[
229]
Chapter 14:
- Correspondence with Sherman
-- Citations on the rules of War.
About the time I exchanged with
General Sherman the two thousand (2000) prisoners above mentioned, the following correspondence passed between us, in relation to his treatment of the non-combatants of
Atlanta:
headquarters military Division of the Mississippi, in the field,
Atlanta, Georgia, September 7th, 1864.
General Hood, Commanding Confederate Army.
General:--I have deemed it to the interest of the
United States that the citizens now residing in
Atlanta should remove, those who prefer it to go South, and the rest
North.
For the latter I can provide food and transportation to points of their election in
Tennessee,
Kentucky, or further North.
For the former I can provide transportation by cars as far as Rough and Ready, and also wagons; but, that their removal may be made with as little discomfort as possible, it will be necessary for you to help the families from Rough and Ready to the cars at
Lovejoy's. If you consent, I will undertake to remove all the families in
Atlanta who prefer to go South to Rough and Ready, with all their moveable effects, viz., clothing, trunks, reasonable furniture, bedding, etc., with their servants,
white and
black, with the proviso that no force shall be used toward the blacks, one way or another.
If they want to go with their masters or mistresses, they may do so; otherwise they will be sent away unless they be men, when they may be employed by our quarter-master.
[
230]
Atlanta is no place for families or non-combatants, and I have no desire to send them North if you will assist in conveying them South.
If this proposition meets your views, I will consent to a truce in the neighbor-hood of Rough and Ready, stipulating that any wagons, horses, animals, or persons sent there for the purposes herein stated, shall in no manner be harmed or molested; you in your turn agreeing that any cars, wagons, or carriages, persons or animals sent to the same point, shall not be interfered with.
Each of us might send a guard of, say one hundred (100) men, to maintain order; and limit the truce to, say, two days after a certain time appointed.
I have authorized the Mayor to choose two citizens to convey to you this letter, with such documents as the Mayor may forward in explanation and shall await your reply.
I have the honor to be your obedient servant,
General :--Your letter of yesterday's date, borne by
James M. Ball and
James R. Crew, citizens of
Atlanta, is received.
You say therein, “ I deem it to be to the interest of the
United States that the citizens now residing in
Atlanta should remove,” etc.
I do not consider that I have any alternative in this matter.
I therefore accept your proposition to declare a truce of two days, or such time as may be necessary to accomplish the purpose mentioned, and shall render all assistance in my power to expedite the transportation of citizens in this direction.
I suggest that a staff officer be appointed by you to superintend the removal from the city to Rough and Ready, while I appoint a like officer to control their removal further South; that a guard of one hundred men be sent by either party as you propose, to maintain order at the place, and that the removal begin on Monday next.
And now, sir, permit me to say that the unprecedented measure you propose transcends, in studied and ingenious cruelty, all acts ever before brought to my attention in the dark history of war.
In the name of God and humanity, I protest, believing that you will find that you are expelling from their homes and firesides the wives and children of a brave people.
I am, General, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
[
231]
Headquarters Military Division of the Mississippi, in the field,
Atlanta, Georgia, September 10th, 1864.
General J. B. Hood, Commanding Army of Tennessee, Confederate Army.
General:--I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this date, at the hands of
Messrs. Ball and
Crew, consenting to the arrangements I had proposed to facilitate the removal
South of the people of
Atlanta, who prefer to go in that direction.
I enclose you a copy of my orders, which will, I am satisfied, accomplish my purpose perfectly.
You style the measures proposed “unprecedented,” and appeal to the dark history of war for a parallel, as an act of “ studied and ingenious cruelty.”
It is not unprecedented; for General Johnston himself very wisely and properly removed the families all the way from Dalton down, and I see no reason why Atlanta should be excepted.
Nor is it necessary to appeal to the dark history of war, when recent and modern examples are so handy.
You yourself burned dwelling houses along your parapet, and I have seen to-day fifty houses that you have rendered uninhabitable because they stood in the way of your forts and men. You defended Atlanta on a line so close to town that every cannon shot and many musket shots from our line of investment, that overshot their mark, went into the habitations of women and children.
