late Brevet Colonel U. S. Vol- 
 unteers, A. A. G. Army of the Cumberland," realizing the 
 gravity of the statements contained in this letter, and the dis- 
 grace these, if uncontradicted, would bring on General Sher- 
 man and his army, and especially on the staff, of which he (Col- 
 onel Stone) was a member, wrote a letter to the Rev. J. William 
 Jones, D. D., the then editor of the Historical Society Papers, 
 in which he undertook to show that the Myers letter was not 
 written by any officer in General Sherman's army. (This letter 
 can be found in Vol. 13, S. H. S. Papers, page 439.) The rea- 
 sons assigned by Colonel Stone were plausibly set forth, and Dr. 
 Jones, in his anxiety to do justice even to Sherman's "bum- 
 mers," after publishing Colonel Stone's letter, said editorially, 
 he Was "frank to admit that Colonel Stone seems to> have made 
 out his case against the authenticity of this letter." If the mat- 
 ter had rested here, we would not have thought of using this 
 letter in our report, notwithstanding the fact (1) that we think 
 the letter bears the impress of genuineness on its face; (2) it is 
 vouched for by what Dr. Jones termed a "responsible source," 
 and what the first paper publishing it cited as a "distinguished 
 lady," who, it also stated, said that the original was "still pre- 
 served and could be shown and substantiated;" (3) the state- 
 ments contained in Colonel Stone's letter are only his state- 
 ments, uncorroborated and not vouched for by any one, or by any 
 documentary evidence of any Icind, and being those of an alleged 
 accomplice, are not entitled to any weight in a court of justice; 
 (4) we think the reasons assigned by Colonel Stone for the non- 
 genuineness of this letter are for the most part not inconsistent 
 with its genuineness; and (5) some of his statements are, ap- 
 parently, inconsistent with some of the facts as they appear in 
 the records we have examined, e. g. He savs "that of the ninety 
 regiments of Sherman's army, which might have passed on the 
 march near Camden, S. C. but a single one — a New Jersey 
 regiment— was from the Middle States. All the rest were from 
 
15 
 
 the West. A letter (he says) from the only Thomas J. Myers 
 ever in the army would never contain such a phrase/' referring 
 to the fact that Myers had said this stolen jewelry, &c, would 
 be scattered "all over the North and Middle States." Sher- 
 man's statement of the organization of his army on this march 
 shows there were several regiments in it from New York and 
 Pennsylvania, besides one from Maryland and one from New 
 Jersey (all four middle States). But we think this, like other 
 reasons assigned by Colonel Stone, are without merit. 
 
 But, as we have said, notwithstanding all these things which 
 seemingly discredit the reasons assigned by Colonel Stone for 
 the non-genuineness of this letter, ws should not have used the 
 latter in this report, had not the substantial statements in it been 
 confirmed, as we shall now see. The Myers letter was first pub- 
 lished on October 29, 1883. On the 31st of July, 1865, Captain 
 E. J. Hale, Jr., of Eayetteville, N. C, who had been on General 
 James PI. Lane's staff, and who is vouched for by General Lane 
 as "an elegant educated gentleman," wrote to General Lane, 
 telling him of the destruction and devastation at his home, and 
 in that letter he makes this statement: 
 
 "You have doubtless heard of Sherman's 'bummers.' The 
 Yankees would have you believe that they were only the strag- 
 gling pillagers usually found in all armies. Several letters writ- 
 ten by officers of Sherman's army, intercepted near this town, 
 give this the lie. 
 
 "In some of these letters were descriptions of the whole bum- 
 ming process, and from them it appears that it was a regularly 
 organized system, under the authority of General Sherman him- 
 self; that one- fifth of the proceeds fell to General Sherman, an- 
 other fifth to the other general officers, another fifth to the line 
 officers, and the remaining two-fifths to the enlisted men." 
 
 Now, compare this division of the spoils with that set forth 
 in the Myers letter, published, as we have said, eighteen years 
 later, and it will be seen that they are almost identical, and this 
 statement was taken, as Captain Hale states, from "several let- 
 ters written by officers of Sherman's army," intercepted near 
 Eayetteville, N. C, and as we have said, they confirm the state-- 
 ments of the Myers letter, and its consequent genuineness, to a 
 remarkable degree. It is proper, also, to state, that we have re- 
 cently received a letter from Dr. Jones, in which he states that 
 after carefully considering this whole matter again, he is now 
 satisfied that he was mistaken in his editorial comments on Col- 
 
16 
 
 onel Stone's letter, that lie is now satisfied of the genuine- 
 ness of the Myers letter, and that in liis opinion we could use 
 it in this report "with perfect propriety and safety."* 
 
 We have discussed this letter thus fully because we feel satis- 
 fied that the annals of warfare disclose nothing so venal and 
 depraved. Imagine, if it is possible to do so, Robert E. Lee and 
 Stonewall Jackson commanding an army licensed by them to 
 plunder the defenceless, and then sharing in the fruits of this 
 plundering ! 
 
