it's my pleasure to introduce

jonathan to you all. he is your first speaker, and i'm delighted to be to to enjoy yet another presentation from him. jonathan nogales, director of university's mccormick civil war institute and, a professor in our history department. he's the author and editor of 15 books and has published more than 100 reviews, articles, essays and book chapters in scholarly and popular

publications. najjar has consulted on public history projects with organizations such as the national park service, americorps and battlefield trust and national geographic. he is the recipient of numerous awards for his teaching scholarship, including shenandoah university's exemplary teaching award, the first year seminar, the university's wilkins award and the state council for higher education in virginia's outstanding faculty award. the highest honor that can be given to anyone teaching at a college or in virginia. nogales is next book the blood tented waters of the shenandoah. i want to read that one? a book that focuses on the battle of cool spring and its on soldiers and families. it will be released in july by savage beauty. all proceeds from the sale of this book will support the mccormick civil war institute's efforts. information sheets about.

the book are located at the front the room and i know you won't be disappoint by that. so with further ado, have a wonderful day. i to you, jonathan noyalas. thank you, dr. coker, for that introduction. i feel very blessed and fortunate to work at an institution that has an administration that so supportive of the civil warrants to dr. coker, of course who really kind of brought me to shenandoah. so thank you for that. and also our president, who is not here today, dr. tracy fitzsimmons, and our university provost, dr. karen abraham. so before we get into our official remarks this morning, i wanted to just make a few announcements and go over some logistics about the day. so first and foremost, i want to thank all you for attending so many of you are here for the ninth year or the 10th year or whatever it is.

some of you are here for the first time. if you're here for the first time, hopefully you're going to come back next year. and for many, many years to come. so within your folders, there are things related to today. so obviously the schedule, there is a comment card in that folder. so we're to know about, you know, how you learned about this, what you might like to see at future conferences. so throughout the course of the day, if you have ideas in your mind about future, you can jump them down on that yellow card and then give them to one of my four students who are serving as conferences assistants this morning. or you can give it to me. also make certain that you've received your lunch ticket. that's the real winner of today, right? the culinary delights of allen dining hall. you can access those without. that lunch ticket. we also have information about fall seminar and tour program in november coming up. so if you are interested in that, there are multiple ways that you can register and you certainly look at the flier that

is in your folder. also we have a book raffle as we do every year. again to raise money to support student research and our efforts out on our cool spring campus and other programs. so i a student in the back, josh brooks, his grade depends on how many raffle tickets he sells. so if you want josh to graduate from shenandoah or buy tickets. if not, we'll see him next because he is supposed to graduate december, so he thinks. i do want to say that the general city of our donors, whether you're you're giving donations or buying raffle tickets, these things make an impact. so for the first time ever, the university fees mccormick civil war institute was able to scholarships to and teachers from eight different institutions throughout the country. and you know part of what the institute does is making history

accessible to the masses. and so we're able to do that significant a significant way through, awarding scholarships. so thanks to all of you who have donated to our efforts over the course of the years, a few other things before we start. so we are fortunate to hav c-span us today. so during the q&a session, i will have students with microphones. so if you have a please raise your hand and wait for a microphone to get to you. also, those of you who know me well know i love to run a tight ship. okay, so we will stick to the schedule. exist for a reason. it's to keep things on track. so if you have a question that you would like to ask of one of our historians today aren't able to fit it into regularly allotted time. all of our historians are nice people and they're happy to speak with you during breaks. so see that as an opportunity as well. and finally, i would like to

point out in the back of the room, we have, a representative from the fort collins war center. so several years the civil war institute decided partner after an invitation with the fort collins civil war center to really help provide and educational assistance. and so we do programs out at fort collier throughout the course of the year. so patrick stein, who is a good friend, he's a member of the board of the fort collins civic center as. am i. is back there with information about fort collier, about upcoming programs? if you'd like to be placed on their contact list? certainly you can fill out the form back. and finally, before i begin, over the years i think the civil war institute has become somewhat of a family. i've gotten to know of you so very well. and so there's a bit of sadness and joy. so one of our longtime attendees gene, betty, passed away late

last year. so i've decided to dedicate this conference in his honor on the joyful side of things. we have two people in attendance today who are longtime attendees they have been with me, i think, since the beginning of my career as a historian and ed jelinek just celebrated their 50 year wedding anniversary so congratulations to. in the late spring. of 1862. lieutenant william wheeler the 13th new york light artillery could not believe his eyes. he could not believe what he saw as the army of, which he was a part. general john c fremont's army was coursing through the southern reaches of the shenandoah valley. wheeler saw troops in, his army

specifically troops from brigadier general lewis division act very cruelly towards of the valley without, regard to allegiance, whether they were pro confederate, pro-eu or enslaved. he thought that the actions they exhibited throughout that late spring, 1862 went beyond the normal practices of an army and they really crossed over into an unjust territory. wheeler, who was a native of new york city, he was a of yale college graduate, 1855, and would ultimately be killed in fighting outside of marietta, georgia, 1864. he wrote a letter to his aunt that late spring from the camps in page county, virginia and he wrote how the conduct of a contingent of soldiers in the army of which he was a part

