The Secession Movement
Although South Carolina was
the first of the states to carry the principle of secession to the point
of war, she was not the first to suggest a resort to disunion as a means
of self-defense. As long ago as 1796 a governor of Connecticut proposed
that the Northern states should protect themselves by withdrawing from the
Union, if Jefferson were elected President. When Lincoln was elected
President, South Carolina, to protect herself, actually withdrew. So
unstable at that time was the notion of an indissoluble union that, upon
the very eve of war, some of the leading men of New York urged that the
port should declare itself a "free" city. The chief difference seems to be
that South Carolina was prepared, though reluctantly and as a desperate
resort, to put to the test of war the principle of state sovereignty,
which had been publicly accepted and defended by enlightened thinkers in
every state since the formation of the Union.
The idea of secession, so far as it relates to
South Carolina, may be traced to the first agitation against protective
tariffs, especially the tariff of 1828, which soon became known as the
Nullification movement. That tariff committed the country to the policy of
encouraging domestic manufactures at the sacrifice of the far greater
interests of agriculture. It threatened to destroy the export trade, of
which the products of agriculture comprised about eight-ninths. The South
contributed about three-fourths of all the agricultural exports. Of the
entire export trade, amounting to $55,700,193, the South contributed
$34,072,655, in cotton, tobacco, and rice. South Carolina's share of this
large export trade was, in 1829, $8,175,586, or nearly one-fourth. The
export of Southern cotton alone amounted to $26,575,311. In the
circumstances, the South could see only a distant and doubtful benefit,
through developed manufactures, as an offset to the injury or destruction
of its extensive and remunerative foreign trade.
As we have seen, the tariff of 1828 was the
special grievance of South Carolina. John C. Calhoun and Robert Y. Hayne
contended that, under the accepted principle of state sovereignty, South
Carolina had the right to nullify this or any other Federal statute. These
leaders did not propose secession, but took the ground that a state could
declare a law of the (United States void and still remain in the Union.
Calhoun, who was then Vice-President, was devoted to the idea of a Union,
but felt that the Union could be made powerful and permanent only by
preserving the original ideal of sovereign states. The logical inference
from such a principle was, of course, secession; and the insistence upon
it made secession possible at any time, as a measure of self-defense in
any controversy between the state and the Federal government. Hayne's
brilliant speech in the Senate in 1830, against the Foot Resolution, was,
in effect, the first warning of such a rupture, and the final echo of that
speech came thirty years later in the Ordinance of Secession.
The North and East rightly feared that Hayne's
speech was in the nature of a manifesto from the South. Such it doubtless
was; yet even in South Carolina the doctrine of state sovereignty was not
considered as even remotely involving secession. It required a still
heavier pressure upon the state of unequal tariff laws and the imminent
menace of still heavier burdens and sacrifices to force the people to
consider a resort to withdrawal from the Union and possible war.
The practical and immediate purpose of South
Carolina in the Nullification movement was to force concessions, and the
Ordinance of Nullification, passed Nov. 24, 1832, was suspended when
Congress was considering concessions. The compromise proposed by Clay,
which provided a reduction of tariff duties by a sliding scale until there
should be a duty of only 20 per cent. on all articles, embodied the
minimum concessions demanded by this state.
Nullification had won a half victory. It had
succeeded in having repealed the laws it opposed, but the principle of
nullification was not recognized. Disunion had been postponed, but the
grave peril had not passed.
The old controversy over state sovereignty
soon shifted to the question of slavery, and it was upon this practical
question that South Carolina was finally to resort to secession as a test
of the old theory of state rights. "For twenty-five years," says the
"Declaration of the Immediate Cause" of the secession of South Carolina,
"this agitation [against slavery] has been steadily increasing, until it
has now secured to its aid the power of the Common government." The event
referred to was the election of Abraham Lincoln as President. South
Carolina, like her Southern sisters, had hazarded everything on the issue
of the campaign of 1860, and the election of Lincoln meant secession. The
shock and the feeling of despair produced in this state by the triumph of
a party known to be so hostile to the interests of the South is
graphically presented by a famous passage in the "Declaration":
"A geographical line has been drawn across the
Union, and all the states north of that line have united in the election
of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose
opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. lie is to be intrusted with
the administration of the Common Government, because he has declared that
that 'Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,' and
that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course
of ultimate extinction."
While South Carolina thus admitted that the
immediate cause of secession was the threat of the abolition of slavery,
she grounded the justice of her course upon the reserved right of a
The Sentiment of the People.