 We can barely allude to Sherman's burning of Columbia, the 
 proof of which is too conclusive to admit of controversy. On 
 the 18th December, 1864, General H. W. Halleck, major, gene- 
 ral, and chief of staff of the armies of the United States, wrote 
 Sherman as Follows: * * * * * 
 
 "Should you capture Charleston, I hope that by some accident 
 the place may be destroyed, and if a little salt should be thrown 
 upon its site, it may prevent the future growth of nullification 
 and secession." ; ' 
 
 To this suggestion from this high (?) source to commit mur- 
 der, arson and robbery, and pretend it was by accident, Sher- 
 man replied on December 24, 1864, as follows: 
 
 "I will bear in mind your hint as to Charleston, and do not 
 think that 'salt' will be necessary. When I move the Fifteenth 
 Corps will be on the right of the right wing, and their position 
 will naturally bring them into Charleston first, and if you have 
 watched the history of that corps, you will have remarked that 
 they generally do their work pretty well; the truth is the whole 
 army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance 
 upon South Carolina I almost tremble for her fate, but feel 
 that she deserves all that seems in store for her. I look upon 
 Columbia as quite as bad as Charleston, and I doubt if we shall 
 spare the public buildings there, as we did at Milledgeville." 
 
 2 Sherman's Mem., pages 223, 227-8. 
 
 We say proof of his ordering (or permitting, which is just as 
 bad) the destruction of Columbia is overwhelming. (See re- 
 port of Chancellor Carroll, Chairman of a committee appointed 
 
 *Since this report was submitted, we have received a letter from 
 the husband of the lady who had the original of this Myers's letter, 
 setting forth the time, place and all the circumstances under which it 
 was found the day after Sherman's army left Camden. (It was found 
 near Camden, and not on the streets of Columbia.) And these state- 
 ments, together with others contained in this letter and in the Myers's 
 letter, too, established the genuineness of the Myers's letter, in our 
 opinion, beyond any and all reasonable doubt. 
 
17 
 
 to investigate the facts about this in General Bradley T. 
 Johnson's Life of Johnston, from which several of these 
 extracts are taken.) Our people owe General Johnson a debt 
 of gratitude for this and his other contributions to Confederate 
 history. And Sherman had the effrontery to write in his Me- 
 moirs, that in his official report, of this conflagration, he ''dis- 
 tinctly charged it to General Wade Hampton, and (says) confess 
 I did so pointedly to shake the faith of his people in him" (See 2 
 Sherman's Memoirs, page 287.) ' 
 
 The man who confessed to the -world that he made this false 
 charge with such a motive needs no characterization at the hands 
 of this Committee. 
 
 General Sherman set out to "make Georgia howl," and pre- 
 ferred, as he said, to "march through that State smashing things 
 to the sea." He wrote to Grant after his march through South 
 Carolina, saying: 
 
 "The people of South Carolina, instead of feeding Lee's army, 
 will now call on Lee to feed them." 
 
 (2 Memoirs, page 298.) 
 
 So complete had been his destruction in that State. He slso 
 says : 
 
 "Having utterly ruined Columbia, the right wing began its 
 march northward," &c. 
 
 2 Memoirs, page 288. 
 
 On the 21st of February, 1865, only a few days after the 
 burning of Columbia, General Hampton wrote to General Sher- 
 man, charging him with being responsible for its destruction, 
 and other outrages, in which he said, among other things: 
 
 "You permitted, if you have not ordered, the commission of 
 these offences against humanity and the rules of war. You fired 
 into the city of Columbia without a word of warning. After 
 its surrender by the Mayor, who demanded protection to private 
 property, you laid the whole city in ashes, leaving amid its ruins 
 thousands of old men and helpless women and children, who 
 are likely to perish of starvation and exposure. Your line of 
 march can be traced by the lurid light of burning houses, ?nd 
 in more than one household there is an agony far more bitter 
 than death. 
 
 "The Indian scalped his victim, regardless of age or sex, but 
 
IS 
 
 with all his barbarity, he always respected the person of his- 
 female captives. Your soldiers, more savage than the Indian, 
 insult those whose natural protectors are absent." 
 3 Great Civil War, 601. 
 
 SHERIDAN'S OBDEBS AND CONDUCT. 
 
 But whilst no one will dispute the fact that Sherman has a 
 clear title to the distinction we have accorded him in this re- 
 port, yet, unfortunately for the people of the South, he has 
 other vailing and efficient aids in his work of devastation, de- 
 struction and vandalism; and we must now take up, for a time, 
 the work of his "close second," General Philip H. Sheridan. 
 This officer is reputed to have said that the true principles for 
 conducting war are — 
 
 "First. Deal as hard blows to the enemy's soldiers as possible, 
 and then cause so much suffering to the inhabitants of the 
 country that they will long for peace and press their govern- 
 ment to make it." "Nothing" (he says) "should he left to the 
 people hut eyes to lament the war." 
 
 He certainly acted on the last of these principles in his deal- 
 ings with the people of the beautiful Valley of Virginia, which 
 by his vandalism was converted from one of the most fertile and 
 beautiful portions of our land, into a veritable "valley of the 
 shadow of death." He actually boasted that he had so deso- 
 lated it, that "a crow flying over would have to carry his own 
 rations." 
 