General Hardee did the same at Jonesboroa, and General Johnston did the same, last summer, at Jackson, Mississippi.
I have not accused you of heartless cruelty, but merely instance these cases of very recent occurrence, and could go on and enumerate hundreds of others, and challenge any fair man to judge which of us has the heart of pity for the families of a “brave people.”
I say it is kindness to these families of Atlanta to remove them now, at once, from scenes that women and children should not be exposed to, and the “ brave people” should scorn to commit their wives and children to the rude barbarians who thus, as you say, violate the laws of war, as illustrated in the pages of its dark history.
In the name of common sense, I ask you not to appeal to a just God in such a sacrilegious manner.
You who, in the midst of peace and prosperity, have plunged a nation into war-dark and cruel war — who dared and badgered us to battle, insulted our flag, seized our arsenals and forts that were left in the honorable custody of peaceful ordnance sergeants, seized and made “prisoners of war” the very garrisons sent to protect your people against negroes and Indians, long before any overt act was committed by the (to you) hated Lincoln Government; tried to force Kentucky and Missouri into rebellion, spite of themselves; falsified the vote of Louisiana; turned loose your privateers to plunder
[232]
unarmed ships; expelled Union families by the thousands, burned their houses, and declared, by an act of your Congress, the confiscation of all debts due Northern men for goods had and received!
Talk thus to the marines, but not to me, who have seen these things, and who will this day make as much sacrifice for the peace and honor of the South as the best born Southerner among you!
If we must be enemies, let us be men, and fight it out as we propose to do and not deal in such hypocritical appeals to God and humanity.
God will judge us in due time, and he will pronounce whether it be more humane to fight with a town full of women and the families of a brave people at our back, or to remove them in time to places of safety among their own friends and people.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
General:--I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9tn inst., with its inclosure in reference to the women, children, and others, whom you have thought proper to expel from their homes in the city of
Atlanta.
Had you seen proper to let the matter rest there, I would gladly have allowed your letter to close this correspondence, and, without your expressing it in words, would have been willing to believe that, while “the interests of the
United States,” in your opinion, compelled you to an act of barbarous cruelty, you regretted the necessity, and we would have dropped the subject; but you have chosen to indulge in statements which I feel compelled to notice, at least so far as to signify my dissent, and not allow silence in regard to them to be construed as acquiescence.
I see nothing in your communication which induces me to modify the language of condemnation with which I characterized your order.
It but strengthens me in the opinion that it stands “pre-eminent in the dark history of war for studied and ingenious cruelty.”
Your original order was stripped of all pretences; you announced the edict for the sole reason that it was to “ the interest of the United States.”
This alone you offered to us and the civilized world as an all-sufficient reason for disregarding the laws of God and man. “You say that General Johnston himself very wisely and properly removed the families all the way from Dalton down.”
It is due to that gallant soldier and gentleman to say that no act of his distinguished career gives the least color to your
[233]
unfounded aspersions upon his conduct.
He depopulated no villages, nor towns, nor cities, either friendly or hostile.
He offered and extended friendly aid to his unfortunate fellow-citizens who desired to flee from your fraternal embraces.
You are equally unfortunate in your attempt to find a justification for this act of cruelty, either in the defence of Jonesboroa, by General Hardee, or of Atlanta, by myself.
General Hardee defended his position in front of Jonesboroa at the expense of injury to the houses; an ordinary, proper, and justifiable act of war. I defended Atlanta at the same risk and cost.
If there was any fault in either case, it was your own, in not giving notice, especially in the case of Atlanta, of your purpose to shell the town, which is usual in war among civilized nations.
No inhabitant was expelled from his home and fireside by the orders of General Hardee or myself, and therefore your recent order can find no support from the conduct of either of us. I feel no other emotion other than pain in reading that portion of your letter which attempts to justify your shelling Atlanta, without notice, under pretence that I defended Atlanta upon a line so close to town that every cannon shot, and many musket balls from your line of investment, that overshot their mark, went into the habitations of women and children.
I made no complaint of your firing into Atlanta in any way you thought proper.
I make none now, but there are a hundred thousand witnesses that you fired into the habitations of women and children for weeks, firing far above and miles beyond my line of defence.