The sentiment of the people toward the Union
was doubtless the same as that of the people of Georgia, as described by
Robert Toombs. "Our people," he said, "are still attached to the Union
from habit, national tradition, and aversion to change." But they were
practically a unit as to the right of secession. They neither desired nor
expected war; yet it has been said:
"Fifty thousand South Carolinians voted for
secession. Seventy-five thousand stood for it on the field of battle.'"
*Report of the Historian of the Confederate
Records to the General Assembly of South Carolina, by John P. Thomas.
Mrs. Mary Boykin Chestnut, in A Diary front
Dixie, describes the situation strongly and characteristically. Under date
of June 12, 1861, she writes: "Mr. Petigru [James L. Petigru, who was a
Union man] alone in South Carolina has not seceded."
The state's response to Lincoln's election and
its menace to her interests was prompt and imperative. A convention
summoned by the legislature, met in Columbia Dec. 17, 1860, but
immediately removed to Charleston, where, on December 20, it passed the
Ordinance of Secession. The men that drafted that momentous document
realized the heavy responsibility that bore upon them and upon their
state; and, waiving all vain protestations and preambles and statements of
causes, issued a straightforward declaration, that "the union now
subsisting between South Carolina and other states, under the name of `The
United States of America,' is hereby dissolved."
Argument, the reasoned statement of her
grievance, and the appeal to the judgment of her sister states and mankind
were reserved; and the convention completed its work by drafting and
sending forth two notable documents. These were the "Declaration of the
Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina
from the Federal Union," and "The Address of the People of South Carolina,
Assembled in Convention, to the People of the Slaveholding States of the
United States." It is noteworthy that "The Address" closes with this
appeal to the other Southern states: "We ask you to join us in forming a
Confederacy of Slaveholding States."
And thus, calmly and with dignity, South
Carolina turned to face new horizons and a new destiny.
South Carolina's Part in
Forming the Confederate Government.
South Carolina, by virtue of her leadership in
the secession movement was clearly entitled to the leadership in the
formation of the Confederacy of slaveholding states that she had suggested
in "The Address." But from the time that disunion began to seem probable,
that is, at least as early as the Southern convention at Nashville,
Tennessee, in 1850, she waived her own claims and pressed that honor upon
Virginia. Langdon Cheves, who spoke for South Carolina in that convention,
said: "If our great parent state lead us, there will be no bloodshed; and
can it be doubted that she will? Virginia is the mother of the Southern
unselfishness, indeed, marked the organization of the Confederate
government. After declaring her own independence, and formally inviting
her sisters to join her, South Carolina appointed commissioners to the
several Southern states and elected deputies to meet those of all other
states that might secede, for the purpose of forming a provisional
government. It was upon the invitation of Alabama that the delegates of
the various states assembled in Montgomery, Feb. 4, 1861. Howell Cobb, of
Georgia, was chosen president on motion of Robert Barnwell Rhett, of South
Carolina, one of the most energetic and able leaders in the secession
ability and experience in public affairs of the leading men in South
Carolina was, however, fully recognized by the Convention of Deputies. C.
G. Memminger was given the chairmanship of the committee to report a plan
for a provisional organization, and he and Rhett took a conspicuous and
notable part in the formation of the new government. Mr. Rhett was
selected as chairman of the committee to draft a constitution for a
permanent government, and he had a large and honorable share in the task.
He was afterward chairman of the committee on foreign affairs in the
When President Davis formed his cabinet, C. G.
Memminger was made secretary of the treasury, and held that important post
until July, 1864, when he was succeeded by another South Carolinian,
George A. Trenholm.
While South Carolina yielded place to Virginia in leadership, and never
attempted to take a foremost part in the Confederate government, she was
second to none in the ability and patriotic service of the men she sent to
the cabinet as to the field.
In both sessions of the Confederate Congress
South Carolina was represented in the Senate by Robert W. Barnwell and
James L. Orr.
War in South Carolina.
Actual hostilities naturally began in South
Carolina, where Fort Sumter, seized and held by a small Federal force
under Major Robert Anderson, was the object of solicitude by the state and
national governments. Had Anderson remained in Fort Moultrie, Sullivan's
Island, where he was stationed up to the evening of Dec. 26, 1860, war
might possibly have been averted; but his removal to Fort Sumter, which
menaced Charleston ,and dominated the harbor, could be understood only as
a show of force and a prelude to hostilities. Preparations for war began
in deadly earnest from the moment it was seen that the Union garrison had
assumed a threatening position.