 In Sheridan's letter to Grant, dated "Woodstock, October 7, 
 1864, he says of his work: 
 
 "In moving back to this point the whole country, from the 
 Blue Bidge to the North Mountain, has been made untenable 
 for the rebel army. 
 
 "I have destroyed over 2,000 bams filled with wheat and 
 hay and farming implements; over TO mills filled with flour and 
 wheat; have driven in front of the army over 4,000 head of 
 stock, and have killed and issued to the troops not less than 
 3,000 sheep. This destruction embraces the Luray Valley and 
 Little Eort Valley, as well as the main valley. 
 
 "A large number of horses have been obtained, a proper 
 estimate of which I cannot now make. 
 
 "Lieutenant John B. Meigs, my engineer officer, was mur- 
 dered beyond Harrisonburg, near Dayton. For this atrocious 
 act all the houses within an area of fve miles were burned." 
 
19 
 
 It is not generally known, we believe, that this policy of de- 
 vastation on the part of Sheridan was directly inspired and 
 ordered by General Grant, who, in Ins Memoirs, writes with 
 great satisfaction and levity of the outrages committed by Sher- 
 man, before referred to, and which he, of course, understood 
 would be committed, from the terms of Sherman's telegram to 
 him, and which he, at the least, acquiesced in. 
 
 On the 5th of August, 1864, he (Grant) wrote to General 
 David Hunter, who preceded Sheridan in command of the Val- 
 ley, as follows, viz. : 
 
 "In pushing up the Shenandoah Valley, where it is expected 
 you will have to go first or last, it is desirable that nothing 
 should be left to invite the enemy to return. Take all provisions, 
 forage and stock wanted for the use of your command, such as 
 cannot be consumed destroy.'''' * * 
 
 And says Mr. Horace Greely: 
 
 "This order, Sheridan, in returning down the Valley, executed 
 to the letter. Whatever of grain and forage had escaped appro- 
 priation by one or another of the armies which had so frequently 
 chased each other up and down this narrow but fertile and pro- 
 ductive vale, was now given to the torch." 
 
 2 Am. Conflict, 610-11. 2 Grant's Memoirs, 581, 364-5. 
 
 The facts about the alleged murder of Lieutenant Meigs, for 
 which Sheridan says he burned all the houses in an area of five 
 miles, are these: Three of our cavalry scouts, in uniform, and 
 with their arms, got within Sheridan's lines, and encountered 
 Lieiitenant Meigs, with two Federal soldiers. These parties 
 came on each other suddenly. Meigs was ordered to surrender 
 by one of our men, and he replied by shooting and wounding- 
 this man, who, in turn, fired and killed Meigs. One of the men 
 with Meigs was captured and the other escaped. It was for this 
 perfectly justifiable conduct in war that Sheridan says he or- 
 dered all the houses of private citizens within an area of five 
 miles to be burned. 
 
 (See proof of facts of this occurrence, to the satisfaction of 
 Lieutenant Meigs' father, 9th South. His. Society Papers, page 
 77.) 
 
 BUTLER'S OEDEK. 
 
 Butler's infamous order ]STo. 28, directing that any lady of 
 New Orleans who should "by word, gesture or movement insult 
 
20 
 
 or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, 
 she shall be regarded and treated as a woman of the town, plying 
 her avocation/' not only infuriated the people of the South and 
 caused the author to be "outlawed" by our government, and 
 denominated the "beast," but Lord Palmerson, in the British 
 House of Commons, "took occasion to be astonished to blush 
 and to proclaim his deepest indignation at the tenor of that 
 order." . (2 Greely, p. 100.) 
 
 But we are sick of these recitals, and must conclude our re- 
 port, already longer than we intended it should be. We there- 
 fore only allude to the orders found on the person of Dahlgren, 
 to burn, sack and destroy the city of Richmond, to "kill Jeff. 
 Davis and his Cabinet on the spot," &c. 
 
 The infamous deeds of General Edward A. Wild, both in 
 Virginia and Georgia, and that of Colonel John McNeil in Mis- 
 souri, some of which can be found set forth in the first volume 
 of the Southern Historical Papers, at pages 226 and 232, are 
 shocking and disgraceful beyond description. 
 
 Now contrast with all these orders and all this conduct on 
 the part of the Federal officers and soldiers, the address of 
 General Early to the people of York, Pa., when our army in-' 
 vaded that State in the Gettysburg campaign; or, better still, 
 the order of General Robert E. Lee to his army on that march. 
 We will let that order speak for itself. Here it is: 
 
 "Headquarters A. 1ST. V., 
 "Chambersburg, Pa., June 27, 1863. 
 "General Orders No. 73. 
 
 "The commanding general has marked with 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 per- 
 formed the arduous marches of the first 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 the duties exacted of us by civiliza- 
 tion and Christianity are not less obligatory in the countrv of 
 the enemy than in our own. The commanding general con- 
 siders that no greater disgrace could befall the army, and 
 through it to our whole people, than the perpetration of the 
 barbarous outrages upon the innocent and defenceless and the 
 wanton destruction of private property, that have marked the 
 course of the enemy in our own countrv. Such proceedings not 
 
21 
 
 only disgrace 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 movements. It must be 
 remembered that we make war only on armed men, and that we 
 cannot take vengeance for the wrongs our people have suffered 
 without lowering ourselves in the eyes of all whose abhorence 
 has been excited by the atrocities of our enemy, and offending 
 against Him to whom vengeance belongeth, without whose favor 
 and support our efforts must all prove in vain. The command- 
 ing 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. 
 
