Senator Douglas is said to have made the discovery, while
travelling in Russia, that the city of Moscow was never burned!
The following statement of the matter is from the Muscatine
(Iowa) Inquirer:
"Coming on the boat, a few days ago, we happened to fall in
company with Senator Douglas, who came on board at Quincy, on his
way to Warsaw. In the course of a very interesting account of his
travels in Russia, much of which has been published by
letter-writers, he stated a fact which has never yet been
published, but which startlingly contradicts the historical
relation of one of the most extraordinary events that ever fell
to the lot of history to record. For this reason the Judge said
he felt a delicacy in making the assertion, that the city of
Moscow was never burned!
"He said, that previous to his arrival at Moscow, he had several
disputes with his guide as to the burning of the city, the guide
declaring that it never occurred, and seeming to be nettled at
Mr. Douglas's persistency in his opinion; but, on examining the
fire-marks around the city, and the city itself, he became
satisfied that the guide was correct.
"The statement goes on to set forth that the antiquity of the
architectural city--particularly of its 'six hundred first-class
churches,' stretching through ante-Napoleonic ages to Pagan
times, and showing the handiwork of different nations of
History--demonstrates that the city never was burned down (or
up)."
The Inquirer adds:
"The Kremlin is a space of several hundred acres, in the heart of
the city, in the shape of a flat iron, and is enclosed, by a wall
of sixty feet high. Within this enclosure is the most magnificent
palace in Europe, recently built, but constructed over an ancient
palace, which remains, thus enclosed, whole and perfect, with all
its windows, &c.
"Near the Kremlin, surrounded by a wall, is a Chinese town,
appearing to be several hundred years old, still occupied by
descendants of the original settlers.
"The circumstances which gave rise to the errors concerning the
burning of Moscow, were these:--It is a city of four hundred and
fifty thousand inhabitants, in circular form, occupying a large
space, five miles across. There the winters are six months long,
and the custom was, and still is, to lay up supplies of
provisions and wood to last six months of severe cold weather. To
prevent these gigantic supplies from encumbering the heart of the
city, and yet render them as convenient as practicable to every
locality, a row of wood houses was constructed to circle
completely round the city, and outside of these was a row of
granaries, and in these were deposited the whole of the supplies.
Napoleon had entered the city with his army, and was himself
occupying the palace of the Kremlin, when, one night, by order of
the Russian governor, every wood house and every granary
simultaneously burst into a blaze. All efforts to extinguish them
were vain, and Napoleon found himself compelled to march his army
through the fire. Retiring to an eminence he saw the whole city
enveloped in vast sheets of flame, and clouds of smoke, and
apparently all on fire. And far as he was concerned it might as
well have been, for though houses enough were left to supply
every soldier with a room, yet without provisions or fuel, and a
Russian army to cut off supplies, he and his army could not
subsist there. During the fire some houses were probably burnt,
but the city was not. In the Kremlin a magazine blew up, cracking
the church of Ivan more than a hundred feet up, but setting
nothing on fire.
"Mr. Douglas saw the fire-marks around the city, where wood
houses and granaries for winter supplies now stand as of old; but
there appears no marks of conflagration within the city."
Any wary sceptic, indeed, might have found much ground for doubt in
the very accounts themselves that were given of the conflagration.
For, the Russians have always denied that _they_ burned it; and the
French equally disclaimed the act. Each of the two parties between
whom the accusation lay, strenuously denied it. And it must be
acknowledged that each had very strong presumptions of innocence to
urge. It was certainly most _unlikely_ that the Russians should
themselves destroy their ancient and venerable capital; and that, too,
when they were boasting of having just gained a great victory at
Borodino over an army which, therefore, they might hope to defeat
again, and to drive out of their city. And it was no less unlikely
that the French should burn down a city of which they had possession,
and which afforded shelter and refreshment to their troops. This would
have been one of the most improbable circumstances of that most
improbable (supposed) campaign. To add to the marvel, we are told that
the French army nevertheless waited for five weeks, without any
object, amid the ashes of this destroyed city, just at the approach,
of winter, and as if on purpose to be overtaken and destroyed by snows
and frost!
However, all the difficulties of the question whether any of these
things took place at all, were by most persons overlooked, because
the question itself never occurred to them, in their eagerness to
decide _who_ it was that burned the city. And at length it comes out
that the answer is, NOBODY!