bothered him and troubled very, very deeply. and he wrote in part there the feeling that we were invaders laying waste a fair and blooming country and that our opponents were fighting to their fire sides and homesteads. it is by no means agreeable to deprive farmers of their grain hay and to carry our favorite horses. amid the tears and supplications of the womenfolk. as wheeler continued on in that letter he for moment, stepped outside of himself. he wanted to empathize with what civilians would be experience. and so he tried put them. he tried to put himself into their shoes. how he feel if this happening in connecticut. how he feel if this was happening to of his own family. and he continued on in this letter to his aunt. i cannot help mentally

transferring the whole trouble to the northern country and, thinking how i should feel if louisiana tigers or some such notorious corps should have a chance. march through connecticut. when wheeler got to the end of the letter, he really struggled to remember why it that he enlisted fight because in his mind when he enlisted in 1861, this is not what enlisted for. he enlisted to preserve the union. ultimately, to destroy the institution of slavery. and he thought this would all take place on the battlefield. he did not enlist to fight against civilians. and he closed the letter. indeed, i am sometimes in danger, forgetting the reason and object of the war. because my mind is constantly occupied with the losses and miseries which are daily before

my eyes. i think the reality is that wheeler was not alone in his misery and his objections, certainly at this early point in the conflict, from the early stages of the civil. there were those in the united states army who believed engaging in a policy of concealing. what one harbors weekly newspaper reporter branded the, quote unquote approach to war. people like him that engaging in this policy of conciliation. individuals like lieutenant general winfield scott george v mcclellan. they thought that engaging in this gingerbread approach to the war. that if they could confine the conflict to the battlefield if they could leave civilians out of it, which as i think everything one of us in this room understands how difficult this was as the war progressed.

i mean we're in a community right now winchester that essentially a revolving door multiple battles numerous occupations fighting literally in the streets of this city. but nonetheless this was their ideal let's confine it to the battlefield. let's keep civilians out of the conflict. and ultimately, if we do these things, it will bring about a quick end to the war. those individual who favored this policy of, conciliation, whether was at the highest levels of general scott or george mcclellan or down to the lowliest private, they believed that refraining from waging war, civilian populations would ultimately prove a great ally to win the war. because first and foremost, they thought that if we don't engage any sort of adverse activity against civilians, it might sway.

it's important to understand that when the war begins and really throughout the confer, if you're in a place like, winchester or frederick county, virginia, where we're at right now, not everybody supported the confederacy, 15% of this city's population were pro-union. and then there's another segment of the population who are what i like to call leave alone. the stein family that lived at fort collier during civil war fell into this category. guys, in his early forties has a wife and several kids. his primary concern is survival, but they that if you engage in this policy conciliation, it would sway. it might make those leave owners want to more aggressively support the union. and certainly united states officials who favored conciliation, they thought that it would perspectives among confederate civilians that union soldiers were not as a pro

confederate resident of front royal, lucy bourque wrote in her diary on march 1862. that soldiers were nothing more than a tool of despotism for. as she wrote, the arch fiend lincoln. and they also thought that if you in this policy of conciliation it would make it easier once the conflict ended to up the nation's wounds and the country forward among those individuals who believed that was the best approach, not just early on in the conflict, but for much of the war. is that man right there, colonel thorburn? so if hoban spent a considerable portion of his military service in the shenandoah valley, so from his time as colonel of the virginia u.s., what became the first west virginia through his tenure as division. in 1864? colonel thorburn witnessed

civilians cut in the midst of wars. maelstrom and he largely believed that the practice of waging any form of war against. he thought that taking civilian property, however much you took he thought that destroying civilian property that for any short term benefits it might produce. what ultimately in the long run prove detrimental? on july 22nd, 1864. this four days after his fought a very, very fierce along the banks of the river at the battle of cool spring. many of you have been out to that battlefield with me at the university of course owns, 195 acres of that property. but this is what thorburn wrote in his journal four days after the battle of cool spring, the vindictive spirit that is manifested toward the people of the south. maybe just.

but it is not calculated to win back to the union and have fraternity with. justice must be with mercy. the government should be mild and forgiving as well as firm and true to its own integrity. thorburn was not alone in this belief more than two years earlier, in february of 1862, captain philip h. sheridan this is the same. sheridan who in the autumn of 1864 commanded the army of the shenandoah in the valley, presided that destructive period of the burning in late september and early october of that year. he thought early in the conflict that mishandling relations with civilians could lead to very large and deep political troubles in the future. in the early part of 1862, sheridan, serving as the chief

commissary quartermaster for major general samuel curtis's army of, the southwest. so curtis's was tasked tasked driving general stirling price out of missouri. and during price's camp, excuse me, during curtis's, there were all kinds of challenges he confronted whether was a major challenge. the nature, the landscape was a significant challenge. but one of the most significant dilemmas he confronted was that because the horrific weather conditions, because the nature of the rough landscape over which his army traversed, he was using up horses a very alarming rate. and an army at this is only going to move as fast as you have fresh horses to carry command forward. and so he was always obsessed with making certain that the army had enough of horses. and it was sheridan's responsibility to make certain that the army had enough.