 "K. E. LEE, General." 
 
 The London Times commented most favorably on this order, 
 and its American correspondent said of it and of the conduct 
 of our troops: 
 
 "The greatest surprise has been expressed to me by officers 
 from the Austrian, Prussian and English armies, each of which 
 have representatives here, that volunteer troops, provoked by 
 nearly twenty-seven months of unparalleled ruthlessness and 
 wantonness, of which their country has been the scene, should 
 be under such control, and should be willing to act in harmony 
 with the long suffering and forbearance of President Davis and 
 General Lee." 
 
 To show how faithfully that order was carried out, the same 
 writer tells how he saw, with his own eyes, General Lee and a 
 surgeon of his command repairing a farmer's fence that had 
 been damaged by the army. Indeed, we might rest our whole 
 case on the impartial judgment of a distinguished foreigner, 
 who, writing in 1864, drew this vivid picture and striking con- 
 trast between the way the war was conducted on our part and 
 on that of the Federals. He says: 
 
 "This contest has been signalized by the exhibition of some 
 of the best and some of the worst qualities that war has ever 
 brought out. It has produced a recklessness of human life, a 
 contempt of principles, a disregard of engagements, * * the 
 headlong adoption of the most lawless measures, the public 
 faith scandalously violated, both towards friends and enemies; 
 the liberty of the citizen at the hands of arbitrary power; the 
 liberty of the press aholished; the suspension of the Habeas 
 
22 
 
 corpus act; illegal imprisonments; midnight arrests; punish- 
 ments inflicted without trial; the courts of law controlled by- 
 satellites of government; elections carried on under military- 
 supervision; a ruffianism, both of word and action, eating deep 
 into the country * * *; the must brutal inhumanity in 
 the conduct of the war itself; outrages upon the defenceless, 
 upon women, children and prisoners; plunder, rapine, devasta- 
 tion, murder — all the old horrors of barbarous warfare which 
 Europe is beginning to be ashamed of, and new refinements of 
 cruelty thereto added, by way of illustrating the advance of 
 knowledge." 
 
 He further says: 
 
 "It has also produced qualities and phenomena the opposite 
 of these. Ardour and devotednees of patriotism, which might 
 alone make us proud of the century to which we belong; a una- 
 nimity such as was probably never witnessed before; a wisdom 
 in legislation, a stainless good faith under extremely difficult 
 circumstances, a clear apprehension of danger, coupled with a 
 determination to face it to the uttermost; a resolute abnegation 
 of power in favor of leaders in whom those who selected them 
 could trust; with an equally resolute determination to reserve 
 the liberty of criticism, and not to allow those trusted leaders 
 to go one inch beyond their legal powers; a heroism in the field 
 and behind the defences of besieged cities, which can match 
 anything that history has to show; a wonderful helpfulness in 
 supplying needs and creating fresh resources; a chivalrous *nd 
 romantic daring, which recalls the middle ages; a most scrupu- 
 lous regard for the rights of hostile property ; a tender considera- 
 tion for the vanquished and the weak. * * * * And the 
 remarkable circumstance is, that all the good qualities have been 
 on the one side and all the bad ones on the other." 
 
 In other words, he says that all the good qualities have been 
 on the side of the South, and all the bad ones on the side of the 
 North. (See Confederate Secession, by the Marquis of Lothian, 
 p. 183.) 
 
 And all this was written prior to the conduct of the armies 
 under Sherman and Sheridan, some of which we have herein set 
 forth. How could the learned Marquis find words to portray 
 those things? 
 
 We could cite other authorities to, substantially, the same ef- 
 fect; but surely this arraignment from this high source ought 
 to be sufficient. If any one thinks this distinguished writer has 
 overdrawn the picture, especially in regard to illegal arrests and 
 
23 
 
 Imprisonments and brutal conduct towards women and children, 
 and the defenceless generally, let them read a little book en- 
 titled, "The Old Capital and its Inmates" which has inscribed 
 on its cover what Mr. Seward boastingly said to Lord Lyons, the 
 British Minister at Washington, on September 14, 1861, viz.: 
 
 "My Lord" (he says), "I can touch a bell on my right hand 
 order the arrest of a citizen of Ohio. I can touch a bell again 
 and order the arrest of a citizen of New York. Can the Queen 
 of England in her dominions do as much?" 
 
 The late Judge Jeremiah S. Black, of Pennsylvania, at one 
 time President of the Supreme Court of that State, and after- 
 wards Attorney-General of the United States under Mr. Buch- 
 anan, one of the most distinguished lawyers and writers of his 
 day, thus writes of Mr. Seward and his little bell : 
 
 " Now as to the little bell. The same Higher Law which gave 
 the Federal Government power to legislate against the States, 
 in defiance of the Constitution, would logically justify any exec- 
 utive outrage that might be desired for party purposes, on the 
 life, liberty and property of individuals. Such was Mr. Seward's 
 theory, and such was the practice of himself and his subordi- 
 nates, and some of his colleagues." 
 
