War Crimes During the Civil War

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, the South fought for the enslavement of human beings. Enough said.

No, they fought for their independence.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I simply try to bring Father Abraham back down to the realm of mortals where he belongs. He's not the saint people believe him to be, and the Civil War was unjust and unnecessary.

Then why did the South start the war? Abraham Lincoln was one of the best Presidents. The South tried to Balkanize America. Lincoln preserved the Union.

The south didn't start the war. Lincoln was unwilling to meet or be diplomatic with the southern states whatsoever, so when he belligerently tried to re-supply Fort Sumter, knowing full well what would happen by the way, they had to act. They had no problem waiting for Fort Sumter to run through it's supplies and be abandoned by the Union troops, but they were not willing to allow a Union fort within their borders for any extended period of time. Which is understandable. Also, nobody was killed at Fort Sumter.

And Lincoln isn't even in the running for one of the best Presidents. He not only waged a destructive and unnecessary war on states that were exercising their constitutional rights, but he suspended constitutional rights in the north as well. Many innocent people were jailed or deported under Lincoln's dictatorial rule. Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham comes to mind. Lincoln deported him to the Confederacy for a speech he made, violating his first amendment rights. Many northern newspapers were also shut down for daring to question the all-powerful Lincoln.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We are, regardless of who are ancestors were, where they came from, all the progeny of people who suffered war CRIMES.

Now as the South?

Certainly, I do not doubt that some civilians were killed.

But that killing civilians was NOT an official policy not even when Sherman killed a few of them.

Had it been the offical policy, then millions of Southerners -- not scores or hundreds or even thousands -- but MILLIONS of them would have been killed.

It would have been easy to do, but it was NOT done.

I find it more than just a little amusing that you sons of the South really expect any of us to be outraged about how the seccionists suffered given how they treated human beings when they owned them.

Seriously are you boys fucking nuts?

You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when your entire society was based on a fucking crime against HUMANITY?!

Go fuck yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause to continue owning slaves.

You forefather were fucking monsters.

You're just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers sorry defeated slaver fucking asses.

The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.

Whining fucking crybabies, the lot of yas.

This is an utterly ridiculous post, ed. For one, it wasn't just "a few" southerners that were killed by Sherman, and Sherman wasn't the only Union officer committing crimes. Sheridan comes to mind, and so does Benjamin Butler. And it was Sherman's official policy to kill innocent southerners, by the way. Also, let's not forget the fact that the Union troops also murdered, raped, and pillaged the slaves as well.

The full fury of the abolitionists? Abolitionists were an extreme minority even in the north, what could they have possibly done on their own?

As for the entire society supposedly being based on slavery, utterly ridiculous. Slaves were expensive to buy and expensive to own, only a minority of large plantation owners were able to afford them. A majority of southerners were not slave owners.

A large portion of the officer corps of the USA should have been hanged for crimes against humanity, along with Abraham Lincoln.

The Confederates didn't commit treason ed, the only thing they're guilty of, in respect to secession, is trying to assert the American tradition of self-government.

What crap. They tried to balkanize America. Had the Confederates succeeded, it would not have been long until Texas succeeded from the Confederacy, and then the South would have been fighting another civil war.

Did you have any evidence to back up this claim?

 

[editec]

We are, regardless of who are ancestors were, where they came from, all the progeny of people who suffered war CRIMES.

Now as the South?

Certainly, I do not doubt that some civilians were killed.

But that killing civilians was NOT an official policy not even when Sherman killed a few of them.

Had it been the offical policy, then millions of Southerners -- not scores or hundreds or even thousands -- but MILLIONS of them would have been killed.

It would have been easy to do, but it was NOT done.

I find it more than just a little amusing that you sons of the South really expect any of us to be outraged about how the seccionists suffered given how they treated human beings when they owned them.

Seriously are you boys fucking nuts?

You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when your entire society was based on a fucking crime against HUMANITY?!

Go fuck yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause to continue owning slaves.

You forefather were fucking monsters.

You're just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers sorry defeated slaver fucking asses.

The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.

Whining fucking crybabies, the lot of yas.

This is an utterly ridiculous post, ed. For one, it wasn't just "a few" southerners that were killed by Sherman, and Sherman wasn't the only Union officer committing crimes. Sheridan comes to mind, and so does Benjamin Butler. And it was Sherman's official policy to kill innocent southerners, by the way. Also, let's not forget the fact that the Union troops also murdered, raped, and pillaged the slaves as well.

Document it. Tally it. Get back to me with the numbers, okay?

The full fury of the abolitionists? Abolitionists were an extreme minority even in the north, what could they have possibly done on their own?

Had the POLTICAL power been just a tad stronger, the retribution they'd have imposed on the South would have been horrific.

The Seccsionists can than their lucky stars there were enough LIBERALS on the North to treat the former rebellious states with some degree of mercy.

As for the entire society supposedly being based on slavery, utterly ridiculous. Slaves were expensive to buy and expensive to own, only a minority of large plantation owners were able to afford them. A majority of southerners were not slave owners.

