FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220  
221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   >>  
e streets was written April 4, 1865, and Howard's in which the same fact is stated was written April 1, very soon after the event, when their recollection would be fresh. All of the Southern evidence (except one statement, the most important of all) is to the effect that no cotton was burning until after the Federal troops entered the city. Many Southerners in their testimony before the British and American mixed commission under examination and cross-examination swear to this; and Wade Hampton swears that he was one of the last Confederates to leave the city, and that, when he left, no cotton was afire, and he knew that it was not fired by his men. But this testimony was taken in 1872 and 1873, and may be balanced by the sworn testimony of Sherman, Howard, and other Union officers before the same commission in 1872. The weight of the evidence already referred to would seem to me to show that cotton was afire when the Federal troops entered Columbia, but a contemporary statement of a Confederate officer puts it beyond doubt. Major Chambliss, who was endeavoring to secure the means of transportation for the Confederate ordnance and ordnance stores, wrote, in a letter of February 20, that at three o'clock on the morning of February 17, which was a number of hours before the Union soldiers entered Columbia, "the city was illuminated with burning cotton." But it does not follow that the burning cotton in the streets of Columbia was the cause of the fire which destroyed the city. When we come to the probably correct account of the incident, we shall see that the preponderance of the evidence points to another cause. February 27, ten days after the fire, Wade Hampton, in a letter to Sherman, charged him with having permitted the burning of Columbia, if he did not order it directly; and this has been iterated later by many Southern writers. The correspondence between Halleck and Sherman is cited to show premeditation on the part of the general. "Should you capture Charleston," wrote Halleck, December 18, 1864, "I hope that by some accident the place may be destroyed, and if a little salt should be sown upon the site it may prevent the growth of future crops of nullification and secession." Sherman thus replied six days later: "I will bear in mind your hint as to Charleston, and don't think salt will be necessary. When I move, the Fifteenth Corps will be on the right of the Right Wing, and their position will bring them natu
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220  
221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   >>  



Top keywords:

cotton

 

burning

 
Columbia
 

Sherman

 

February

 
evidence
 

testimony

 
entered
 
letter
 

Charleston


commission
 

Confederate

 

ordnance

 

Halleck

 

Hampton

 

examination

 

troops

 

destroyed

 

Howard

 
streets

written
 

Southern

 

Federal

 
statement
 
premeditation
 

charged

 

general

 
incident
 

directly

 

preponderance


permitted
 

points

 

writers

 
correspondence
 

iterated

 

position

 

Fifteenth

 

replied

 

accident

 
capture

December

 
future
 

nullification

 
secession
 
growth
 

prevent

 
account
 

Should

 

endeavoring

 
swears