 He says further to Mr. Charles Frances Adams (to whom he 
 was writing) : 
 
 "I will not pain you by a recital of the wanton cruelties they 
 inflicted upon unoffending citizens. I have neither space nor 
 skill nor time to paint them. A life-size picture of them would 
 cover more canvas than there is on the earth." * * * "Since 
 the fall of Robespierre" (he says) "nothing has occurred to cast 
 so much disrepute on republican institutions. When Mr. Se- 
 ward went into the State Department he took a little bell to his 
 office, in place of the statute book, and this piece of sounding 
 brass came to be a symbol of the Higher Law. When he desired 
 to kidnap a free citizen, to banish him, to despoil him of his 
 property, or to kill him after the mockery of a military trial, 
 he rang his little bell, and the deed was done." 
 
 (See Black's Essays, page 153.) 
 
 In speaking of the murder of Mrs. Surratt, he says: 
 
 " In 1865, months after the peace, at the political capitol of 
 
24 
 
 tiie nation, in full sight of the Executive mansion, the Capitol 
 and the City Hall, where the courts were in session, a perfectly 
 innocent and most respectable woman was lawlessly dragged 
 from her family and brutally put to death, without judge or 
 jury, upon the mere order of certain military officers convoked 
 for that purpose. It was, take it all in all, as foul a murder as 
 ever blackened the face of God's sky. But it was done in strict 
 accordance with Higher Law, and the Law Department of the 
 United States approved it." 
 
 JSTow this is what a Northern man, living in Washington at 
 the time, a profound lawyer and statesman, has to say of these 
 things. 
 
 As a matter of course, the North will attempt to reply (about 
 the only reply they can offer with any apparent justification): 
 Well, they will ask, was not Chambersburg burnt by General 
 Early's order 1 ? Yes, it was; but under circumstances which 
 show that that act was no justification whatever for the out- 
 rages we have set forth in this paper, and was only resorted 
 to by General Early by way of retaliation, and to try, if possible, 
 to stop the outrages then being committed. It was only resorted 
 to, too, after full warning and an offer to the municipal authori- 
 ties of Chambersburg to prevent the conflagration by paying lor 
 certain private property just previously destroyed by General 
 Hunter. But this offer these authorities refused to accede to, 
 saying a they were not afraid of having their town burned, and 
 that a Federal force was approaching." General Early says in 
 his report: 
 
 "I desired to give the people of Chambersburg an opportunity 
 of saving their town by making compensation for part of the 
 injury done, and hoped that the payment of such a sum (one 
 hundred thousand dollars in gold, or five hundred thousand in 
 greenbacks) would have the desired effect, and open the eyes 
 of the people of other towns at the North to the necessity of 
 urging upon their government the adoption of a different 
 policy." 
 
 (See Early's Memoirs, where the full report of this occurrence 
 is given.) 
 
 Among the private property destroyed by Hunter, for which 
 this sum was demanded by General Early, were the private resi- 
 dences of Andrew Hunter, Esq. (then a member of the Seuate- 
 of Virginia, who had prosecuted John Brown as Common- 
 wealth's Attorney of Jefferson county, Ya.); of Alexander R. 
 
25 
 
 Boteler, Esq. (an ex-member of the Confederate and United 
 States Congresses), and of Edmund J. Lee, Esq. (a relative of 
 General Lee), with their contents, only time enough having 
 been given the ladies to get out of these houses. 
 
 General Hunter had also just caused the Virginia Military 
 Institute, the house of Governor Letcher, and numerous other 
 houses in the Valley, to be burned. Even General Halleck, 
 writing to General Sherman on September 28, 1864, refers thus 
 to this conduct of Hunter. He says: 
 
 "I do not approve of General Hunter's course in, burning 
 private houses or uselessly destroying private property. That 
 is barbarous." * * 
 
 See 2 Sherman's Mem., page 129. 
 
 No soldier in the Confederate army understood better than 
 General Early the rules of civilized warfare, or was more op- 
 posed to vandalism in every form. His conduct at York, Pa., 
 before referred to, and his address to the people of that town, 
 show this in the most satisfactory manner. He says: 
 
 "I have abstained from burning the railroad buildings imd 
 car shops in your town because, after examination, I am satisfied 
 that the safety of the town would be endangered. Acting in 
 the spirit of humanity, which has ever characterized my govern- 
 ment and its military authorities, I do not desire to involve the 
 innocent in the same punishment with the guilty. Had I ap- 
 plied the torch without regard to consequences, I would have 
 pursued a course which would have been fully vindicated as an 
 act of just retaliation for the unparalleled acts of brutality on 
 our soil. But we do not war upon women and children." 
 
 General B. H. Anderson, in his report of the Gettysburg 
 campaign, says: 
 
 "The conduct of my troops was in the highest degree praise- 
 worthy. Obedient to the order of the commanding general, 
 they refrained from retaliating upon the enemy for outrages 
 inflicted upon their homes. Peaceable inhabitants suffered no 
 molestation. In a land of plenty, they often suffered hunger 
 and want. One-fourth their number marched ragged and bare- 
 footed through towns in which merchants were known to have 
 concealed ample supplies of clothing and shoes." 
 