One out of every four families owned slaves, Kevin.

A large portion of the officer corps of the USA should have been hanged for crimes against humanity, along with Abraham Lincoln.

Had the South won, I don't doubt they would have

The Confederates didn't commit treason ed, the only thing they're guilty of, in respect to secession, is trying to assert the American tradition of self-government.

We can agree to disagree about the wording of what they did.

As to your whining about how badly the South was treated?

My utter lack of sympathy for them is based on their utter lack of sympathy for their slaves, Kevin.

You speak of the war as though killing civilians was common, yet to date all you do is make these exaggerated claims without any real support.

Civilians are killed in every war.

In a civil war one can expect very high numbers, yet to my knowledge there is NO evidence to support you theory of mass killings.

Do you believe that if I KNEW that were true I would DENY it?

ME? Mr. outraged by ever example of such things no matter WHO does it?

Where is your evidence to support your claim that there was systemic murder of civilians?

A couple of rapes, a pattern of scallywags looting and killing?

They're not PART of the union army and they're not part of the official (or unoffical policies of the Union aArmy either.

They're just examples of the freaking criminals who follow wars to take advantage of the anarchy that have existed since wars began.

Incidently...go here to read websites documenting the stories of union soldiers who were hanged or shot for mudering civilians, raping civilians or looting civilians.

Your claim that such behavior was an OFFICAL POLICY is put to rest when one reads case after case of UNION soliders being tried by a courts martial and then being PUT TO DEATH for such behavior.

 

[Old Rocks]

One of my Great-great grandfathers was hung by Quintrell when he was on leave from the Union Army. There were those on both sides that killed for the pleasure of killing. However, whether North or South, the Civil War was amazing for it's lack of civilian casualties. In the Battle of Gettysburg there was only one civilian killed.

 

[wayne]

A discussion I had earlier this morning prompted me to create this thread. During the War for Southern Independence Lincoln and his generals used the strategy of total war to fight the Confederacy. In other words, no southern civilian be they man, woman, or child or any southern slave was safe from northern aggression.

One hundred thirty-six years after General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Americans are still fascinated with the War for Southern Independence. The larger bookstores devote an inordinate amount of shelf space to books about the events and personalities of the war; Ken Burns’s "Civil War" television series and the movie "Gettysburg" were blockbuster hits; dozens of new books on the war are still published every year; and a monthly newspaper, Civil War News, lists literally hundreds of seminars, conferences, reenactments, and memorial events related to the war in all 50 states and the District of Columbia all year long. Indeed, many Northerners are "still fighting the war" in that they organize a political mob whenever anyone attempts to display a Confederate heritage symbol in any public place.

Americans are still fascinated by the war because many of us recognize it as the defining event in American history. Lincoln’s war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the "rewriting" of the Constitution by federal judges, "total war," the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big "problem solver."

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln’s war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln’s war.

Targeting Civilians

Thank heaven for google... What possible credibility should some revisionist who calls Abraham Lincoln "dishonest Abe" have? Answser: None. Thanks anyway.

BTW, it was the Civil War... not the war for southern independence; not the war against northern aggression....

wanna go there? we could call it the "war against southern traitors".

And another word to the wise: NOTHING is a crime unless a law makes it illegal. You can talk about ethics; you can talk about morality; you can even opine about the wonders of philosophy...

but a war CRIME is only a CRIME if a law has been written against it.

And if I sound a bit harsh? It's because I REALLY hate bogus scholarship and revisionist history.

In the South, it is called War Between the States among other things. Are you saying we don't have the right to name events as we see fit? Do we have to get you alls permission before we can write a book? Do you doubt that the North committed atrocities during and after the war? Sherman himself used prisoners as forced labor and executed southern prisoners as revenge for the actions of raiders. When his foraging parties were out they were pretty much free to do what ever they wanted. Are you saying that men then were any different then than they are now?

Also, how do people commit treason against themselves? Succession was democratically voted on in states conventions where a legal quorum had been attained. As we see it the government belongs to the people not the other way around. An imperialist sees the people as the property if the government not a democratically minded person.

 

[Evangelical]

How was it a "Civil War" when independent states were fighting against each other? Only Lincoln's Administration considered it a Civil War, not even other nations in the world considered it a Civil War.

That is one "War crime" was the blockade, which was wholly illegal, because to blockade a nation you needed British approval (1860 was witness to the British world order) and you needed to declare war against that country.

Lincoln had NEITHER.

For this reason, many blockade runners avoided the law during and after the war when tried in US courts, the blockade was deemed illegal because the war itself was illegal. In a court of law the US could not defend itself for what it had done to the South.

 

[sksmith]

On July 30, 1863, President Lincoln had issued orders “that for every soldier of the United States killed in violation of the laws of war, a rebel soldier shall be executed.”


So there were laws for "war crime" . Just saying.

 

[SouthernbyGrace]

Thank heaven for google... What possible credibility should some revisionist who calls Abraham Lincoln "dishonest Abe" have? Answser: None. Thanks anyway.

