The South Was Right
Page 33
… I have been … mortified by the conduct of persons in charge of some of the gunboats. These two officers … have committed offenses against the laws of justice and humanity. … They have … converted the vessel … into an instrument of tyranny. …20
Brigadier General William H. Emory at Morganza, Louisiana, on June 3, 1864, issued General Order Number 53 in which he admitted that the evil committed by his troops was such that
… [due to] the plunder of innocent women and children. … Death would not atone for their [United States Army personnel] crimes. …21
From the evidence presented, it is obvious that the field officers were aware of the conduct of the United States army as it invaded the South. There were many instances where individual field officers made cursory attempts to control their troops, but to little avail. The problem demanded intervention from higher authorities.
SHERMAN AND GRANT KNEW
The two commanders most often associated with the victory of the United States in its war to subjugate the Southern people are William Tecumseh Sherman and Ulysses S. Grant. In this section we will question if perhaps these United States military officers could have possibly known or even encouraged the horrible record of Northern atrocities and genocide.
During World War 11 one of the techniques used by the Nazis against partisan bands was to punish the local inhabitants when a German military target was attacked. This technique was universally condemned. Many one-hundred-percent Americans find it rather embarrassing to learn that the United States used the technique of punishing innocent civilians in its war of aggression against the South.
Major General W T. Sherman wrote in October 19, 1862, that the attack and burning of a Yankee gunboat should be punished by bringing about the “utter ruin” of the people in the area, and he ordered:
I hope … you will proceed to Bledsoe’s Landing and then destroy all the houses and cornfields for miles along the river onthat side. … You should shell the whole river whenever one of these raids occurs.22
Often, while reading the official records, you will notice in one place, such as the one quoted above, that the commander is issuing harsh and cruel orders; then in another place he appears to be attempting to control the excesses of the troops under his command. Regardless of the reasons for these inconsistencies, perhaps in an attempt to cover their backsides or out of a genuine sense of guilt, the officers unintentionally documented the fact that they were aware of the excesses of the United States military forces early in the war. On June 18, 1862, Maj. Gen. W. T. Sherman issued his General Order Number 44:
Too much looseness exists on the subject of foraging. The articles of war make it almost a capital offense for an officer or soldier to pillage, which means taking private property for his own use.23
Sherman’s General Order Number 2, dated December 6, 1862, stated that
The indiscriminate and extensive plundering by our men calls for a summary and speedy change.24
His General Order Number 3, dated January 12, 1863, states:
Ignorance of the rules of war as to pillage and plunder can no longer be pleaded.25
In his General Order Number 49, Sherman declared that
Stealing, robbery, and pillage has become so common in this army that it is a disgrace to any civilized people.26
General Sherman wrote to General Grant at Vicksburg on August 4, 1863:
… we are drifting to the worst sort of vandalism. … You and I and every commander must go through the war justly chargeable with crimes at which we blush.27
General Sherman reported to General Grant regarding his destruction of Meridian, Mississippi:
I … began systematic and thorough destruction. … For five days 10,000 men worked hard and with a will … with axes,crowbars, sledges, clawbars, and with fire, and I have no hesitation in pronouncing the work as well done. Meridian, with its depots, store-houses, arsenal, hospitals, offices, hotels, and cantonments no longer exists.28
General Sherman issued his General Order Number 127 on November 23, 1864, ordering:
In case of … destruction [of bridges] by the enemy, … the commanding officer … on the spot will deal harshly with the inhabitants nearby. …29
From an entry dated March 6, 1865, we get a little insight as to why General Sherman might have wished to restrain his troops. In a communique to Gen. H. W. Slocum, he asked Slocum to try to control his troops because
… we are now out of South Carolina and … a little moderation may be of political consequence to us in North Carolina.30
From the federal government’s own record, we have ample evidence that General Sherman was well aware of the suffering of the civilian population but never stopped the actions of the troops under his command. In addition, we have seen confessions of the destruction of civilian property, hospitals, and the possible starvation of thousands of innocent civilian men, women, and children—all at the hands of American (United States) military officials.
We have also seen that Sherman informed Grant of the extent of the pillaging occasioned by United States troops and sailors. Did General Grant have any other indication of the extent of the pillaging, plundering, and other acts of terrorism committed by the United States forces against the Southern people?
General Grant issued his General Order Number 3 on January 13, 1862. In it he admitted his knowledge of the conduct of some of his troops vis-a-vis the civilian population:
Disrepute having been brought upon our brave soldiers by the bad conduct of some of their numbers … a total disregard of rights of citizens, and being guilty of wanton destruction of private property. …31
Again and again we see Yankee officers and officials paying lip service to the “laws of war and civilized conduct,” but again and again failing to enforce these standards.