 On the 2nd of July, 1863, when the battle of Gettysburg was 
 
26 
 
 being fought, and when President Davis had every reason to 
 believe we would he victorious, he wrote: 
 
 "My whole purpose is, in one word, to place this war on the 
 footing of such as are waged by civilized people in modern times, 
 and to diveet it of the savage character which has been impressed 
 on it by our enemies, in spite of all our efforts and protests." 
 
 Hoke's Great Invasion, p. 52. 
 
 Of course, we do not pretend to say that there were not indi- 
 vidual cases of depredation committed, and even on our own 
 people, by some of our soldiers. Indeed, it was often necessary 
 for our army to subsist on the country through which it marched, 
 which was perfectly legitimate. And when we remember the 
 sufferings and privations to which our armies had to be subjected 
 by reason of our lack of necessary supplies of almost all kinds, 
 it is amazing that so little "foraging" was done by our men. 
 But what we do contend for and state, "without the least fear of 
 contradiction, is that the conflict was conducted throughout on 
 the part of the South — by the 'Government at home and the of- 
 ficers in the field — upon the highest principles of civilized war- 
 fare; that if these were ever departed from, it was clone without 
 the sanction and against the orders of the Confederate authori- 
 ties. And that exactly the reverse of this is true as to the Fede- 
 ral authorities, we have established by the most overwhelming 
 mass of testimony, furnished almost entirely from Northern 
 sources. 
 
 But we cannot protract this paper; it is already much longer 
 than we intended or desired it should be. We would like to 
 have embraced in it a full discussion of the treatment of prison- 
 ers on both sides; but we must leave this, and the treatment of 
 Mr. Davis whilst a prisoner, for some future report. If any 
 one desires, in advance of that, to see a full discussion of these 
 subjects,. we refer, as to the former, to the very able articles by 
 Rev. J. "William Jones, D. D., in Vol. I., Southern Historical 
 Society Papers, beginning with page 113, and running through 
 several numbers of that volume, in which he adduces a. mass of 
 testimony, and completely vindicates the South. He shows — 
 
 (1) (As Mr. Davis states it) "From the reports of the United" 
 States War Department, that though we had sixty thousand 
 more Federal prisoners than they had of Confederates, six thou- 
 sand more of Confederates died in Northern prisons than died 
 of Federals in Southern prisons." 
 
27 
 
 (2) That the laws of the Confederate Congress, the regula- 
 tions of our Surgeon-General, the orders of our generals in the 
 field, and of those who had the immediate charge of prisoners, 
 all provided that they should be kindly treated, supplied with 
 the same rations that our soldiers had, and cared for when sick 
 in hospitals and placed on precisely the same footing as Con- 
 federate soldiers. 
 
 (3) If these regulations were violated by subordinates in in- 
 dividual instances, it was done without the knowledge or consent 
 of the Confederate authorities, which promptly rebuked and 
 punished any case reported. 
 
 (4) If prisoners failed to get full rations, or had those of in- 
 ferior quality, the Confederate soldiers suffered the same priva- 
 tions, and these were the necessary consequences of the mode 
 of carrying on the war on the part of the North, which brought 
 desolation and ruin on the South, and these conditions were 
 necessarily reflected on their prisoners in our hands. 
 
 (5) That the mortality in Southern prisons resulted from 
 causes beyond our control, but these could have been greatly 
 alleviated had not medicines been declared by the Federal Gov- 
 ernment as "contraband of war," and had not the Federal au- 
 thorities refused the ^offer of our Agent of Exchange, the late 
 Judge Ould, that each Government should send its own surgeons 
 and medicines to relieve the sufferings of their respective sol- 
 diers in prisons — refused to accept our offer to let them send 
 medicines, &c, to relieve their own prisoners, without any such 
 privilege being accorded by them to us — refused to allow the 
 Confederate Government to buy medicines for gold, tobacco, or 
 cotton, &c, which it offered to pledge its honor should only be 
 used for their prisoners in our hands — refused to exchange sick 
 and wounded, and neglected from August to December, 1864, 
 to accede to our Agent's proposition to send transportation to 
 Savannah and receive without any equivalent from ten to fifteen 
 thousand Federal prisoners, although the offer was accompanied 
 with the statement of our Agent of Exchange (Judge Ould), 
 showing the monthly mortality at Andersonville, and that we 
 were utterly unable to care for these prisoners as they should be 
 cared for, and that Judge Ould again and again urged com- 
 pliance with this humane proposal on our part. 
 
 (6) That the sufferings of Confederates in Northern prisons 
 were terrible, almost beyond description ; that they were starved 
 in a land of plenty; that they were allowed fc> freeze where 
 
28 
 
 clothing and fuel were plentiful; that they suffered for hospital 
 stores, medicines and proper attention when sick; that they were 
 shot by sentinels, beaten by officers, and subjected to the most 
 cruel punishments upon the slightest pretexts; that friends at 
 the jSTorth were, in many instances, refused the privilege of 
 clothing their nakedness or feeding them when they were starv- 
 ing; and that these outrages were often perpetrated not only 
 with the knowledge, but by the orders of E. M. Stanton, Secre- 
 tary of War of the United States. 
 