I have too good an opinion, founded both upon observation and experience, of the skill of your artillerists, to credit the insinuation that they for several weeks unintentionally fired too high for my modest field-works, and slaughtered women and children by accident and want of skill.
The residue of your letter is rather discussion.
It opens a wide field for the discussion of questions which I do not feel are committed to me. I am only a General of one of the Armies of the Confederate States, charged with military operations in the field, under the direction of my superior officers, and I am not called upon to discuss with you the causes of the present war, or the political questions which led to or resulted from it. These grave and important questions have been committed to far abler hands than mine, and I shall only refer to them so far as to repel any unjust conclusion which might be drawn from my silence.
You charge my country with “ daring and badgering you to battle.”
The truth is, we sent commissioners to you, respectfully offering a peaceful separation, before the first gun was fired on either side.
You say we insulted your flag.
The truth is, we fired upon it, and those who fought under it, when you came to our doors upon the mission of subjugation.
You say we seized upon your forts and arsenals, and made prisoners of
[234]
the garrisons sent to protect us against Indians and negroes.
The truth is, we, by force of arms, drove out insolent intruders and took possession of our own forts and arsenals, to resist your claims to do minion over masters, slaves, and Indians, all of whom are to this day, with a unanimity unexampled in the history of the world, warring against your attempts to become their masters.
You say that we tried to force Kentucky and Missouri into rebellion in spite of themselves.
The truth is, my Government, from the beginning of this struggle to this hour, has again and again offered, before the whole world, to leave it to the unbiassed will of these States, and all others, to determine for themselves whether they will cast their destiny with your Government or ours; and your Government has resisted this fundamental principle of free institutions with the bayonet, and labors daily, by force and fraud, to fasten its hateful tyranny upon the unfortunate freemen of these States.
You say we falsified the vote of Louisiana.
The truth is, Louisiana not only separated herself from your Government by nearly a unanimous vote of her people, but has vindicated the act upon every battle-field from Gettysburg to the Sabine, and has exhibited an heroic devotion to her decision, which challenges the admiration and respect of every man capable of feeling sympathy for the oppressed or admiration for heroic valor.
You say that we turned loose pirates to plunder your unarmed ships.
The truth is, when you robbed us of our part of the Navy, we built and bought a few vessels, hoisted the flag of our country, and swept the seas, in defiance of your Navy, around the whole circumference of the globe.
You say we have expelled Union families by thousands.
The truth is, not a single family has been expelled from the Confederate States, that I am aware of; but, on the contrary, the moderation of our Government towards traitors has been a fruitful theme of denunciation by its enemies and well meaning friends of our cause.
You say my Government, by acts of Congress, has confiscated “all debts due Northern men for goods sold and delivered.”
The truth is, our Congress gave due and ample time to your merchants and traders to depart from our shores with their ships, goods, and effects, and only sequestrated the property of our enemies in retaliation for their acts — declaring us traitors, and confiscating our property wherever their power extended, either in their country or our own. Such are your accusations, and such are the facts known of all men to be true.
You order into exile the whole population of a city; drive men, women, and children from their homes at the point of the bayonet, under the plea that it is to the interest of your Government, and on the claim that it is an act of “ kindness to these families of Atlanta.”
Butler only banished from New Orleans the registered enemies of his Government, and acknowledged that he did it as a punishment.
You issue a sweeping
[235]
edict, covering all the inhabitants of a city, and add insult to the injury heaped upon the defenceless by assuming that you have done them a kindness.
This you follow by the assertion that you “will make as much sacrifice for the peace and honor of the South as the best born Southerner.”
And, because I characterize what you call a kindness as being real cruelty, you presume to sit in judgment between me and my God; and you decide that my earnest prayer to the Almighty Father to save our women and children from what you call kindness, is a “sacrilegious, hypocritical appeal.”
You came into our country with your Army, avowedly for the purpose of subjugating free white men, women, and children, and not only intend to rule over them, but you make negroes your allies, and desire to place over us an inferior race, which we have raised from barbarism to its present position, which is the highest ever attained by that race, in any country, in all time.
