retaliation, reprisals

NY Times 8-2-1864

150 years ago today a rebel force burned much of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. Here’s the intro from an article at the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission:

On July 30, 1864, Confederate troops entered the south central Pennsylvania town of Chambersburg. Their commander General John McCausland demanded from the residents $100,000 in gold or $500,000 in cash. When the residents refused to pay, he ordered his troops to burn the town.

There is some evidence that 3,000 people were made homeless and $3,000,000 worth of property was destroyed. This destruction was probably in retaliation for the damage done to private property in the Shenandoah Valley by Union troops under General David Hunter. There was a report that Jubal Early, McCausland’s superior, stated retaliation was the Confederates’ purpose at Chambersburg. From the Richmond Daily Dispatch August 22, 1864:

Why Chambersburg was burnt.

–This act is thus explained in a letter from Maryland to the New York Herald:

“Just before leaving Williamsport, General Early made some public remarks in regard to the burning of Chambersburg which are of interest. He said that he ordered one hundred thousand dollars in gold to be demanded of the town; and that if the demand was not complied with in three hours the town was to be burned; that the sum of money demanded was to reimburse Andrew Hunter, William Lucas, E. J. Lee and Hon. Alexander R. Boteler for their losses, caused in the destruction of their property by order of General Hunter, and that he felt perfectly justified in the course he had pursued. He explained how General Hunter had burned the house of his (Hunter’s) cousin, in Jefferson county, Virginia, and taken that cousin (Andrew Hunter) off as a prisoner, and said that the act was a brutal one, because the inmates of the house were not allowed time to save even a portion of their clothing. In concluding, he said it would be the future policy of the rebel Government to retaliate in the severest manner for all barbarities practiced against them.–He delivered these remarks in a calm, firm manner. In a private conversation, he said that no man more than himself deprecated the necessity of such an act as the one committed at Chambersburg, but that he sanctioned it, believing he was only doing his duty to those people who had suffered by General Hunter’s orders; and again, because he believed that by retaliation such barbarous practices would be sooner discontinued than in any other way. He was particularly severe on General Hunter, and said that, should he fall a prisoner into their hands, his lot would be a hard one.”

The New-York Times column to the left differentiated Chambersburg from Union raids and likened it to native savagery. And said there would be Union reprisals.

Chambersburg after retaliation