 And (7) That the sufferings of prisoners on both s; n 'des wr- 
 caused by the failure to carry out the terms of the Cartel for 
 exchange, and for this failure the Federal authorities were alone 
 responsible. 
 
 These propositions are stated substantially in the language 
 employed by Dr. Jones, and although twenty-five years have 
 since elapsed, they have never been controverted in any es- 
 sential particular, as far as we have heard or known. Our peo- 
 ple owe Dr. Jones a debt of gratitude for this able and effective 
 vindication of their course in this important matter, which: they 
 can never repay. 
 
 As to the treatment of Mr. Davis whilst a prisoner: 
 
 Captain Charles M. Blackford, of Lynchburg, Va., in an 
 article read before the Virginia Bar Association at its meeting 
 at Old Point, in 1900 (the facts of which article were taken 
 entirely from the official records of the Federal Government)^ 
 showed in a masterly manner that this treatment was the refine- 
 ment of cruelty and cowardice on the part of the Federal authori- 
 ties, and such as should bring the blush of shame to the cheek 
 of every American citizen who was in sympathy with, or a par- 
 ticipant in, those acts. Our people owe Captain Blackford a 
 debt of gratitude also for this article. It can be found in the 
 printed reports of the Virginia Bar Association for 1900. Ten 
 thousand copies of it were ordered by the Association to be 
 printed for distribution. 
 
 As we said in our last report, it will doubtless be asked by 
 some, who have no just conception of the motives which actuate 
 us in making these reports, Why we gather up and exhibit to 
 the world these records of a bitter strife now ended more than a 
 third of a century? Does it not, they ask, only do harm by keep- 
 ing alive the smouldering embers of that conflict? We reply 
 to all these enquiries, that such is not our intention or desire. 
 But the four years of that war made a history of the people of 
 the JSTorth and of the people of the South, much of which has 
 been written only by historians of the North. In this history, 
 all the blame concerning the war has been laid on the people of 
 
29 
 
 the South, and the attempt made to "consign them to infamy." 
 There were two sides to the issues involved in that war, and the 
 historians of the North, with the superior means at their com- 
 mand, have used, and are still using, these means to convince 
 the world that they were right and that we were wrong. They 
 are striving, too, to teach our children that this was the case, *'nd 
 for thirty years their histories were taught in our schools, un- 
 challenged, and in that way the minds of our children were pre- 
 judiced and poisoned against the acts and conduct of their 
 parents in regard to that conflict. We therefore feel that we 
 owe it to ourselves and to the memories of those who suffered 
 and died for the cause we fought so hard to maintain, to let our 
 children and the world know the truth as to the causes of that 
 conflict, and how it was conducted. This Camp has, as we have 
 said, done much in that direction; it can do much more; and, 
 in our opinion, no higher or more sacred duty could be imposed 
 on or undertaken by men. 
 
 There were during the war, and there are now, many brave 
 and true men at the North. There were many such in the Fede- 
 ral armies, and there were many of these who, whilst taking sides 
 with the North on the question of maintaining the Union, were 
 shocked and disgusted at the methods pursued by it to accom- 
 plish that result. These have written and spoken about these 
 methods, both of what they thought and of what they knew, 
 and we have only gathered up some of this testimony in support 
 of the justice of our cause, and of the course pursued by us to 
 maintain it. Surely the North cannot complain if we rest our 
 case upon their testimony. We have done this almost exclu- 
 sively, both in this and in former reports. The history contained 
 in these reports, then, is not only that made, but also that written 
 by Northern men. 
 
 As we have said, many of these were brave and true men, 
 and one of them wrote that the acts committed by some of their 
 commanders and comrades were enough to make him "ashamed 
 of the flag that waved over him as he went into battle." Is it 
 surprising that such was the case ? 
 
 It is said that General Hunter had to deprive forty of his 
 commissioned officers of their commands before he could find 
 one to carry into execution his infamous orders. 
 
 We have drawn this contrast, then, between the way the war 
 was conducted by the North and the way it was conducted by 
 the South, for many good reasons, but especially to show that the 
 Confederate soldiers never made war on defenceless women and 
 children, whilst the Federal soldiers did, and that this was done 
 with the sanction of some of their most noted leaders, some of 
 whom, as we have seen, shared in the fruits of the depredations 
 
30 
 
 committed on these defenceless people. In doing this, we believe 
 toe have done only what was just to ourselves and our children. 
 
 It must be remembered, too, that a large number of persons 
 at the North still delight to speak of that war as a " Rebellion" 
 and of us as " Rebels" and " Traitors." We have shown by the 
 testimony of their own people, not only that they rebelled 
 against, but overthrew the Constitution to make war on us, and 
 that when they did go to war, they violated every rule they had 
 laid down for the government of their armies, and waged it with 
 a savage cruelty unknown in the history of civilization. 
 
 The late commander-in-chief of the British armies has re- 
 cently written of our great leader, that "in a long and varied life 
 of wandering, I have" (he says) "only met two men whom I 
 prized as being above all the world I have ever known, and the 
 greater of these two was General Lee, America's greatest man, 
 as I understand history." 
 