I must, therefore, decline to accept your statements in reference to your kindness toward the people of Atlanta, and your willingness to sacrifice everything for the peace and honor of the South, and refuse to be governed by your decision in regard to matters between myself, my country, and my God.
You say, “let us fight it out like men.”
To this my reply is — for myself, and I believe for all the true men, ay, and women and children, in my country — we will fight you to the death!
Better die a thousand deaths than submit to live under you or your Government and your negro allies!
Having answered the points forced upon me by your letter of the 9th of September, I close this correspondence with you; and, notwithstanding your comments upon my appeal to God in the cause of humanity, I again humbly and reverently invoke his Almighty aid in defence of justice and right.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
General:--Yours of September 12th is received, and has been carefully perused.
I agree with you that this discussion by two soldiers is out of place, and profitless; but you must admit that you began the controversy by characterizing an official act of mine in unfair and improper terms.
I reiterate my former answer, and to the only new matter contained in your rejoinder add: We have no ‘negro allies’ in this Army; not a single negro soldier left
Chattanooga with this Army, or is
[
236]
with it now. There are a few guarding
Chattanooga, which
General Stedman sent at one time to drive
Wheeler out of
Dalton.
I was not bound by the laws of war to give notice of the shelling of Atlanta, a “ fortified town, with magazines, arsenals, foundries, and public stores;” you were bound to take notice.
See the books.
This is the conclusion of our correspondence, which I did not begin, and terminate with satisfaction.
I am, with respect, your obedient servant,
I preferred here to close the discussion, and, therefore, made no reply to his last communication inviting me to “see the books.”
I will at present, however, consider this subject, and cite a few authorities upon the above disputed points, in order to show that General Sherman's conduct, in this instance, was in violation of the laws which should govern nations in time of war.
Atlanta could not properly be designated a regularly fortified city.
It was simply protected by temporary breastworks, of the same character as those used by Johnston and Sherman, during the preceding campaign.
The fortifications consisted of a ditch, with a log to act as protection to the heads of the men whilst firing, and of brushwood, when it could be obtained, thrown out in front as an obstruction to a rapid advance of the enemy.
A large portion of the line, which passed through open fields, was devoid of this latter safeguard.
Moreover, only a few of the heavy guns and batteries were covered by embankments with embrasures.
Fortifications, it is well known, are divided into two classes: temporary, and permanent.
Those I have described, around Atlanta, come under the head of the first class.
The latter are constructed of the best material, iron, and stone, with parapet, deep and wide ditch and glacis, similar to the fortifications on Governor's Island, and those of Fortress Monroe.
In the construction of permanent works, every exertion is made to render them as strong and durable as possible.
[237]
It might be supposed, from General Sherman's Memoirs, that Atlanta was not only a thoroughly fortified town, but was provisioned to endure a siege of a year or more, after all communication was cut off; that it possessed arsenals and machine shops as extensive as those in Richmond and Macon — an illusion created, probably, by a dilapidated foundry, near the Augusta road, which had been in use prior to the war. General Sherman, therefore, cannot assert, in order to justify certain acts, that Atlanta was a regularly fortified town.
And whereas I marched out at night, allowing him the following day to enter the city, unopposed, as he himself acknowledges, and whereas no provocation was given by the authorities, civil or military, he can in no manner claim that extreme war measures were a necessity.
It has been argued that Wellington sanctioned extreme measures against the Basques, at the time he was opposed to Marshal Soult, at Bayonne, in 1814.
Wellington perceived that, by pillage and cruel treatment, his Spanish allies, under Mina and Morilla, were arousing the Basques to arms, and at once ordered the Spanish troops to abstain from such odious conduct.
He was, unfortunately, too late in his discovery; the appetite for plunder had become so inordinate that his proclamation was disregarded by his allies, and he was subsequently forced to threaten extreme measures, in order to check the partisan warfare which initiated the cruelties and horrors he deplored.
This is the unquestionable interpretation of the subjoined passage: “A sullen obedience followed, but the plundering system was soon renewed, and this, with the mischief already done, was enough to arouse the inhabitants of Bedary, as well as those of the Val-de-Baigorre, into action.
