And recovery. The morning. Good morning. Welcome to our panel on columbia burning a sesquicentennial reappraisal. My name is don doyle. I will make a few introductory remarks. I want to thank robin waits for all they did to make this such a success. Not just this panel, but the entire event. I think it has been a wonderful example of how to commemorate a painful episode in this citys history. Thanks especially to jessica whose idea it was to do something for this commemoration. We met over lunch, and from there it grew. We partnered with Historic Columbia. Sponsoring this event also is the History Center at the university of South Carolina. Another contributor was the graduate school at the university of South Carolina. Think all of you for your help and support. We brought for scholars four scholars together. We are beating almost exactly at the time, 150 years ago, that the union troops were crossing the river and coming towards the city, toward that moment at 10 00 in the morning when the city was formerly surrendered. We are meeting right here on market street. I am not an expert on this event in civil war history. I have written a book on the civil war called the cause of all nations an International History of the american civil war. I will make a few comments about the International Context of this event. But i want to spend some time before introducing the speakers to talk about the Historical Context of this day. February 17 was a day of terror and destruction, of disaster and vengeance. It was also a day of liberation, emancipation. And the beginning of peace. It was a day of reckoning for the birthplace of secession. It was here in 1860, but the South Carolina secession of invention Succession Convention met before they moved to charleston to pass the resolution to withdraw from the union. Many of the speakers will address the legacy of this day. I will provide some Historical Context for the events leading up to that day. After lincolns victory in november, 1864, it was clear to everyone that the union was going to sustain the war until its bitter end. Not only to defeat the rebellion militarily, but to destroy slavery, which the republican saw as the root cause of the rebellion. The stakes of war had heightened tremendously. At the end of january, Congress Passed the 13th amendment, which would end slavery everywhere forever in the United States. It windy to be ratified by the states of the union, and whether or not the south would be included in that was up for interpretation. Earlier in the month, general William Tecumseh sherman had issued field order 15, which promised to confiscate lands and redistribute them to the newbiefree former slaves. This was the origins of the 40 acres and a mule idea. The world was watching a new kind of warfare unfold in the american south. Massive citizen armies pulled from civilian populations of two democratic societies nearly 3 million men in arms. 10 of the combined population. Nobody told them about the Democratic Peace theory, which is so popular and washington circles these days. Shermans march and the burning of columbia is as much about young men in war, wreaking vengeance upon helpless civilians, but there was also strategic purpose to the destruction. They aimed at destroying the capacity of the south to wage war. To destroy railroads and factories, to emancipate and arm slaves. The march was also designed to demoralize the south, the civilian population, in particular. And to demonstrate to the southern people but also to european powers here is my International History that the confederacy could no longer defend itself. Confederate government buildings could be destroyed, along with railroads, and the homes of confederate leaders, to demonstrate the power of the union. These were strategically targeted for destruction. In americas war with itself, the world witnessed the first steps on the road towards total war that would unfold in the 20th century. Moores wars with an exposed women and slaves to what sherman called the hard hand of war. The burning of columbia took place exactly two weeks before the february 3 peace negotiations that took place at hampton road. I think that is an important precedent to what happened on february 17. Confederate commissioners were sent to hampton road and they negotiated for four hours the possibility of peace. As the confederate commissioners came through the lines, soldiers from both sides can out of trenches enchanted, peace, peace, peace. There would be no peace. Davidson had no intention of surrendering, even as the Confederate Army began deserting abbasid numbers. Davis had a secret plan. In december, he and the secretary of state of the confederacy, has had set a man to europe in the last its effort to save the confederacy by offering to emancipate the slaves in exchange for foreign recognition and eight. As shermans Army Advanced toward columbia, he was midway across the atlantic to meet with napoleon the third. Even after richmond fell, Jefferson Davis refused to surrender. He took his government by rail and why can into the carolinas finally into georgia. The idea was that if britain or france was to intervene, there had to be a government they would recognize. Even after leesurrends surrender lincolns assassination was intended to reignite the souths will to fight. Generally hampton pleaded with Jefferson Davis, do not give up the fight. If you should propose to cross the mississippi, i can bring good men to escort you over. We can still make head against the enemy. So, they were going to join the french who were protecting maximilian and take a last stand in texas. Davis responded by writing to his wife, saying he was heading to mexico. Back to february 17, columbia was surrendered on this morning 150 years ago. Until then, the Confederate Military had fought forces south of the city. They shelled their encampment the night before on the west bank of the broad river. They burned bridges across the rivers into the city. Weight