The South Carolina troops, however, did not
begin operations to get possession of this absolutely essential post until
Jan. 9, 1861. Governor Pickens dispatched his aide-de-camp, Col. Johnston
Pettigrew, accompanied by Major Ellison Capers, to Major Anderson on the
morning of December 27, and demanded that the garrison return immediately
to Fort Moultrie. This the Federal officer refused to do, although saying
that his sympathies were "entirely with the South." The same afternoon he
raised the United States flag over Sumter and prepared the fort for
meanwhile the Federal government had forwarded reinforcements and supplies
to Major Anderson, in the Star of the West, which entered Charleston
harbor January 9. Her course lay under the guns of a battery on Morris
Island commanded by Major P. F. Stevens, superintendent of the South
Carolina Military Academy, and a warning shot was fired across her bows.
As she did not heed this, the battery fired directly upon her, and she put
about and steamed out of range.
South Carolina thus began the war for state
rights single-handed against the whole power of the Union. But by Feb. 1,
1861, she had been joined by Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and
Louisiana, and Texas soon followed.
A remarkable lull followed the firing upon the
Star of the West. For three months, while the Confederacy was being
organized and South Carolina was marshalling her troops, Major Anderson
was permitted to hold Fort Sumter. Finally, on April 12-13, General
Beauregard bombarded the fort for thirty-three hours, when the Federals
capitulated. Fort Sumter was at once occupied by the Confederate troops,
and, although subjected to the most terrific bombardments recorded in
history up to that time, was never retaken. During the long siege and
series of .assaults, Fort Sumter was under the command successively of
Colonel Rhett, Major Elliott, and Captains Mitchel and Huguenin. The chief
work of repairing the fort for continued defense after it had been leveled
to the water's edge was performed by Capt. (afterward Major) John Johnson,
engineer-in-charge. The fortress was evacuated only after the entire coast
of the state had been abandoned.
The defense of Charleston is memorable, also,
for the greater development of torpedoes in harbor defense, their first
use in this way having been by the Confederates in the Potomac River, July
7, 1861; and for the practical creation of the torpedo boat, now used in
every navy of the world.
The military movements in South Carolina,
outside of the defense of Fort Sumter, were not on a large scale or of
great significance, except the siege of "Battery" or Fort Wagner, and
Sherman's march through the state. In November, 1861, the Federals began
operations against the sea-coast. A Union fleet of seventeen vessels,
carrying 12,000 troops under Gen. W. T. Sherman, occupied with little
opposition the region about Port Royal and Beaufort. Beaufort, then one of
the wealthiest and most cultured cities of its size in the world, was
given over to pillage. The entire seaboard, with its extensive plantations
and handsome houses, was ravaged and the lands and property confiscated.
It was, indeed, apparent from the first that the chief object of the
Federals was looting and devastation.
Numerous small expeditions were sent inland to
destroy the railway between Savannah and Charleston. Two of these were
defeated at Pocotaligo, another at Coosawhatchie, and a Union gunboat, the
Isaac Smith, was captured in a brilliant attack by infantry and siege
batteries, under the command of Col. Joseph A. Yates. A more serious
affair was the battle of Secessionville, on James Island, June 16, 1862.
Here the Federally, about 6,000 strong, attacked' 750 men under Gee.
Johnson Hugged at Fort Lamer, and were defeated, with a loss of 683, the
Confederate loss being 204. This defeat led to the evacuation of James
Island by the Union troops.
The long and desperate defense of Fort Wanner
ranks next to that of Fort Summer in point of heroism and endurance. For
fifty-eight days, from July 10 to Sent. 6, 1863, a Confederate force of
1,600 men, under Col. L. M. Keith, resisted the assaults of an army of
11,500 under General Glimmers, aided by eight monitors and five gunboats.
The total loss by the defenders was only 672 killed and wounded. Like Fort
Summer, Wanner was not captured. It was quietly abandoned when further
resistance was useless from a military point of view and would have been a
fruitless sacrifice of life.
After the operations along the seaboard, and
the long but hopeless defense of the Confederates, South Carolina lay
invitingly open to bands of raiders and to the pillage of Shoran's army,
which was then moving up from Savannah. This vast raid was ushered in by
another attempt, ordered by General Shoran, to cut the railway to
Charleston which resulted in the small but brilliant action at Honey Hill,
Now. 30, 1864. Here 1,700 Confederates, under the general command of
Major-General Gustavus W. Smith, but ordered directly by Col. Charles J.