They commenced and continued a partisan warfare until Lord Wellington, incensed by their activity, issued a proclamation calling upon them to take arms openly, and join Soult, or stay peaceably at home, declaring that he would otherwise burn their villages and hang all the inhabitants.”
1
[238]
The inhabitants of Atlanta gave no such cause for action on the part of General Sherman, nor was the safety of the Federal Army in any manner involved.
Nevertheless he ordered women and children, the infirm and the sick, in fact the entire population to go either North or South.
The subjoined appeal of the Mayor and Councilmen of Atlanta was powerless to alter the determination of the Federal commander:
Sir:--We, the undersigned,
Mayor and two of the Council for the city of
Atlanta, for the time being the only legal organ of the people of the said city, to express their wants and wishes, ask leave most earnestly but respectfully to petition you to reconsider the order requiring them to leave
Atlanta.
At first view, it struck us that the measure would involve extraordinary hardship and loss, but since we have seen the practical execution of it, so far as it has progressed, and the individual condition of the people, and heard their statements as to the inconveniences, loss, and suffering attending it, we are satisfied that the amount of it will involve in the aggregate consequences appalling and heart-rending.
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 one sick 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.”
Another says: “ I will try and take this or that article of property, but such and such things I must leave behind, though I need them much.”
We reply to them: “General Sherman will carry your property to Rough and Ready, and General Hood will take it thence on.”
And they will reply to that: “ But I want to leave the railroad at such a place, and cannot get conveyance from there on.”
We only refer to a few facts, to try to illustrate in part howthis measure will operate in practice.
As you advanced, the people north of this fell back, and before your arrival here, a large portion of the people had retired South; so that the country south of this is already crowded, and without houses enough to accommodate the people, and we are informed that many are now staying in churches and other out-buildings.
[239]
This being so, 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 not, and without the power to assist them much, if they were willing to do so.
This is but a feeble picture of the consequences of this measure.
You know the woe, the horrors, and the sufferings cannot be described by words; imagination can only conceive it, and we ask you to take these things into consideration.
We know your mind and time are constantly occupied with the duties of your command, which almost deters us from asking your attention to this matter, but thought it might be that you had not considered this subject in all of its awful consequences, and that on more reflection you, we hope, would not make this people an exception to all mankind; for we know of no such instance ever having occurredsurely never in the United States--and what has this helpless people done, that they should be driven from their homes, to wander strangers, and outcasts, and exiles, and to subsist on charity?
We do not know as yet the number of people still here; of those who are here, we are satisfied a respectable number, if allowed to remain at home, could subsist for several months without assistance, and a respectable number for a much longer time, and who might not need assistance at any time.
In conclusion, we most earnestly and solemnly petition you to reconsider this order, or modify it, and suffer this unfortunate people to remain at home, and enjoy what little means they have.
Respectfully submitted,
I shall now cite a few authorities upon the rights of war, to ascertain in how far the course pursued toward the inhabitants of Atlanta is in accordance with those laws which are now universally recognized.
Halleck, Vattel, and Grotius establish the following rules:2
* * * It is a just remark made bysome theologians, that all Christian princes and rulers who wish to be found such in the sight of God, as well as that of men, will deem it a duty to interpose their authority to
[240]
prevent or suppress all unnecessary violence in the taking of terms, for acts of rigor can never be carried to an extreme without involving great numbers of the innocent in ruin; and practices of that kind, beside being no way conducive to the termination of war, are totally repugnant to every principle of Christianity and justice.
Women, children, feeble old men, and sick persons, come under the description of enemies; and we have certain rights over them, inasmuch as they belong to the nation with whom we are at war, and as, between nation and nation, all rights and pretensions affect the body of society, together with all its members.
But these are enemies who make no resistance; and consequently we have no right to maltreat their persons, or use any violence against them. * * * This is so plain a maxim of justice and humanity that at present every nation, in the least degree civilized, acquiesces in it.3 * * *
Since women and children are subjects of the State, and members of the Nation, they are to be ranked in the class of enemies.
But it does not thence follow that we are justifiable in treating them like men who bear arms, or are capable of bearing them.