hampton promised weight hampton wade hampton promised to defend the city if he had to. Civilians feared shermans troops and a horrific urban battle. Many that were left behind now cheered the arrival of the union army, something we might not expect. One union witness described it this way. General sherman accompanied by others had a brilliant cavalcade, they wrote into a scene of enthusiastic excitement. Negroes were grouped along the streets, cheering and singing and dancing in the exuberance of their newborn freedom. One of them shouted, at last, our saviors. Among those welcoming sherman where the union p. O. W. S, those who had been removed to the lunatic asylum, where they were kept and camped and imprisoned. That scene of celebration was to change dramatically. All the ingredients for disaster were there. Young soldiers celebrating victory, slack discipline, lots of whiskey, and desire for revenge against South Carolina and columbia. Then there was fire. High winds a combination of willful destruction and vengeance with a force of nature. There were investigations, charges, countercharges. It is essentially a debate that is lost in the fog of war. Whoever set the fire, it burned through the night into the Early Morning of february 18. Smoke could be seen for miles. The smoke the sun came up on a city of ruins. That morning was also the terrible and of a long and costly war. It was the coming of peace and the painful rebirth of a new city and a new south. William faulkner writing of a similar day of destruction in mississippi, which was burned to the ground, described the black and jagged jumbles of brick wall enclosing like a ruined job jaw the columns were blackened and stained being tougher than fire, and now the town was as though insulated by fire, perhaps cauterized by fire only the undefeated, undefeatable women, vulnerable only to death, resisted entered, irreconcilable. Following not even by two men to keep step with one another. Scabbards in which no sword repose. They returned home to a homefront that had already surrendered, so that in almost fated twilight of the land, the appomattox made no sound. Faulkner would have been even more inspired had he lived in columbia. It is my pleasure to introduce our first speaker. At the end of their talks, we will turn it over to questions and comments from any of you and we have plenty of time for that. So keep your questions ready and we will turn to those at the end. Our first speaker is anne sarah rubin. She is professor at the university of maryland baltimore county. She received her ms and phd from the university of virginia. Her first book is called a shattered nation the rise and fall of the confederacy, 18611868. It received an award from the organization of american historians, a prestigious prize for the most original book on the civil war era. She has recently been president of the society of civil war historians. Her most recent book is through the heart of dixie shermans march and america. It is a study of the march and how americans would remember this march. It will be on sale afterward. I encourage you to bring your credit cards. She has produced an online companion to the book. Lets welcome anne rubin. [applause] thank you all very much for coming. I want to offer my thanks to don doyle and tom brown for inviting me and being such wonderful hosts. Im honored to be in columbia for this anniversary. Who burned columbia . If we knew the definitive answer, i am not sure we would be sitting here today. We know who started many significant fires in history. We blame mrs. Olearys cow for the great chicago fire, or now we blame hey leg sullivan. The great fire of london began in a bakery on putting lane. We blame the british for burning washington, d. C. In 1814, and the earthquakes in San Francisco in 1906. Maybe we dont know because this fire happened in the middle of the civil war. But we know that the union army burned atlanta. Who burned columbia . Sherman and his fiendish hell hounds sherman and his demons wrote a poet, sherman and his army of villains, wrote grace brown elmore. What did sherman say in reply to these charges . In his official report, sherman blamed confederate general wade hampton. As he explains, hampton had ordered that all cotton should be moved into the streets and fired, to prevent us from making use of it. The bales were cut open, free from the ropes and backing and tufts of cotton were blown about in the wind, so as to resemble a snowstorm, and these piles were burning. As night fell, and wind picked up, the fire spread beyond the efforts of soldiers to control them. Sherman argued, Union Soldiers deserve praise for saving so much of the city and caring for the newly homeless. Furthermore, sherman went on, and this i think is the root of so much anger and resentment and without hesitation, he wrote, i charge general wade hampton with having burned his own city of columbia, not with malicious intent or as the manifestation of his silly roman stoicism, but from folly, and want of dissent and filling it with late cotton, and tinder. Not only did general wade hampton burned columbia, but he didnt even give it do it for a good reason, is what sherman seems to be saying here. Like a careless boy playing with matches. This wasnt just placing blame this was an insult. Sherman did admit to some union men although he does this nonchalantly his officers worked only to put out the flames, he explained, and those who didnt do back those who didnt do that including officers who were long imprisoned there. In short columbias brought this vengeance on themselves. There might have been some bad apples adding to the trouble but the key here is that none of this was done by orders. Not surprisingly, other Union Soldiers echoed shermans claims. The destruction of the city was against the wishes of our commanders, and was originally owing to the fires set by their own people and dealt with with the expectation that the city would burn. And, he continues, on the other