Colcock, defeated a force of 5,000 Federals under Gen. John P. Hatch. This
decisive victory delayed the disturbance of Charleston and gave to General
Hardee, commanding at Savannah, an open road for retreat.
General Sherman began his great raid through
the centre of the state Feb. 1, 1865. The spirit in which he entered the
"Cradle of Secession" may be justly inferred from his order for "Potter's
Raid," probably the most ruthless looting and pillaging expedition during
the war. "I don't feel disposed," he said, "to be over-generous, and
should not hesitate to burn Charleston, Savannah and Wilmington, or either
of them, if the garrisons are needed." This order was issued after he had
burned Columbia, which accounts for the omission of the South Carolina
cut off by the advance of General Sherman with 70,000 troops toward
Columbia, was evacuated Feb. 17-18, 1865. General Hardee had only 13,500
effectives, of whom 3,000 were state militia. The Federal march could not
be resisted. Hardee's delay in withdrawing from Charleston made any
concentration of Confederate troops in front of Sherman impossible, though
it is certain it would have been in vain, as, at the utmost, not more than
20,000 men, poorly armed and provisioned, and many of them raw levies,
composed in large part of mere boys, could have been assembled.
Gen. Wade Hampton, who had recently been put
in command in South Carolina, evacuated Columbia on the same day, February
17, that Hardee began his withdrawal from Charleston, and General Sherman
immediately entered the defenseless capital.
That General Sherman burned Columbia, though
long denied by that officer and by Northern historians, is now fully
established. Federal courts have judicially admitted that the city was
destroyed by Union troops, and there were many trustworthy eve-witnesses
to that wanton act. It may be sufficient to quote but one. The Rev. A.
Toomer Porter in a sermon in 1891, said that he was in Columbia at the
time, and adds: "General Sherman's troops burnt the town; I saw that done
The fact is
frequently overlooked that Sherman finally confessed that he burned the
city. In his Memoirs he says: "The army, having totally ruined Columbia,
moved on toward Winnsboro."
The march of the Federals toward the North was
practically unopposed, because of the withdrawal of General Hardee's small
army for the purpose of concentrating as large a force as possible in
front of Sherman in North Carolina. The pillaging and destroying host,
therefore, passed out of the state and reached Fayetteville, North
Carolina, March 11, 1865.
The State's Contribution in Men and Property.
Unfortunately, so many of the Confederate
records were destroyed by Federal raiders or were lost in the universal
confusion at the end of the war that it is impossible to ascertain with
exactness the number of troops and the amount of supplies and money given
South Carolina to the support of the Confederacy. Enough is well known,
however, to show that she contributed more than her due share. Supplies of
provisions and money, spent chiefly, of course, in the equipment of her
own forces, were provided without stint and without regret for the
terrible sacrifices it involved. The defense of her coast, particularly
the long resistance to the Federals at Forts Sumter and Wagner and along
the entire seaboard, subjected her probably to a greater cost in money and
provisions than that borne by any other Southern state. This stripping of
the commonwealth of all her property, either to keep her troops in the
field, or by bands and armies of raiders, left her more destitute,
perhaps, than any equal portion of the Confederacy.
As to her contribution in troops, it has been carefully estimated that she
sent at least 75,000 men to the field, although the total number of her
troops that fought under regular organization and as home defenders must
have reached about 85,000. This is marvelous when it is recalled that in
1860 the white population of the state was only 291,388. In 1900, when the
white population amounted to 557,900, the number of white males of
twenty-one years and over was 127,000, or a little more than one in four,
including of course many who were incapacitated by age or sickness. Yet
South Carolina sent to the firing line one man or boy for a little more
than every three persons in her borders. As the white people decreased
1,596 between 1860 and 1870, there could not have been much reinforcement
from the natural growth of population.
South Carolina also contributed to the
Confederate army some of its most efficient and brilliant commanders. The
name of Gen. Wade Hampton is most conspicuous. Gen. Joseph E. Johnston
credited him with saving the day at First Manassas. In the same battle the
state lost a dashing and skillful leader in Gen. Barnard E. Bee, who in
that fight gave to General Jackson his sobriquet of "Stonewall." Among the
general officers that greatly distinguished themselves, most of them upon
fields in other states, may also be mentioned, Generals R. H. Anderson, M.