so february 18th, 1862, general curtis issued an order which really didn't. it did not sit well at all with phil sheridan. and here's the order. necessary to your loss in horses. you will buy or press in a service as to keep up the efficiency of the several arms and transportation of this army. this an order that greatly troubled sheridan while he was authorized to purchase them, sheridan believed the instructions to press horses into service was really to stealing. and here's what he wrote on march 5th to general curtis. i will buy artillery, cavalry or quartermaster stock, which is the only authority i have to make purchases and, which is the only way that purchases can be made. i will not. jayhawk or steel in any way on

any order nor will i acknowledge the right of any person under my supervision in this district to do so? sheridan thought in particular that this was a troubling practice which to engage in a state like. missouri as all know, was a border state. and sheridan and i think rightfully so that impressing horses into the service of the united states, it would not only further solidify confederate allegiance, but it might actually sway unionist allegiance to the confederate side because they might saying, okay, sheridan comes and takes these horses, we're loyal to the union. is this what it means to remain loyal to the union. so sheridan was very very uneasy about this. and what of sheridan's staff officers he wrote that state of missouri was a sensitive line.

if the people were fairly dealt with by the union, people getting for the property taken would go far to keep them on the union side. and sheridan considered this policy. this is also interestingly enough, a perspective that confederates share. in the summer of 1864 as confederate jubal early army is moving through the shenandoah valley in the maryland en route. eventually to the gates of the capital. there were some in earliest command, including this man right here, brigadier general warren, who believed that as the army moved further, as army got into places like berkeley county, west virginia, and specifically the city of martinsburg, where live a place that confederate soldiers in 1861 called quote unquote,

little massachusetts, because the strength of the union, a sentiment in martinsburg gabriel war and thought that as early as army to a place like martinsburg as much as they might have the impulse to want to take things he said we should refrain from it because. he thought that there would be significant consequences if we go into that city and just take things from civilians. now, unfortunately, that did not happen. when earley's army entered martinsburg in john b gordon's division, they cleaned it out as were and wrote in a letter to his wife. but warren, i think thought more deeply about things than maybe some other confed commanders. he thought that doing this in a border region where loyalties are in a state of constant flux, he thought that you're going alienate potential supporters.

and he also thought there would be other adverse consequences. this is what wharton wrote his wife on july six, 1864, from the army's camp near sharpsburg, maryland. i fear that it will stir up the yankee officers, ed lincoln, to fill up his depleted ranks and thus prolong the war. so i want to just of step back a moment from this and offer, maybe a little bit of a broader perspective. i don't think he's far off the mark here. if think about ben butler union ben butler when he occupied new orleans. in may of 1862. and you think about butler's women's order and all the stuff that that entailed, that became a rallying cry to help garner recruits into the confederate army. because he's doing this, you know, at the time, confederate conscription is going effect and was it worked? i mean, this this recruiting

effort and support for the draft because butler it brought troops confederate forces who were going after butler. i don't think this is some kind of irrational idea. i think there is precedent happens during the war to help understand if we do this, we can potentially these types of. now beyond concerns about how waging war on civilians might potentially shift allegiances how they might benefit the opposing side. there were some who simply believed that anything negative of toward civilian populations that simply it was wrong it was uncivil. it was barbarous and they thought it would have an adverse effect on their own personal development as human beings. this is a moment, i think, the historian jacquelyn, who wrote a great book about quakers from

indiana during the civil war, i think captured this this very, very well. and nelson observed that there are so many soldiers the outset of the conflict, in particular, that they thought if they engage in these types of activities against civilians, that they would lose their sense as to the value of human. they would lose their sensitivity as to why it is wrong to destroy private property. there was a vermont soldier who wrote very simply that if i stay in this army for the three years of my enlistment he wrote and i'm quoting now, i will become a total barbarian barbarian. others thought that it was unwise to wage war against civilians and property, as it would erode the army's discipline. and so maintaining discipline in an army. this is a very critical thing to do, potentially subjecting soldiers who lag behind, who are more interested in looting and

pillaging that it could subject them to being captured by irregular forces, bushwhackers and the like. so throughout the course of the conflict, officers on both sides and this is not unique to one side or the other, this is for both sides, they always constantly trying to figure out what can we do? what kind of orders can we put in place to make certain that these types of things don't happen? that discipline does not break down and men are not unnecessarily brought into harm's way. so they're issuing orders preventing this type of behavior. and also, they are issuing at various points throughout the conflict, protective orders for civilian property. so let's at one of these this morning. in the spring of 1862, josiah baker, who is there on the right side, the slide, he was a resident of winchester who sympathized with the confederacy when he union forces coming into

