To quote Joe Becket:

Quote:I've just finished Walter Cisco's War Crimes Against Southern Civilians. The book is horrific and it seems there's an atrocity detailed in every paragraph. The looting, rape, arson and torture commited during the push through the South is something anyone who thinks that the Union Army was on a Divine mission for freedom really should read.

Joe brings up some good points here.

Does anyone have any thoughts on whether or not atrocities against Southern civilians by the Northern army fueled JWB and company in their conspiracy against Lincoln and the Federal government? Powell definitely saw retaliation against Confederate soldiers by George Custer's unit - could he have witnessed other atrocities against Southern citizens?


Am I opening up another "can of worms" here? Thoughts?

(05-09-2014 07:22 AM)BettyO Wrote:  Am I opening up another "can of worms" here? Thoughts?

It would only be a can of worms for those who have a problem with the truth, Betty. The book truly was horrific and I'd go as far as to recommend that anyone who is emotionally sensitive stay away from it.

I think you would have to factor this in Betty. There were many references made about Lincoln being a tyrant. Sherman and Sheridan certainly weren't rogue officers. "Total War" was a strategy played by the administration.

"Leave them only their eyes from which to weep." - Sheridan

Sherman stated that this War is no longer against a hostile army, it is now against a hostile people.

Kate Stone writes in her diary:
May 15, 1865
"Conquered,Submission.Subjugation. Are the words in my heart." Then rejoiced in the death of Lincoln at the hands of Booth for "riding the world of a tyrant. We are glad he is not alive to rejoice in our humiliation and insult us with his jokes."

Betty, I think emotion and despair played a huge factor.
I think you can make a great argument that vengeance played a huge roll in the aftermath of Lee's surrender. The war was in all sense over. It was vengeance that ultimately killed Lincoln, and it was vengeance that punished the South during Reconstruction. Melville's poem " The Martyr " sums it up quite nicely.

GOOD Friday was the day
Of the prodigy and crime,
When they killed him in his pity,
When they killed him in his prime
Of clemency and calm--
When with yearning he was filled
To redeem the evil-willed,
And, though conqueror, be kind;
But they killed him in his kindness,
In their madness and their blindness,
And they killed him from behind.

There is sobbing of the strong,
And a pall upon the land;
But the People in their weeping
Bare the iron hand:
Beware the People weeping
When they bare the iron hand.

He lieth in his blood--
The father in his face;
They have killed him, the Forgiver--
The Avenger takes his place,
The Avenger wisely stern,
Who in righteousness shall do
What the heavens call him to,
And the parricides remand;
For they killed him in his kindness,
In their madness and their blindness,
And his blood is on their hand.

There is sobbing of the strong,
And a pall upon the land;
But the People in their weeping
Bare the iron hand:
Beware the People weeping
When they bare the iron hand.

Loved reading the Melville poem again- as I hadn't done so in a couple of years. No "can of worms" Betty. We realize that horrible things were done on both sides. Sounds like the book is heartbreaking in retelling some of what was done. Although we may tend to romanize the era- I don't think living at that time was a bowl of cherries.

Since the states north of the Mason Dixon Line were spared the horror of invasion and destruction by the enemy -- black flag warfare at its worse -- it was/is probably very difficult to imagine what the South went through and to understand the hostilities that continued for years. Carpetbagger governments and Reconstruction policies didn't help the situation either. And, those in control of the presses (no matter what era) tend to sweep the atrocities under the rug. What's the saying about not understanding someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes?

BTW: The Melville poem uses the term "Beware the people weeping." I hope y'all are aware of the excellent book of that name written about 25-30 years ago by a member of this forum, Dr. Tom Turner.

BettyO,In the time of The American Revolution-Gen.Washington sent Gen.Sullivan into the Finger Lakes Region[Sullivan's March] to wipeout the Iroquois Nation to and take Fort Niagara.The Atrocities were "Horrific"! Thus,I feel we were well-Educated in Atrocities from-"Get Go".Yes,I do feel that JWB was fueled by the Terrible"Conquest"of the South by the North.If you look at our History of Atrocities-from-The Revoution,Wounded Knee,Civil War, to Viet-Nam and beyond,we have been"well-trained".

Ya'll all bring up some excellent points. I totally agree with you, Herb. Yes, in the 19th Century in particular, it seems that we were totally desensoritized to pain and fairness in more than a lot of ways. As long as it was perceived as being the "right" thing to do, in a lot of cases, it seemed OK to perpetuate unfairness on others.

I think that a lot of things went unpublished; but then a lot was published as well; i.e., the Native American atrocities, for example. Young Powell probably saw a lot of cruelty in the Army, including the hanging of innocent boys by Custer's men. Isham Keith's mother (Keith rode with Mosby's unit) suffered their Warrenton home and all their belongings burned and/or comfiscated as well as being subjected to "an outrage" - a polite Victorian eupherism for rape. So these things did indeed go on on both sides. How much they bore on young minds remains to be seen. Was Powell influenced by these atrocities in his attack on Seward? We'll probably never know, but it's not too difficult to speculate.

(05-09-2014 12:33 PM)BettyO Wrote:  Was Powell influenced by these atrocities in his attack on Seward? We'll probably never know, but it's not too difficult to speculate.

I can't help but think that if he wasn't influenced by them, he certainly was hardened by them. I don't think Booth saw much of the South towards the end of the war, but his sister did say that she felt if he started to come unhinged, it was after the fall of Richmond.

The biggest problem in Viet-Nam,was keeping soldiers from trying to"Get Even".But,a lot of drugs and Alcohol were consumed by soldiers seeking"Revenge".

Quote:...a lot of drugs and Alcohol were consumed by soldiers seeking"Revenge".