General Grant received a report from Gen. S. A. Hurlbut in March of 1863:
The amount of plundering and bribery that is going on in and about… Memphis is beyond all calculation. … soldiers are bribed, officers are bribed, and the accursed system is destroying the army.32
Lieutenant General U. S. Grant, on August 5, 1864, ordered Maj. Gen. David Hunter:
In pushing up the Shenandoah Valley … it is desirable that nothing should be left to invite the enemy to return … such as cannot be consumed destroy. …33
From these revealing examples, we can see that both Grant and Sherman knew what was happening to the Southern people and approved of these crimes. Was this a carefully guarded secret known only to Grant and Sherman, or did higher officials in Washington know and approve?
UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF WAR STANTON KNEW
United States Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton received a report in January of 1862 describing the crimes committed by military personnel in Western Missouri:
They are no better than a band of robbers: they cross the line, rob, steal, plunder, and burn whatever they can lay their hands upon.34
In February of the same year, the Yankee secretary of war received a personal report, in Washington, D.C., from a Unionist who told Stanton of the “lawless action of U.S. military forces in Jefferson County, Missouri.”35
On May 19, 1862, Maj. Gen. Ormsby M. Mitchell wrote to the Yankee secretary of war to inform him that
The most terrible outrages, robberies, rapes, arsons, and plundering are being committed by lawless brigands and vagabonds connected with the army… ,36
Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase forwarded to Stanton the following report of forced conscription of slaves into the Federal army:
The negroes were sad. … Sometimes whole plantations, learning what was going on, ran off to the woods for refuge. This mode of [enlistment by] violent seizure … is repugnant. …37
The tale of Union captain Harry Truman will leave the reader assured of the guilt of Secretary Stanton. Union general Clinton B. Fisk stated on June 8, 1864, that Captain Truman was “plundering the best men in North Missouri, insults and abuses women. …”38 A Un
ion judge William A. Hall wrote that Truman “killed a number of citizens who were not taken with arms… ,”39 In the summer of 1864, Truman was found guilty of murder, arson, and larceny, and sentenced to be hanged. After his trial, the informants against Truman were either burned out or murdered, and Captain Truman was once again in the service of the United States military.
It seems that Captain Truman was indeed tried by a military commission convened by Gen. William S. Rosecrans and was sentenced to be hanged. General Rosecrans disapproved of the findings, stayed the execution, and ordered Truman to be held in Alton Military Prison until further orders were issued. The record of the case was then sent to none other than Secretary of War Stanton. The secretary of war ordered Truman released from confinement and reassigned to Washington, D.C. He was not heard of again until he reappeared in Northern Missouri practicing his old tricks of war crimes!40
From this record it seems obvious that Secretary of War Stanton knew and approved of the crimes his military forces were committing against the Southern people!
THE NORTHERN PRESIDENT LINCOLN KNEW
The saga of Brig. Gen. J. B. Turchin has already been discussed in Chapter 1. This evidence alone provides ample support to our claim that Abraham Lincoln knew about the terrorist activities of his officers and men. Add to this evidence the experience of Brig. Gen. John McNeil who received his promotion from Lincoln after he had executed ten Southern POWs. Lincoln was fully aware ofthese executions prior to promoting (rewarding) McNeil. Let us add to this list the story of Brig. Gen. James H. Lane.
Captain W. E. Prince, on September 9, 1861, sent word to Lane informing him of “atrocities” being committed by troops claiming to be part of Lane’s command. On September 24, 1861, Lane reported a skirmish at Osceola, Missouri, that required him to reduce the town to “ashes.” On October 9, 1861, Lane, who was a radical Republican United States senator from Kansas, sent a telegram to his friend, Abraham Lincoln, complaining that “Governor Robinson … has constantly … vilified myself, and abused the men under my command as marauders and thieves.”41
Major General Henry W. Halleck, commander of the Department of the Missouri, on December 19, 1861, sent a letter to Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan, general in chief of the army in Washington, describing some of Lane’s activities:
The conduct of the forces under Lane … has done more for the enemy in this State than could have been accomplished by 20,000 of his own army. … I receive almost daily complaints of outrages committed by these men in the name of the United States, and the evidence is so conclusive as to leave no doubt of their correctness. It is rumored that Lane has been made a brigadier-general. I cannot conceive of a more injudicious appointment. … its effect… is offering a premium for rascality and robbing generally.42
General McClellan presented Lincoln with the letter. Lincoln read the letter while in the presence of McClellan. What do you think was the response of this man we are taught to virtually worship, this man who is remembered as a compassionate leader “with charity for all and malice toward none”? He turned the letter over and wrote:
An excellent letter, though I am sorry General Halleck is so unfavorably impressed with General Lane.43
Lincoln’s friend, Lane, did receive his promotion—a reward for conducting his campaign of terrorism again the Southern people! We can assert that President Lincoln was aware of the terrorist campaign being conducted by officers and men of the United States military forces as evidenced by the federal government’s own official records.