winchester there in the early spring 1862. he was deeply concerned about what might happen. things on his 150 acre property. and so he went to the first officer he could find. that guy right there, major jonathan lockwood of the seventh virginia u.s. and asked if he could issue a protective order and lockwood did. and here's the order and the order prohibited troops from trespassing upon the premises. and it noted that those who did would be strictly punished. so what does the punishment look like? united states army regulations article 52 clearly stipulates what happens if you don't have orders from an officer to go and forage? if you just go under your own power to a property and take stuff that doesn't belong to you and? the regulations state any officer or soldier who shall plunder and pillage every offender being duly convicted

thereof shall suffer death or. such other punishment as shall be ordered by the of a general court martial. while waging war in any form against might indeed as it did lead to breakdowns in discipline. while it might allegiances which there is evidence that it did. there are some soldiers who thought if you weighed everything in the balance, the pros and the cons, recognizing that we do not, in an ideal world, that their actions were indeed justified. so i want to spend some this morning talking about how they felt they were justified, because this whole presentation this morning is the soldier perspective. dr. finkelman, next up will give all the perspectives about military law and those types of things. but this is a very intimate exploration morning. first and foremost, soldiers, as

the war goes, are going to justify actions because they recognize the of doing so for reasons of survival, self-preservation, what we might call self-care. so if we look, for instance, at isaac barker, isaac barker was a quaker from westfield, indiana who served in 147th indiana regiment. he served in the final months of the conflict. and if you look at his letters, he is really to survive. and in his letters, he writes a lot about how he misses mom's home cooked meals. and certainly fare is not anywhere remotely close to mom's chicken soup. so barker is thinking, can i do to myself more comfortable? how can i benefit from the environment around me? so actually writes in one of his

letters about going to a farm and just taking cherries from this farm. now he was taking these cherries only for himself to eat, but he was taking cherries so that he could bring in them back to the camp, not to share with his comrades, but to sell to his comrades, because he thought, if i can't get what i want, i can sell available and use that money to purchase what i feel like i need. so confederate soldiers also engaged this type of activity. this is a unique. so during stonewall jackson's 1862 volley campaign, there are examples that exist of confederate soldiers who see the uniform on their back as a free pass to go any piece of property and take whatever it is, want. and this is something that, quite honestly, if you look at the large array of diaries and

letters written in the moment, this was something that bothered confederate sympathizers the valley. so you also have to understand right, that not everyone who was a confederate sympathizer as it was like, hey, great, we're going to open up my farm and you could have whatever you want. not the case. the stein that lived at fort collier, mr. sent the confederacy bills every month for stuff had taken from his property. these are part of his confederate file now at the national archives. so confederate civilians, they want the confederacy to succeed, but they don't want it to succeed necessarily at their own personal expense. and so as confederate soldiers are coming and just taking, their civilians are bothered. this. there was one confederate civilian wrote that these stragglers these soldiers are more troublesome than the yankees because they go anywhere without fear.

now as conflict wore on for union soldiers, those who once favored this policy conciliation that we talked about earlier in my remarks this morning, those perspectives began to harden. and the reason that they began to harden was of their encounters with people. as more and more union soldiers, in particular had encounters, civilians. as they had more and more encounters with enslaved populations, they began to feel that it was okay to do whatever they wanted to confederate civilians because of how brutally the institution of slavery was. one of these individuals who transformed perspective was

woodworth. so samuel woodworth enlisted in the first michigan engineers and mechanics in the summer of 1863, when he enlisted. he brought with him no outward hatred to, the confederacy. so he was a guy that loved the union. he wanted the union. obviously to win. he wanted to be part of that triumphant effort. but he really seemed to favor a policy of conciliation. but the more he encountered enslaved people, he thought that in the end, anything that union did, whether it was on the battlefield or the home front, anything that they did, that might help bring about victory. that it was indeed justified. on october 15th, 1864, he wrote his wife from alabama. i have come to the conclusion

that this is a just war. i have had an opportunity learn something of the hard institution of slavery. oh, how wicked and how cruel. i have conversed with a great many from all parts the south and that i've come into our lines for protection. and it has drawn tears from my eyes to listen to their sad story. what he writes here is repeated time and time and time again among literally of thousands of letters from union soldiers. there is nothing that makes union soldiers favor emancipate nation more than seeing slavery firsthand. this is one of many examples. others thought that taking war to civilian populations was warranted, particularly in areas where civilians were violent and aggressive toward union occupiers.