We do know that Powell's best army buddy, Sam Mitchell, stated after the war that Powell, "didn't much like liquor" - and as for drugs? Who knows, but I doubt that unless he purchased over the counter stuff for dental/tooth pain, or was given such in military hospitals, that he did not use drugs either. JWB also had access to drugs - but I don't believe that they made use of them, other than simply smuggling them for use within the Confederate army.

There were "Drug" problems in the Civil War Period - in the Army and in the civilian population. Mary Chestnut was a "User". The popular drug was Laudanum - an Opium derivative. In fact, it was called the "Soldier Disease' or the "Army Disease." I've seen it called the "Soldier Sickness". Apparently, Laudanum was readily available, and inexpensive. I read an original copy of one of Dr. Richard H. Stuart's "Day Books", and he gave Laudanum to his slaves as a daily fix. That was an easy way to keep them home. I don't know of anyone who has followed up on this subject. I've seen Newspaper ads (Old ones, to be sure) for cures for addiction to Opium, that used Laudanum. (I guess the Cure - was death.) I find this sickening, just to talk about it.

I do wonder what diarist Kate Stone felt about the guy who replaced "tyrant" Lincoln?

Surely she wasn't still rejoicing over JWB's deed after four years of President Andrew Johnson, who spent the night of the assassination bitterly muttering to himself "they will pay for this...they will pay for this" over and over again?

He fanatically loathed the rebels and the Southern planters, and intended to punish them in a way that AL never did. And he made his point by ignoring the military tribunal's recommendation of clemency for the widow Surratt.

Her execution is squarely on his shoulders.

Old Abe and his silly jokes would have been a picnic for the South in comparison to what JWB caused them to get.

For the record, I read James McPherson's excellent "Battle Cry of Freedom" and if I ever believed that the Union armies had any moral high ground I didn't after I put down that book. William Tecumseh Sherman in particular was a vile excuse for a human being.

But...war is hell. And it makes monsters out of men who are engaged in it on BOTH sides. Just ask the victims of the Nathan Bedford Forrest-led Fort Pillow massacre.

We will never know what the Southern armies would have been capable of if unleashed on the civilian population of the North because as Laurie pointed out, they never got the opportunity.

I think the closest idea we can get from what might have happened to Northern towns by revenge-minded Rebels is what happened to Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, in the summer of 1864. Confederate troops had held the town briefly in October of 1862 and June of 1863, but July of 1864 was a different matter.

1864 was an election year, and Lincoln was afraid that he would not get reelected if the Federal forces were not showing better progress. One of the plans of action (I don't know whether devised by Lincoln or someone else) was to destroy Virginia's Shenandoah Valley. I believe I'm correct that Gen David Hunter (later of military trial fame) was in charge of the project and did a darn good job! As we know, Sherman was having his way with Georgia.

When the opportunity came to get into Chambersburg and its rail lines again, the Confederates took it and took revenge. The town was ransomed and then set afire. Here's one brief description that I found: Rampaging through the town, Confederate soldiers broke into houses and evicted residents, smashed furniture, heaped the pieces into piles, and then set them on fire. By eight a. m. the city was in flames. As the city burned, renegade soldiers robbed citizens, looted stores, and drank whatever liquor they could find. Some demanded ransom money to spare a home, then torched it anyway after the ransom was paid.

Not all Confederates participated in the sacking of Chambersburg. The Masonic Temple was spared when an officer who was also a Mason posted guards to prevent its burning. When the colonel of the 21st Virginia Cavalry refused to obey the burning order, he was arrested and his entire unit sent out of town.

Other Confederates tried to help frantic citizens retrieve household goods before their homes were burned. In the end, perhaps 550 buildings went up in flames. In spite of the widespread arson and looting, the Rebels killed only one civilian, an elderly African American. Angry citizens killed at least five Confederates by the time the raiders had withdrawn.

In war, there is always enough blame to pass around on both sides. By 1864, I'm sure that Southern chivalry had been kicked in the teeth enough times that it wanted revenge. Likewise, Federal troops had been made to look inept for the first few years of the war, so maybe their chance to destroy the two bread baskets of the South -- the Valley and Georgia -- made them feel better?

Laurie,I'm sure it did.Remember-the scene in "Gettysburg"where the Union troops kept chanting"Fredericksburg"?Revenge and Taunting are out of Control in High School sports today!It is a scary statement of our society.

In James McPherson's "Battle Cry" Sherman is quoted as saying something to the effect that since Georgia, and South Carolina in particular, had been the seat of the "accursed rebellion" they would be made to pay the severest price in terms of revenge. Federal troops were encouraged to vent their rage even upon civilians, and they made no distinction between White and Black. There is a particular soul destroying story about troops in South Carolina encountering a group of slave women, most of whom were able to escape into the woods except for one little eight year old girl who was raped. One of the Union soldiers wrote home that he felt sickened and ashamed to be a part of his regiment.

In our more recent past we can read about this same type of cruelty inflicted by American troops upon North Vietnamese civilians in the Vietnam War.

Still, I am not prepared to believe that rebel soldiers would have behaved much better if they been unleashed victorious upon Philadelphia, Chicago and New York especially after absorbing four years of unspeakable trauma and deprivation. The unnecessary savagery inflicted by Confederates upon Union prisoners of war and upon Black Union soldiers who attempted to surrender to them strikes me as no less egregious than many of the atrocities committed by Union soldiers. Four years of deprivation, trauma, death and mayhem would have desensitized them to the same extent it did their Northern counterparts as each side blamed the other for their suffering.

I read somewhere-was it Shelby Foote? that the Civil War was the "last war fought between gentlemen".

The hell it was!