While researching these atrocities, we found several complaints recorded by field commanders about political influence working against those who were attempting to control the United States military forces. In January of 1863, General Rosecrans informed Secretary of War Stanton of the numerous crimes of “murder, arson, rape, and others” which were increasing in his area. Rosecrans then complained:
The power to check them by inflicting the penalty of death is a nullity, for the delays necessary to get them a regular trial by general court-martial, and then holding them until the matter is reviewed and approved by the President, such a time elapses that the troops are relieved and the culprit escapes.44
The use of political influence to deter efforts to control the atrocities can be seen in the case of Gen. Innis N. Palmer. On May 30, 1864, he issued a circular order in which he detailed the many cases of plundering, insults, and arson that occurred at the hands of his troops at Washington, North Carolina. Notice what happened when the news of this order reached Washington:
My order, No. 5, … concerning the outrages committed at Little Washington has been severely commented upon in high places; not by my military superiors, but by Senators of the United States and others. …45
These cases as cited along with the cases of Lane and Turchin illustrate the fact that official Washington both knew and approved of the terrorist acts of the United States military forces committed against the Southern nation.
WAS GENOCIDE THE NORTH’S GOAL DURING THE WAR?
Thousands of non-combatant Southerners died as a result of the deliberate shelling of civilian targets, the blockade of civilian medical supplies, the burning of civilian homes, the forced displacement of the civilian population, and the starvation that resulted from the deliberate destruction of civilian food supplies and the implements necessary to grow future crops.
The question remains whether this was done as a deliberate policy to destroy the Southern population or simply as a result of senseless, unrestrained hatred and violence against the Southernpeople by the forces of the United States. One point should be made clear; if you are killed by someone, the motive for the murder makes little difference to you, the victim. The result is the same—you are dead! The effect of the vicious invasion of the Southern nation was the extermination of large numbers of its population. Look again at some examples of the thinking that guided those who were responsible for the conduct of the Yankee War of Invasion.
Early in 1863, the Chicago newspapers were attacking Union general Don Carlos Buell because he attempted to control the conduct of certain officers. Colonel Marcellus Mundy stated:
… papers … condemned … [Buell] very bitterly for his punishment of Colonel Turchin. The burden of the complaint in the papers was this: that General Buell was protecting the [Southern] people, rather than punishing them. … they seemed to advocate what they called a “vigorous war policy,” by which they seemed to mean general devastation. …46
Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSS Alabama, noted the lack of objectivity of Yankee newspapers:
The war had been a god-send for newspaperdom. The more extraordinary were the stories that were told by the venal and corrupt newspapers, the more greedily were they devoured by the craving and prurient multitude … without the least regard for the truth. … Such is the stuff of which a good deal of the Yankee histories of the late war will be made.47
Yankees who for generations had been raised to believe that Southerners were lazy, indolent, and cruel slave masters were now making war upon these Southern barbarians. Is there any wonder that Northerners chose to treat Southern civilians as less than civilized, deserving none of the rights and respect due civilized folk, such as themselves?
General in Chief Henry W. Halleck, in Washington, on March 31, 1863, wrote to General Grant:
The character of the war has very much changed. … There is now no possible hope of reconciliation with the rebels. … There can be no peace but that which is forced by the sword. We must conquer the rebels… ,48
General U. S. Grant on April 11, 1863, wrote the following:
Rebellion has assumed that shape now that it can only terminate by the complete subjugation of the South. … It is our duty to weaken the enemy, by destroying their means of subsistence, withdrawing their means of cultivating their fields, and in every other way possible.49
Where is the “malice toward none, … charity for all” spokesperson? What is meant by the plain words of Grant when
he states that all means of production must be destroyed? How does he propose to feed the starving multitudes if all means of cultivation are removed—let them eat cake?
The lot of a civilian population when it is invaded by an unprincipled military force can be seen in this Yankee’s report:
I propose to eat up all the surplus, and perhaps the entire crops in the country, take all serviceable stock, mules, horses. … These people are proud arrogant rebels. … The hands of all Federal officers should fall justly but heavily upon them, so that they should respect us—not from love, for they never will do that, but from fear of the power of our Government.50
Ever since the War for Southern Independence, the Southern people have learned to fear the power of the Yankee’s government.