C. Butler, Stephen D. Lee, Benjamin Huger, Joseph B. Kershaw, Stephen
Elliott, M. W. Gary, M. L. Bonham, Ellison Capers, James Conner, Maxcy
Gregg, Micah Jenkins, Johnson Hagood, John S. Preston, S. R. Ripley, John
Bratton, J. D. Kennedy, A. M. Manigault, Samuel McGowan, W. H. Wallace,
James Trapier. General Hampton's brilliant services as a leader of
cavalry, finally as chief of Lee's mounted troops, were such as to entitle
him to rank among the first great cavalry leaders of the Confederacy and
of the world. Of officers of lesser rank the state furnished a large
number, of whom many won distinction.
Other distinguished leaders, natives of South
Carolina, but serving from other states, were : Generals James Longstreet,
D. H. Hill, E. McIver Law, and P. M. B. Young.
Life in War-Time.
The people of South Carolina felt the first
and most terrible afflictions of the war. Their rich seaboard was
devastated, the slaves of the planters were driven or taken off, and homes
and all personal property destroyed or looted. Entire communities and
towns, like the various sea-islands and Beaufort, were given over to
ruthless pillage and destruction. The policy of useless devastation
initiated by Generals Hunter and Sherman was continued as the invaders
advanced through the state. Colonel Shaw, who was killed at Fort Wagner at
the head of a negro regiment from Massachusetts, describes in a letter the
method of one of these destroyers:
"After the town was pretty thoroughly
disemboweled, he [Colonel Montgomery] said to me, `I shall burn this
town.' " And he did.
This destruction of homes and property forced thousands of women and
children to "refugee," as it was called. These dispersed over the upper
part of the state or found precarious shelter outside of its borders.
Terrible as was the suffering of the refugees,
they fared better than most of the defenseless women who. had to remain at
home to be insulted by a ruffian soldiery and see their property stolen or
destroyed. A single typical incident must suffice to convey some idea of
the conduct of Federal raiders. The worst of these was General Potter, and
the incident occurred near Manning during his infamous raid. The account
is taken from Our Women in the War:
"A negro servant told them that Mr. B. had
buried a quantity of gold and silver down in the cemetery on the edge of
the town. This was true, for Mr. B. was such an old man, so venerable,
universally beloved and respected, that no one thought the Yankees would
be cruel enough to molest him, and many persons in the town had entrusted
their valuables to his keeping. After receiving this information from the
servant, the soldiers at once seized the old man and dragged him down to
the cemetery, commanding him to unearth his treasure. He refused, and they
tried many plans to force him into yielding. Among other ways of
punishment they tried a novel one, for with a hoopskirt they had picked up
somewhere they hung him until life was almost extinct. This is the only
case on record, I think, where that much-abused article has ever been put
to such use. Thinking him sufficiently subdued after this, they took him
down, but still the brave old man remained true to his trust, and they at
last had to release him."
Columbia suffered worse than any other city of
the state. It was looted and burned, as an act of brute revenge, for its
destruction was useless as a measure of war.
The havoc wrought in Charleston is described
as follows by J. N. Cardozo in his Reminiscences of Charleston:
"The destructive course of the shell thrown
into the city was most evident, while the fire has left melancholy traces
of its destructive course on both the eastern and western portions,
crossing its entire width, and leaving long intervals of desolate waste in
the destruction of churches, theatre, and public hall. The area consumed
is about onesixth of the city, nearly one mile in superficial extent."
A Northern writer, Sidney Andrews, says that
$5,000,000 would not restore the ruin in Charleston. As to the devastation
practised in other parts of the state he says:
"It would seem that it is not clearly
understood how thoroughly Sherman's army destroyed everything in its line
of march- destroyed it without questioning who suffered by the action. * *
The value and the bases of values were nearly all destroyed. Money lost
about everything it had saved. Thousands of men who were honest in purpose
have lost everything but honor. The cotton with which they meant to pay
their debts has been burned, and they are without other means."
Even the end of hostilities did not stop the
pillaging. Federal officers plundered farms and houses and seized cotton
and other property for themselves.