 The present Chief Magistrate of this country wrote twelve 
 years ago, that "the world has never seen better soldiers than 
 those who followed Lee, and that their leader will undoubtedly 
 rank as, without any exception, the very greatest of all great 
 captains that the English-speaking people have brought forth." 
 See Life of Benton, page 38. 
 
 Is it a matter of surprise, then, that the same hand should 
 have recently written: 
 
 "I am extremely proud of the fact that one of my uncles was 
 an admiral in the Confederate Navy, and that another fired the 
 last gun fired aboard the Alabama. I think" (he says) "the time 
 has now come when we can, all of us, be proud of the valor 
 shown on both sides in the civil war." 
 
 If President Roosevelt really believed that his uncles were 
 ever "rebels" and "traitors," would he be "extremely proud" 
 of that fact? Would he be proud to be the nephew of Benedict 
 Arnold? No; and no man at the North who knows anything of 
 the foundation of this Government believes for a moment that 
 any Confederate soldier was a "rebel" or "traitor," or that the 
 war on our part was a " Rebellion." Even G-oldwin Smith, the 
 harshest and most unjust historian to the South, wiho has ever 
 written about the war (as demonstrated by our distinguished 
 Past Grand Commander, Captain Cussons), says: 
 
 "The Southern leaders ought not to have been treated as 
 rebels," for, says he, " Secession was not rebellion." 
 
 And so we say the times has come when these intended oppro- 
 
31 
 
 brious epithets should cease to be used. But whether called 
 "rebels" or not, the Confederate soldier has nothing to be 
 ashamed of. Can the soldiers of the Federal armies read this 
 record and say the same? 
 
 Yes, our comrades, let them call us "rebels," if they will; we 
 are proud of the title, and with good reason. More than a hun- 
 dred years ago, when, as Pitt said, "even the chimney sweeps 
 in London streets talked boastingly of their subjects in America," 
 Bebel was the uniform title of those despised subjects (and as 
 our own eloquent Keily once said) : 
 
 "This sneer was the substitute for argument, which Camden 
 and Chatham met in the Lords, and Burke and Barre in the 
 Commons, as their eloquent voices were raised for justice to the 
 Americans of the last century. 'Disperse Rebels' was the opening 
 gun at Lexington. 'Rebels' was the sneer of General Gage ad- 
 dressed to the brave lads of Boston Commons. It was the title 
 by which Dunmore attempted to stigmatize the Burgesses of 
 Virginia, and Sir Henry Clinton passionately denounced the 
 patriotic women of ISTew York. At the base of every statue 
 which gratitude has erected to patriotism in America you will 
 find 'Rebel' written. The springing shaft at Bunker Hill, the 
 modest shaft which tells where Warren fell, * * * the 
 fortresses which line our coasts, the name of our Country's Capi- 
 tal, the very streets of our cities — all proclaim America's bound- 
 less debt to rebels; not only to rebels who, like Hamilton and 
 Warren, gave their first love and service to the young Republic, 
 but rebels who, like Franklin and Washington, broke their oath 
 of allegiance to become rebels.'''' 
 
 And so we say, let them call us what they may, the justice 
 of our cause precludes fear on our part as to the final verdict of 
 history. We can commit the principles for which we fought; 
 we can confide the story of our deeds ; we can consign the heri- 
 tage of heroism we have bequeathed the world to posterity with 
 the confident expectation of justice at the hands of the coming 
 historian. 
 
 "In seeds of laurel in the earth 
 
 The blossom of your fame is blown, 
 And somewhere waiting for its birth 
 The shaft is in the stone." 
 
 Yes, truly, 
 
 ""The triumphs of might are transient — they pass and are 
 
32 
 
 forgotten — the sufferings of rigid are graven deepest in the 
 chronicle of nations." 
 
 We have nothing to add to what has been stated in our former 
 reports about the histories now used in our schools, since, as 
 has been stated, we think tuey are the best now obtainable. 
 
 We are glad to note that the Rev. J. William Jones, D. D., 
 has had issued a new edition of his school history of the United 
 States, which is a great improvement on the first edition., and 
 that he is now preparing an edition for use in High Schools and 
 Colleges. We are also informed that the Rev. Henry Alexander 
 White, D. D., of Washington and Lee University, has in press 
 a history of the United States. Judging from Dr. White's Life 
 of General Lee, we shall be disappointed if his book is not a 
 good one. 
 
 We hail the advent of these works by Southern authors with 
 the greatest interest and pleasure, and we feel satisfied that they 
 are the natural and logical outcome of the efforts made by these 
 Confederate Camps to have the Truth taught to our children. 
 As we said in our last report, so we repeat here: We ash for 
 nothing more, and will be satisfied with nothing less.' 
 
 Fiat justicia ruat coelum. 
 
 GEORGE L. CHRISTIAN, 
 
 Chairman. 
 
Photomount 
 
 Pamphlet 
 
 Binder 
 
 Gay lord Bros. 
 
 Makers 
 Syracuse, N. Y. 
 
 PAT. JAN 21, 1908 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF N.C. AT CHAPEL HILL 
 
 00032721243 
 
 This book must not 
 be taken from the 
 Library building. 
 
 Form No. 471