4
At present war is carried on by regular troops; the people, the peasants, the citizens, take no part in it, and generally have nothing to fear from the sword of the enemy.
Provided the inhabitants submit to him who is master of the country, pay the contributions imposed, and refrain from all hostilities, they live in as perfect safety as if they were friends; they continue in possession of what belongs to them; the country people come freely to the camp to sell their provisions, and are protected as far as possible from the calamities of war. 5
Since the object of a just war is to repress injustice and violence, and forcibly to compel him who is deaf to the voice of justice, we have a right to put in practice, against the enemy, every measure that is necessary in order to weaken him and disable him from resisting us and supporting his injustice; and we may choose such methods as are the most efficacious and best calculated to attain the end in view, provided they be not of an odious kind, nor unjustifiable in themselves, and prohibited by the laws of nature.
6
The lawfulness of the end does not give a real right to anything further than barely the means necessary to the attainment of that end.
[241]
Whatever we do beyond that is reprobated by the law of nature, is faulty and condemnable at the tribunal of conscience.
Hence it is that the right to such, or such acts of hostility, varies according to circumstances.
What is just and perfectly innocent in war in one particular situation, is not always so on other occasions.
Right goes hand-in-hand with necessity and the exigencies of the case, but never exceeds them.
7
All these classes (old men, women and children, the clergy, magis trates, and other civil officers), which, by general usage or the municipal laws of the belligerent State, are exempt from military duty, are not subject to the general rights of a belligerent over the enemy's person.
To these are added, by modern usage, all persons who are not organized or called into military service, though capable of its duties, but who are lett to pursue their usual pacific avocations.
All these are regarded as non-combatants.8
General Sherman admits, in his Memoirs, that he burned stores and dwellings; that “the heart of the city was in flames all night;” that he telegraphed to Grant he had “made a wreck of Atlanta,” 9 which he afterwards termed “the ruined city.”
The following quotations will show whether or not he was justified in this destruction of property:
And with respect to things, the case is the same as with respect to persons — things belonging to the enemy, continue such wherever they are. But we are not hence to conclude, any more than in the case of persons, that we everywhere possess a right to treat these things as things belonging to the enemy.
10
The wanton destruction of public monuments, temples, tombs, statues, paintings, etc., is absolutely condemned, even by the voluntary law of nations, as never being conducive to the lawful object of war. The pillage and destruction of towns, the devastation of the open country, ravaging, setting fire to houses, are measures no less odious and detestable on every occasion where they are evidently put in practice without absolute necessity or, at least, very cogent reasons.
But as the perpetrators of such outrageous deeds might attempt to palliate them, under pretext of deservedly punishing the enemy, be it here observed that the natural and voluntary law of nations does not allow us to inflict
[242]
such punishments, except for enormous offences against the law of nations.11
When General Lee entered Pennsylvania with his Army, he gave strict orders to destroy no property, and to pay for all provisions obtained from the enemy.
Marshal Soult was likewise magnanimous in his conduct, after he had been not only compelled to storm the defences of Oporto, but to fight from street to street, in order to finally force a surrender.
Napier states that the French found some of their comrades who had been taken prisoners, “fastened upright and living, but with their eyes burst, their tongues torn out, and their other members mutilated and gashed.”
This ghastly sight notwithstanding, many of the French soldiers and officers endeavored, at the risk of their lives, to check the vengeance of their comrades, Soult did not, even after this fearful resistance and these examples of barbarous cruelty, send off the women and children, the infirm and the sick, and then burn their homes; on the contrary,12 “Recovering and restoring a part of the plunder, he caused the inhabitants remaining in town to be treated with respect; he invited, by proclamation, all those who had fled to return, and he demanded no contribution; but restraining with a firm hand the violence of his men, he contrived, from the captured public property, to support the Army and even to succor the poorest and most distressed of the population.”
Although it is customary, previous to a general assault of a fortified town of which the demand for surrender has been rejected, that the commanding officer give warning (on account of the extraordinary sacrifice of life, to which his troops must necessarily be subjected) that he will not be responsible for the lives of the captured, as did Lieutenant General Lee in my name at Resaca.
No officer should allow his soldiers to bum and pillage after victory has been secured.
