I freely confess that I have never experienced in my own case, nor in the case of others, even under comparatively light and trifling losses and deprivations, such resignation, such quiet, gentle submission, and such calm endurance, amid the loss of all things, as in this instance. To such an extent have been these manifestations, that persons from neighboring towns, and strangers from a distance who in great numbers have visited the place, almost universally remark upon it. A highly intelligent and pious woman in a remote part of the county, a few days after the burning, called at the house in which a number of the homeless ones were kindly cared for. The large dining-table was surrounded by those who, a few days before, were in possession of all the comforts and many of the luxuries of life. Pleasant and cheerful conversation passed around the board. The visitor alone seemed sad and out of tune. Tears stood in her eyes as she looked around upon us. “I am amazed beyond measure at you all,” she said. “I expected to see nought but tears, hear only lamentations and sighs, and here you are as I have seen and known you in your bright and happy days, calm, serene, and even cheerful!” When one of our number replied, that no tear over the losses sustained had yet been shed by herself, but many tears at the numerous tokens of Christian sympathy and generous aid from far and near to relieve the immediate necessities of the sufferers, she added, “God be thanked for your words; they flow like precious ointment, deep down into my heart. Oh, what a commentary on the promised grace of God!” And we all felt, I am sure, that among the many gifts of our heavenly Father, not the least was
“A cheerful heart,
That tastes those gifts with joy.”
And in regard to the feeling of revenge, so natural to the human heart, I have been gratifyingly disappointed. Among the heaviest sufferers, by far the largest proportion have not only expressed themselves decidedly opposed to the spirit of retaliation, but have used their best efforts to dissuade our soldiers from carrying their threats into execution when an opportunity should offer. They have gone farther, and have drawn up a petition in which they earnestly implore the Government in Washington to prevent to the utmost anything of the kind on the part of our army. They believe it to be morally wrong, no matter what may be the provocation from the other side, and have always condemned the destruction of private property by our troops in the South, whenever isolated instances of the kind were reported. They believe, moreover, with our wise and judicious Governor, that retaliation “can do no good to our own people, but a great deal of harm, because we have more towns, villages, flouring and other mills to be destroyed in three counties than our enemies in the Southern States have in fifteen or twenty counties.”
Such a wholesale, premeditated, and cruel work of destruction as the burning of Chambersburg, was never perpetrated by Union troops, and when Richmond papers have said so, they have said what the facts in the case did not warrant. It must be admitted, however, that in too many instances, Union troops did destroy private property unnecessarily and wantonly. We hope in God it will never be done again. We trust our commanding officers in the army will not allow passion to set aside moral principle, military rule, and military honor. Within sight of our charred and desolated homes, we implore and beseech them not to bring reproach upon our Government, trample upon all law and order, inaugurate cruel barbarity instead of civilized warfare, and be guilty of such accumulated horrors as have been enacted here. And yet all this, and much more, will follow with unerring certainty, if the immoral, dishonorable, and unmilitary spirit of retaliation is carried into effect. God in mercy forbid it!
In this connection, and for the purpose of showing that I am not alone in the views expressed as regards the destruction of private property by Union troops on the one hand, and the exaggerated or untrue statements of the Southern press on the other, I will quote the following paragraphs from the pen of Colonel McClure, in his paper already referred to. I suppose his statements come as near the truth as can well be ascertained. He says:
“Jacksonville (Florida) was fired at a single point when our troops were retreating from it, because citizens fired on our men from the houses, and unfortunately most of the town—composed of wooden structures—was destroyed. The firing was in accordance with a well-recognized rule, that civilians who shelter themselves in their houses to fire upon troops, shall not only lose their property but suffer death. In Alexandria an accidental fire, resulting from a party of intoxicated soldiers, threatened the destruction of the entire town, owing to its inflammable buildings and unfavorable winds; but it was arrested before one-third of the village—the poorest portion of it—was burned. At the head of the force detailed to put out the fire was Major-General Banks in person, and by his orders and efforts the town was saved. Jackson (Mississippi) was partially destroyed by our guns when it was defended by the rebels, but it was not fired and burned by our troops after possession was gained. Wrongs, even atrocities, may have been committed by individual soldiers or isolated commands; but no such thing as deliberate and wanton burning and robbing of houses was practised by the Union army. Colonel Montgomery committed gross outrages on private citizens in two raids in South Carolina, which we have never seen reason to justify; but he was deprived of his command, or at least subordinated, and it may be dismissed, as he should have been. Kilpatrick burned mills unwarrantably, as we have ever believed, and other Union commanders may have done the same; but it was some excuse that they were filled with rebel supplies. While McCausland was on his way to Chambersburg to lay it waste, General Rousseau was penetrating the richest part of Georgia, and not a single private house or building of any kind was destroyed, nor were his soldiers permitted to enter a residence on the route. When private property was near to Government stores, which he had to fire, he detailed men to save all but the buildings belonging to or used by the rebel government. General Stoneman enforced the same rules rigidly in all his raids, and so did Grierson. The Union troops have captured and occupied hundreds of rebel towns since the war has commenced, and they have yet for the first time to demand the freebooter’s tribute, or destroy a town by order of a commanding officer. Repeatedly have our troops been fired upon and murdered by skulking rebels who protected themselves in their dwellings; but in no case has a town been destroyed therefor.”
LETTER V.
My dear Friend:
After my last letter was beyond my control, I became acquainted with some additional incidents which may interest you.