i'm not talking about, you know, what what women? winchester. confederate women in winchester like, you know, getting off the sidewalk when a union soldier was walking down or not walking the shadows of the stars and stripes. i'm talking shooting at union soldiers. on. july 25th, 1862. there were at least one. there was at least one civilian confederate sympathizer. more in newburn, carolina, who shot and seriously wounded a soldier over from the 23rd massachusetts infantry. while soldier was on picket duty and. so this image here on the screen is actually showing that regiment in newburn. so it kind of gives you a sense what that community looked like at the time. the soldier wasn't killed but wounded. and the massachusetts thought that if we don't get this under

control right now, this is a situation that could spiral very, very rapidly. now, unfortunately, they were not able to capture the person who fired the shot or the persons who fired the shot. but what they were able to do was identify the building from which shot was fired. and so ultimately they decided to send a very clear message by tearing that house down. henry valentine, who was a veteran of the regiment, he recalled that soldiers were ordered to remove furniture from the house while others attack the fences, cut down or pulled up the corn, destroy the peach orchard and outbuildings. the larger part of men directed their attention to the house itself. they were just in the humor for the operation, and soon everything was level with the ground. as the war goes on, attitudes

evolve. perspectives change. it's rather interesting to kind of look the trajectory of this because early in the conflict, people like winfield, scott mcclellan, lieutenant wheeler and thorburn, others, they thought that the speediest way to about an end to the war was conciliation. clearly, by late 63, early 64, that was not working. and so they to think that maybe being more aggressive in military policy, civilians would actually speed up the end of the conflict and end the conflict more swiftly. and so you to see people changing their mind. among those individuals who changed their mind was joseph. on october 4th, 1864. so this is just, you know, a couple of months after he's writing a letter to his brother about how conciliation and still in the summer of 1864 is the best approach.

by october, the first week of october, 1864, as the army of the shenandoah engages in campaign of the burning slow burn begins to alter his perspective as the army was in harrisonburg. he wrote a letter to his brother about how, in retrospect, burning taking things of military, destroying things of military value, making certain that they were not accessible to confederate forces was really strategically beneficial and would bring about a much swifter end to the conflict. now thorburn recognizes this, that this is perhaps the lesser of two evils. and you start see soldiers on both sides, civilians on both sides thinking about this. so what's worse to, burn a barn or kill a man? and he writes, to destroy as are

doing, is a very painful duty. but it is believed to be military necessity and the end will justify the means which, though not a very good rule. as an individual man may do in war for all elements of war are the taking of life is certainly worse than the destruction of property. there is no ideal. there is no perfect solution. in tobin's mind. but the of his perspective. again, not unusual. and there also is something else that is not unusual about theo burns thoughts. it's this process of rationalization. soldiers throughout the conflict as they are engaging in this type of activity. they're trying to rationalize in their mind in order to sleep at night. is this just or not.

three months after. or excuse me. three months before. o'byrne really altered his perspective confederate cavalry from general john mccausland is command raided into southern part of pennsylvania and as we all know burned chambersburg one of the members of mcclellan's command was j. kelly bennett served in the eighth virginia cavalry. and bennett remembered was he received this order. they were going to go into chambersburg. we're going to burn it. and as torches were basically being passed around, he recorded his diary, how he thought was wrong, that we should not be doing this because he's thinking about what he has written in his diary previously. how he was condemning the acts of. individuals like union general david hunter in the valley and he thought, well, now we're doing the same kind of thing.

but very quickly he begins to about this. he begins to rationalize in own mind and he begins to rationalize it in the context of the destruction that did occur. thought, well this is this is a this is a fair retaliation. this is a fair revenge for what happens to communities in the shenandoah valley. but what's interesting about bennett is, in some weird way, he believed that the destruction confederates soldiers engaged in was more humane and civil. and he wrote in part that burning, per se is wrong. no man can deny, but there may be circumstance under which it is not only justifiable but becomes duty instead of snatching from the hands of the ladies what they had saved from burning houses and throwing it back into flames. our men could be seen all over the city, checking the fire or carrying trunks, etc. for the

ladies. how beautiful. it's one of those kind of moments. now, regardless of how soldiers justified taking war to civilian populations, there were some soldiers who never thought that it was acceptable in any form. they maintained throughout the conflict that it was wrong. they maintained that was unjust. and if you read diaries and letters of these soldiers throughout the course of the conflict, you see a lot of examples of how this type of aggressive activity really appalled them. so for example during the trevelyan raid in of 1864, sergeant james avery of the fifth michigan cavalry, as he oftentimes in his diary, he recorded how distraught he was over seeing men from his command

just out and taking things without orders, looting, pillaging, destroying and the like. so one of his typical diary entries related to this comes from the trevelyan raid. he wrote, duty is duty. but i have known men under, the guise of duty to pillage buildings of even beds and carpets. what is the need of this lawlessness? no good soldier will do such thing. i say such men were not soldiers. but the worst of sneaking dogs. i would argue that perspective is not unique. you think about your own personal life. there are things that you see. there are things that you experience that really are truly appalling. and you might say to your spouse or friend, wow, that's bad. that's appalling. you might write about it in your

diary. this is terrible. but only a small percentage of human beings will actually do something to remedy the problem. it's very easy to confide a friend or a piece of paper, but actually up to do something to stop that is think remarkable and unique. there are examples of soldiers standing up when. they see these types of things happening, saying enough is enough. this crosses line. this behavior needs to be stopped. want to look at a couple of examples to illustrate this point, both of which surprise come from the shenandoah valley in late may of 1864, union david hunter, from the moment he took command on 21st, 1864, he

implemented a very aggressive policy toward confederate civilians. and what hunter did, by the way, was without precedent. it had been done everywhere, but he was aggressive toward confederate civilians because he believed and is right in this, that confederate civilians, the key to success for those irregular partizans bushwhackers. and so when hunter came to the valley, he recognized there was no way the united states was ever going to assert control over this region unless that partizan problem was dealt with first. and so he directed that, if any property of unionists i'm talking military property and civilian property was destroyed or taken by those irregulars that hunter directed that any.