hand why Johnson Beauregard Hampton should be such unmitigated fools as to wish to burn columbia is more strange. Yet i know the facts to be as i have stated, as i was one of the first to enter the city and have been here since. Osborne is very clear about this. Like osborne, two officers on shermans staff made the same connection. In a diary entry, major Henry Hitchcock emphasized that columbia did not burn by orders, but against orders. And despite on the effort of our part to save it. In addition to cotton. Hitchcock also mentions the large quantities of liquor available in the city. It was often given directly to the soldiers. In hitchcocks view, the fire came partly by accident from the burning cotton, partly by design by eastgate prisoners, and by our drunken men. Major George Nichols told a similar tale in the story of the great march, when a the first histories of shermans march. Burning cotton, prisoners with liquor. What nichols is saying is that the citizens of columbia purposefully gave soldiers liquor as they knew what would happen. As for sherman, nichols stated, whenever may have been the cause of the disaster, the result is deprecated i general sherman most and fat ugly. For however heinous the crimes of our people, we do not wage war against women and children and helpless persons. What we see here, from sherman and all stored in hitchcock and nichols, is the shifting of shermans blame to the confederates not just the general, but even ordinary people. This doesnt seem that surprising. Who would admit to starting a fire like this . The complicating factor is that sherman never disavowed ordering the city be burned. Why would sherman take ownership . And disavow the other . It is an interesting question. One thing is true. For about one decade, sherman consistently blamed the fire on Wade Hamptons ordering that the cotton be burned. He does this in a variety of forums. In response to a petition from congress to congress. A citizen petitioned Congress Demanding compensation for property destroyed in the fire. Sherman reiterated that cotton started the fire, and that because hampton ordered, that all cotton should thus be burned and from what i saw myself, i have no hesitation in saying that he was the cause of the destruction in your city. In response to this wade hampton got into the mix. He wrote an interesting letter to a maryland senator. Its 1866 at this point, and South Carolina does not have a senator right now. He emphatically denied ordering the cotton be fired, he says that the citizens set fire, and he also denies that there was any cotton on fire at all and federal troops entered the city. He is completely disavowing any involvement. In fact, hampton said, i pledge myself to prove that i give a positive order by direction of general beauregard that no cotton should be fired, that not one bail was on fire when sherman street took possession of the city, that he promised protection to the city, and that, in spite of his promise he burned the city to the ground deliberately systematically, and atrociously. What i think is so interesting about this exchange is there is this real personal tone to it. This is personal now. This is about honor reputation, truth telling. Sherman always seemed to have the upper hand in this exchange. He cared less about his reputation, or maybe he felt that these accusations didnt do any harm to his reputation. He approaches the proceedings with a little bit of a twinkle in his eye. In an 1872 deposition before a mixed commission of british and americans, sherman explains that he knew he will be blamed for the fire and columbia. And that from the start, he wanted to set the record straight. This is his defense. If i have made up my mind to burn columbia, i would have burned it with no more feelings than i would a common prairie dog village. But i did not do it. And therefore, i want that truth to be manifest. Once again, he lays blame at the feet of hampton. Once again, he acknowledges that some soldiers might have engaged in mischief, but that they did not start the fires. I think he is being quite honest here. If he had wanted to burn columbia, he wouldve burned columbia. He did it in other places. He made these kinds of orders. If he says he didnt do it, he didnt do it. Why am i belaboring this point . And part because of what happened next. The prairie dog village quote was in 1872. In 1875, sherman published his memoirs. They are a literary reflection of the man himself. They are direct, candid. Sherman, as he had done consistently, denied ordering that the fires be set, blame them on the cotton set ablaze. He described meeting with various women and columbia, offering them food and protection, using this as evidence that he personally held no malice for columbia, and that he was not the one who torched it. His logic is basically, if i had burned columbia, why would i help everybody who was burned out of columbia . But then he explains that in his official report so that first passage i just read in 1865 explaining in his reversal report that i distinctly charge it to general wade hampton and confess i did so pointedly to shake faith of the people, for he was in my opinion boastful. So there it is. I did it pointedly to shake the state of his people in him. The psychological warfare that so much of shermans march was about. I think it is this quote, this passage, that explains why the controversy still endures. This one offhanded remark doesnt calm his critics it inflames them no pun intended. It is the burning of columbia that cemented his reputation as an uncaring demon. With atlanta, he had already even acted all the civilians. That wasnt so caring either, but. Truth be told, he was more careless with fire and columbia them with georgia. Sherman was charged with hypocrisy, defending Wade Hamptons honor and noting that with is the only incident of such barbarity, his effort to escape responsibility might be more successful because more plausible. Davis is not entirely wrong