No adequate estimate could be made of the
losses suffered by South Carolina. In slave-property alone the loss must
have amounted to many millions. The value of the 4,000,000 slaves in the
South in 1860 has been calculated as $3,000,000,000. This is probably
excessive, but with some allowance, the 412,320 slaves in this state in
1860 must have represented something like $200,000,000. The loss in looted
property and in confiscated lands and destroyed buildings may be set down
as fully as much, or, including the long drain of war supplies and
abandoned farms and businesses, South Carolina's loss could not have been
less than $500,000,000. So stricken were the people and so stripped was
the land that the state has not yet recovered from the immeasurable
feature of the life of the people during the war might be understood, as
essential to the appreciation of relations between the slaves and their
owners. The fidelity of the slave was, indeed, one of the most remarkable
experiences of the war. Many of them followed their young masters into a
war that was being waged largely for their emancipation. Arthur F. Ford,
in his Life in the Confederate Army gives a characteristic account of the
devotion of the negro as camp servant:
"During the early period of the war a great
many of the private soldiers in the Confederate army had their own negro
servants in the field with them, who waited on their masters, cleaned
their horses, cooked their meals, and so on. Attached to our company there
were probably twenty-five such servants. This system continued during the
first year or two of the war, on the Carolina coast, but later on, as the
service got harder and rations became scarcer, these negro servants were
gradually sent back home, and the men did their own work, cooking, and so
on. As a rule, these negroes liked the life exceedingly. The work exacted
of them was necessarily very light. They were never under fire, unless
they chose to go there of their own accord, which some of them did,
keeping close to their masters. And they spent much of their time foraging
around the neighboring country. Although often on the picket lines, night
as well as day, with their masters, I never heard of an instance where one
of these army servants deserted to the enemy."
An even stronger tribute must be paid to the
negroes that remained at home, refusing to desert to the armies of
liberation. Although there were about 120,000 more negroes than white
people in the state, the women and children were unmolested. Often,
indeed, the slaves risked or lost their lives in protecting the property
and persons of their owners. It is to be doubted if any other war produced
such noble examples of the loyalty of a people in such an ordeal.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. - There are very few works,
authoritative or otherwise, dealing fully with this period in South
Carolina. The references to it are to be found, chiefly, scattered through
a number of memoirs and reminiscences, together with quite a large number
of pamphlets. All, at least most, of these have been consulted in the
preparation for the foregoing article, and the most useful and accessible
are included in the list below.
Alexander, E. P.: Memoirs of a Confederate
(New York); Andrews, Sidney: The South Since the War (Boston); Avary,
Myrta Lockett: Dixie After the War (New York); Capers, Ellison:
Confederate Military History (Vol. V., South Carolina, especially the
first 16 chapters, Atlanta); Cardozo, J. N.: Reminiscences of Charleston
(Charleston); Chapman, John A.: School History of South Carolina
(Newberry); Chestnut, Mary Boykin: A Diary From Dixie (edited by Isabella
D. Martin and Myrta Lockett Avary (New York); Cheves, Langdon: Speech in
the Southern Convention at Nashville, Tennessee, 1350 (published by the
Southern Rights Association); Curry, J. L. M.: Civil History of the
Confederate States (Richmond) and The Southern States of the American
Union Considered (New York); Dargan, John J.: School History of South
Carolina (Columbia); DeFontaine, F. G.: (" Personne ") Marginalia: or
Gleanings from an Army Note-Book (Columbia); Emilio, Luis F.: History of
the Fifty-fourth Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers Infantry, 1863-65
(Boston); Ford, Arthur P.: Life in the Confederate Army (New York);
Gilchrist, Robert C.: Confederate Defense of Morris Island, Charleston
Harbor, by Troops of South, Carolina, Georgia and North Carolina
(reprinted in Charleston Year-Book, 1884); Hart, Albert Bushnell:
Sourcebook of American History (New York); Johnson, John: The Defense of
Charleston Harbor, Including Fort Sumter and the Adjacent Islands
(Charleston); Kenneway, John H.: On Sherman's Track or The South After the
War (London); Merriam, George S.: The Negro and the Nation (New York);
Ravenel, Mrs. St. Julien: Charleston: The Place and the People (New York);
Reynolds, John S.: Reconstruction in South Carolina (Columbia); Simms,
William Gilmore: Sack and Destruction of the City of Columbia, South
Carolina (Columbia); Stevens, Hazard: The Life of Isaac Ingalls Stevens (2
vols., Boston); Thomas, John P.: Report of the Historian of the
Confederate Records to the General Assembly of South Carolina, 1899
(Columbia); Wells, Edward L.: Hampton and His Cavalry in '64 (Richmond)
and Hampton and Reconstruction (Columbia); White, Henry Alexander: The
Making of South Carolina (New York); AV, Wilson, Woodrow: Division and
Reunion (Epochs o f American History, New York and London); Our Women in
the War (Charleston); South Carolina Women in the Confederacy (2 vols.,
Columbia); Year-books, City of Charleston (reprints of important papers,
WILLIAM E. GONZALES,
Editor of The State, Columbia, S. C.