sympathizer who lived within a ten mile radius of where property was taken or destroyed, that people living within a ten mile radius who were confederate sympathizers would pay five times the value of that. furthermore, hunter directed that if any union troops were attacked. so this is going beyond attacking wagon that if you're attacking a soldier, a human being in his army guerillas or bushwhackers. he ordered that the houses of secessionists would be burned without mercy. two days after hunter came to the valley, he implemented policy in newtown, virginia which is present day. stephen. so on that day, a contingent of union cavalry entered stephen's city and they burned structures

that believed were connected to an attack upon a union wagon train the previous day. after that attack and after hunter out his order. needless to say, the anxiety levels went way up among the civilians of. newtown, virginia, and they reacted to this in in a rather interesting way that i think goes beyond just discussions of civilians and soldiers, but also, i think, offers insight into issues of loyalty. so the day after this property was burned, at least three structures were burned. there was a contingent civilians from newtown, all of whom were confederate sympathizers, wanted to meet general hunter to talk about how we avoid this type of thing in the future. well, hunter wouldn't meet with them. he's like, i am not even talking to them. but what he will what did

ultimately do was? he sent one of his staff officers, his cousin david hunter strother. and so strother met with these confederate civilians and. they asked him, what can we do in order to certain that our property is not victimized from perspective. he said, it's really simple. tell us in your who is aid and assistance to bushwhackers and irregulars. if you do we will safeguard your property. these are confederate civilians. confederate sympathizers who presumably want the confederacy to. but now they're balancing that loyalty to a cause with loyalty to their house, to their family, and to their property. guess what wins out? loyalty to family, house and property. and so they omit, really, when

strother tells them this is the deal, they rat out one particular woman. her name was mary wilson. mary wilson was a 60 year old widow, notorious for having her resident be a gathering place for. bushwhackers and bushwhackers. for those of you aren't aware, these are essentially people who are supportive of the confederacy but are not part of any organized regular unit. they come and go as. they please and do what they want. so when hunter learned of this, he said, okay, guess what we're going to do. we are going to go and burn down the widow wilson's. so may 25th, contingent of soldiers from the 20th pennsylvania calvary, they show up in newtown. they're ready to burn the home. and then learn something rather interesting. she didn't actually own the home so the way that the order was written. so this this is the fine print

of a contract basically the way that the order was written, it stipulated that could only burn the property that was owned by secession if she didn't own it. hunter didn't actually know who owned the house. the cavalryman from the 20th cav did not know. who owned the home. and so they thought, well, this is a conundrum. so they well, let's do the next best thing. so they decided actually empty the contents of the home furniture, the clothing, chairs, everything, pile it up in the middle of the street. and when the soldiers started to do widow wilson, like, okay, you're going to burn the house, but at least i'll have my stuff that was inside of the house. so she actually does something that is maybe a little bit unthinkable. she actually helps the union soldiers. like you need a hand with that. just door. i'll help you. let's help clear up my closet. and she realizes the error of her ways. because once the home completely

empty union take her, they put her in a rocking chair. they tire to the rocking chair in front the pile of all of her possessions, and they burn them right in front of her. now, after her possessions were reduced to a pile of ashes those union, they bound her at the hands. they her to the back of a horse so that she would walk behind the horse and basically started dragging her south toward bel grove, which is where hunter's headquarters was located. so just as the column moves out, so this is actually a sketch that the valley pike leading into new town. so she's kind of coming towards us with the calvary. and so just as this column starts moving south, there's a massive downpour and. the jovial part of me, my students who are here kind of know, have a weird sense of humor. she's probably thinking, what was this downpour when they lit the match? but in any event, this downpour

comes and is one unidentified soldier. from the 20th pennsylvania cavalry who looks behind and sees the 60 year old widow being drug exhaust tired. oliver possessions have been destroyed. and he simply thought, you know this is wrong. like we can justify burning her stuff and we understand we have to get her to hunter's headquarters. but is wrong and other guys in that unit also thought it was wrong. they start thinking about their mothers and grandmothers again thinking about wheeler trying to empathize a little bit. let's put ourselves in their shoes. so this soldier called the column to halt untied, put her on the back of the horse and carried the rest of the way to the headquarters. in case you're interested. hunter did ultimately end up releasing her, so she wasn't

