FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   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   >>  
n of Columbia are seen now clearly by the result," said Sherman under oath. "The burning of the private dwellings, though never designed by me, was a trifling matter compared with the manifold results that soon followed. Though I never ordered it and never wished it, I have never shed many tears over the event, because I believe it hastened what we all fought for, the end of the war." It is true that he feared previous to their entry the burning of Columbia by his soldiers, owing to their "deep-seated feeling of hostility" to the town, but no general of such an army during such a campaign of invasion would have refused them the permission to occupy the capital city of South Carolina. "I could have had them stay in the ranks," he declared, "but I would not have done it under the circumstances to save Columbia." Historical and legal canons for weighing evidence are not the same. It is a satisfaction, however, when after the investigation of any case they lead to the same decision. The members of the British and American mixed commission (an Englishman, an American, and the Italian Minister at Washington), having to adjudicate upon claims for "property alleged to have been destroyed by the burning of Columbia, on the allegation that that city was wantonly fired by the army of General Sherman, either under his orders or with his consent and permission," disallowed all the claims, "all the commissioners agreeing." While they were not called upon to deliver a formal opinion in the case, the American agent was advised "that the commissioners were unanimous in the conclusion that the conflagration which destroyed Columbia was not to be ascribed to either the intention or default of either the Federal or Confederate officers." To recapitulate, then, what I think I have established: Sherman's account and that of the Union writers who follow him cannot be accepted as history. Neither is the version of Wade Hampton and the Southern writers worthy of credence. Let me now give what I am convinced is the true relation. My authorities are the contemporary accounts of six Federal officers, whose names will appear when the evidence is presented in detail; the report of Major Chambliss of the Confederate army; "The Sack and Destruction of Columbia," a series of articles in the _Columbia Phoenix_, written by William Gilmore Simms and printed a little over a month after the event; and a letter written from Charlotte, February 22, to the
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   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:

Columbia

 

burning

 
Sherman
 

American

 

commissioners

 
claims
 

officers

 
writers
 
destroyed
 

permission


Confederate
 

Federal

 

evidence

 

written

 

established

 

account

 

recapitulate

 

conflagration

 

called

 
deliver

formal
 

agreeing

 

orders

 
consent
 
disallowed
 

opinion

 

ascribed

 
intention
 

conclusion

 

advised


unanimous
 

default

 

Chambliss

 
Destruction
 

series

 

articles

 

report

 

presented

 

detail

 
Phoenix

William

 
Charlotte
 

February

 
letter
 
Gilmore
 

printed

 
version
 

Hampton

 

Southern

 
Neither