subjected to anything else. now, while this union calvary man took it upon himself to not just write about it, but do something about it. there are also exam bills that exist of entire units collectively saying this is wrong we ought not to do this. and while there are many episodes that exist illustrate this, i want to talk about one to show how a unit collectively says this is a wrong, unjust, immoral order. on the evening of october third 1864, philip sheridan, commander of the army, shenandoah, he received some rather startling news. his chief engineer officer, someone he loved like a son. first lieutenant john rogers miggs had been killed. now, historically, we know that

miggs was killed by three confederate scouts or brigadier general williams wickham command while he was conducting a survey near. dayton and dayton, by the way, is where this institution began in 1875. a little of shenandoah university trivia for you now. sheridan believed that migs, his death was not military act. he thought that since migs was killed essentially inside of union, that he had to be murdered. bushwhackers. and so without investigation into what happened, sheridan sought immediate revenge for the son of union quartermaster general montgomery c migs. sheridan ordered that every single home within dayton, virginia and a five mile radius ordered them burned to the ground. so the task of burning dayton virginia fell upon the shoulders

of 116th ohio. when the buckeyes received order, they had some emotions. ohio guys are usually good, right? we have our ohio, some of our ohio contingent. so during the time in dayton and rockingham county, they spent some time in that community, got to know the people there. and i've never been in this position, but i would think it has to be a very difficult thing to do to burn down the home of someone you like someone you have gotten to know might be easier to destroy property. don't know them. portrait. but you know these people. so in the early hours of october 4th, 116th, ohio, which was commanded by fella you see there

in the center of the screen, lieutenant colonel thomas wildes, he received this directive from sheridan. he was he was distraught over it, but he knew he had to carry out this order. so he sent his men to go round door to door, knocking on every single, telling them at night the community will be destroyed. and he wants to give residents of dayton time to gather as many of their possessions as possible. and this was very difficult for wildes and his men to do. it was a heart rending scene. one member of 116th ohio wrote such mourning such lamentation, such crying and for mercy. i never saw nor never want to see again. some were wild, crazy made crying for help, while others would throw their arms around yankee soldiers necks and implore them for mercy. i can't imagine how the anxiety

and levels of the residents of dayton were going unquantifiable off the charts, because as the day wore on, soldiers from george armstrong, custer's were burning the homes on the periphery of dayton. so smoke is building in the air. people are bringing their possessions out of their homes. and people were really thinking like for them, the end of the world was at hand. this was almost to them, an apocalyptic scene. one resident wrote with great fires on every side. and what little sleep that was had was taken on sleeping stretched on the side. a dense blanket of smoke. now settled over the country for the moment that wilds this order. he had really serious misgivings about it. so much so that he decided to write a note to sheridan, a note that attested to the character as wrote the character of the people of the place.

and i urged and begged sheridan to revoke the order. when sheridan received this note from lieutenant colonel wildes, his initial reaction was one of displeasure. the staff officer recorded that. read the note and swore. read it again and swore he was in great grief over the death of his valued staff officer. what's interesting about this whole episode is at the end of the day sheridan rescinded the order and saved dayton. the question becomes why so? for the longest time one of the ideas has been put out there and the historian john wall, a good friend, passed away a number of years ago really that the ultimate of the burning he theorized that he did it out of respect for wilde's that he respected ability and he thought you know what i'm going to take

his judgment on this and we're not going to destroy dayton. but i think there's also something else. so sheridan wrote about why he rescinded the order. he writes about it in his memoirs, but never fully explained why he did this. and so, as some of you know, i'm working on a biography of phil sheridan right now, and i came across this other explanation. i'm not certain it holds any real weight. but there was a member of general alfred to torvalds staff tauber was sheridan's of cavalry and he surmises that sheridan never actually intended to burn dayton, that he was going to take them up the 11th hour and rescinded anyway. and that while this was just kind of the final push, i'm not certain how much weight that argument holds if the reaction that the staff officer recorded about sheridan swearing is in

fact true. but nonetheless just putting it out there as another as another potential region reason as to why did what he. as a postscript to this story the citizens of in of 1962 erected a marker a bronze tablet to. lieutenant colonel walz's memory. it sits at the corner of main and streets. and you could read the inscription on the screen throughout the years of the conflict attitude, attitudes, soldiers, they changed as to the necessity of war, the necessity of waging war against civilians and other simply. you know what? at no time the conflict does it have any place. now. now, whether or not these perspectives has changed or

remain the same. soldiers on both sides. recognized how waging war against civilians in any form, whether it's killing civilians. historian jim mcpherson. you know, he estimated that about 50,000 civilians died during the war from different things. so whether it's the ultimate form of aggression, whether it's, you know, taking cherries and selling them or whatever the case is, soldiers recognized, it had a transformative effect. there is no one, in my opinion, who epitomize this perspective more than thomas or so thomas, or was a private in the 12th west virginia infantry from the time of his enlistment in the summer of 1862, until he mustered out years later. he spent a lot time in the valley at points at various places. he witnessed war being waged against civilians.

nearly three decades after the conflict, or took time to reflect on those war time experiences and to really offer up those experiences to future generations as lessons. about first and foremost, what it means go to war, and then how consists of much more than armies fighting each other on a battlefield. i think quite frankly, reading orr's postwar writings, he was very bothered by how things were becoming romantic, ized. and he and his comrades did not see war as something romantic. they saw it as tragic and cataclysmic. a lesson be learned from one of the reasons i love orr's writing is because he puts on what i teach to my students all the time. that history is a powerful lesson, is a great teacher. you need to have history that is usable to learn from. and he certainly thinks that the

civil war is something that people can learn. i think it's clear. after reading his reflection on the burning in the valley that he thought the campaign was militarily necessary, it was absolutely essential to union victory. but he saw and what he did, it haunted him for the rest his life or thought that the desolation that occurred in the valley during the burning late september and early october that it should as a reminder to all politicians, especially those people who are charged with making the decision to go to war, that you better think long and hard before you make that final decision, that it must in fact be the last resort. i think or recognized that war at times unavoidable. he certainly saw his service as just but he thought there was a

great lesson to be had in the civil war. and he wrote in part and i'll close my remarks with this the cruel fate of war had swept all they had away. you, you, who have always enjoyed peaceful homes, know nothing of. the alarms and horrors of war, man's inhumanity to man makes countless thousands more. he is writing this at a time when we are on the cusp of going to war with spain over in cuba. with that. thank you all very much. so we a few moments for q&a. we have to get our our microphone people here first.

so we'll get -- first and then. jonathan have you found instances of soldiers who have changed the their attitude toward slavery? having that's a great question. so. during the war, no, but i think what is that as you get to that postwar period? i think that there are confederates recognize a that slavery is at the heart of the conflict john mosby is one of them. i mean, john, after the war writes extensively about how yeah i know that lost causes don't to acknowledge this but slavery kind of had to do with the war and then also i think there are individuals who recognize after the fact that it

was it was brutal, it was wrong. so. i had a couple. one is just maybe perhaps out of humor and curiosity. one local farm family that you mentioned, that bell, the confederate ask for the you stuff that they took if they were at all were they reimbursed with confederate money which would become useless the war and the second question really as my primary one is i for my master's at liberty university. i'm actually. researching the two tier definition of equality within the abolitionist movement among christian ministers. and i was just curious as to your research, if you would, those who saw the horrors of slavery, if they wrote anything on extending the right to vote. african americans. so. so really good questions. so first question about the

stein family. there is no evidence that the confederate government paid them if they did pay them, obviously it would be confederate money. now, maybe 1861. that's great. by 63, when inflation is crazy, you think is bad. now you should think about the confederacy. so no, there's no record that they receive financial compensation as to your your last question about attitudes changing towards enslaved people and the idea of equality, there are it comes a lot more slowly i would argue. all right. so as as you have encounters with enslaved people and so this is this is you know it's history is a is a muddy mess at times. so there's a book that came out recently, it's i think paul scott wrote this and this is a book. racial towards black people

among white northerners and. so you can be both abolition minded also not want to extend the franchise to black people and which is what you see certainly i mean lincoln is someone who goes to this evolution. right. so lincoln's not wanting extend the franchise. he does come to it. and frederick douglass, i think as a significant factor in changing those perspectives. but you don't have i don't think you have as much for voting rights, equality as you do for individuals who favor abolition. time for a few more questions. it's not exactly a question, but a very sad comment in a way that this is almost the old days when. soldiers could even think about this and see what they're doing. and now, with the days of ai and

drones and you just. yeah, they're not involved. i mean, civilians said it's all civilians that they're there. and, you know, if you look if so, if you extend broadly right. throughout all of military history, there are numerous examples, al, you're an air force guy, right? there are examples of guys who are, you know, going on long range bombing missions and it weighs on them psychologically. they know they're causing massive amounts of destruction. they don't know to whom. and i was married to a b-52. yeah. yeah. i think we have time for. one more question. so we'll get in blue jacket, get. and then remember, if you have questions, i'm happy to to speak with during breaks as well could you comment on what happened front royal of when the officer decided to retaliate against the prisoners of war. oh the front royal executions.

yes. yeah. so i mean, this is all connected to john singleton mosby. this is in september of 1864. there was incessant back and forth between mosby and sheridan where you know moseby is taking some of sheridan's p.o.w.s and executing in clark county. and then you have, you know, union cavalry in september 64 are engaging in in those hangings there. one of the sad stories and that and that happens like back and forth between those those two guys. one of the very sad things that happens with the front royal executions is there was a young teenage his name escapes me at the moment, but a young teenage boy who when mosby's command was through front royal was excited and he thought he would like join the party. and he did. and ended up being captured. he was killed because they

thought, you know, he's one of these partizans and they killed him. and after was executed union calvary, they put him in a wheelbarrow, took to the home of his mother, knocked on the door and dumped his there in front. so it's it's unimaginable all right how