BTW, it was the Civil War... not the war for southern independence; not the war against northern aggression....

wanna go there? we could call it the "war against southern traitors".

And another word to the wise: NOTHING is a crime unless a law makes it illegal. You can talk about ethics; you can talk about morality; you can even opine about the wonders of philosophy...

but a war CRIME is only a CRIME if a law has been written against it.

And if I sound a bit harsh? It's because I REALLY hate bogus scholarship and revisionist history.

From Google:
ex parte Milligan

On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.

Also, from Merriam Webster Online (via Google):
Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country


So, hate all you want, but it was a war for Southern Independence. It was provided for in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. That's not "bogus scholarship" or "revisionist history". It is FACT, documented and verifiable. When the Southern states seceded they had the constitutional right to do so. They were no longer "citizens of the same country". Lincoln's stubborn refusal to acknowledge them as a separate country does not change anything. They legally seceded and established themselves as an independent country, so it was not a civil war.

Once Lincoln's declaration of martial law was deemed unconstitutional many of his actions did indeed become criminal. Lincoln was a tyrannical and misguided zealot with an agenda to preserve his impression of "union" at all costs, including liberty and self-determination. Sorry to break it to you, but your hero was one of this country's biggest villains. He forever changed this country's government from being "for the people, by the people" to being "for the desires of the president, by the will of the president". And just because some of his actions weren't crimes under then-established laws doesn't relieve him of the moral responsibility for committing them.

 

[SouthernbyGrace]

I checked out your link. It proves nothing. In fact, it lists their crimes along with the method of their execution. There is no mention of the executions being carried out by southerners, neither military nor civilian. What was that link supposed to demonstrate? All I saw was a list of Union criminals, their crimes, their sentence, and the dates of execution. Was there something else in it to support your claims of southern atrocities against Union soldiers? I didn't see a list of atrocities, only justice.

 

[GHook93]

War is chaos, bad thing happen during chaos!

I think a bigger crime is making fellow human being slaves and suceeding from the Union!

 

[The Infidel]

An even worse crime was dragging this stupid thread out of the closet.



I think we have bigger things to be worried about as a nation IMO

 

[poiboi99]

Believe it or not, Lincoln felt very deeply for the suffering the country was enduring both North and South. He considered all participants to be United States citizens and that made their problems his responsibility. His heavy-handed approach toward McDowell. McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, and Meade resulted in defeat every time. In the spring of 1864, He decided to take a more "hands-off" approach and appointed Grant to command all Union forces. "Total war" only began when Grant and Sherman were loosed from all governmental restrictions. It was never Lincoln's intention to destroy the south. His Generals saw it as expedient and carried it through.

 

[paperview]

General Sherman:

American Hero.

 

[editec]

Was there an offial policy condoning murder or rape of civilians?

No.

I don't doubt those things happened. Those things happen in wars.

Are they war crimes? Undoubtably.

There WAS an official policy of conducting all out economic war on the South, though.

That is not a war crime, not even NOW, is that a war crime.

And I have no doubt whatever that civilians died then and die now as a result of the fact that war is a war on not only the military, but upon the economy that supplies the military.

 

[paperview]

Has Jefferson Davis' official Proclamation that ALL free blacks - ones in the South as well as the North' were to be placed in "slave status" - forever - been brought up yet?

 

[paperview]

I simply try to bring Father Abraham back down to the realm of mortals where he belongs. He's not the saint people believe him to be, and the Civil War was unjust and unnecessary.

Then why did the South start the war? Abraham Lincoln was one of the best Presidents. The South tried to Balkanize America. Lincoln preserved the Union.

The south didn't start the war. Lincoln was unwilling to meet or be diplomatic with the southern states whatsoever
....

The South started the war before Lincoln even stepped in office.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

General Sherman:

American Hero.

Warfare against civilians in the south during the Civil War and genocide against the Indians afterwards doesn't make one a hero in my book.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Has Jefferson Davis' official Proclamation that ALL free blacks - ones in the South as well as the North' were to be placed in "slave status" - forever - been brought up yet?

Probably.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A discussion I had earlier this morning prompted me to create this thread. During the War for Southern Independence Lincoln and his generals used the strategy of total war to fight the Confederacy. In other words, no southern civilian be they man, woman, or child or any southern slave was safe from northern aggression.

One hundred thirty-six years after General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Americans are still fascinated with the War for Southern Independence. The larger bookstores devote an inordinate amount of shelf space to books about the events and personalities of the war; Ken Burns’s "Civil War" television series and the movie "Gettysburg" were blockbuster hits; dozens of new books on the war are still published every year; and a monthly newspaper, Civil War News, lists literally hundreds of seminars, conferences, reenactments, and memorial events related to the war in all 50 states and the District of Columbia all year long. Indeed, many Northerners are "still fighting the war" in that they organize a political mob whenever anyone attempts to display a Confederate heritage symbol in any public place.

Americans are still fascinated by the war because many of us recognize it as the defining event in American history. Lincoln’s war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the "rewriting" of the Constitution by federal judges, "total war," the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big "problem solver."

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln’s war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln’s war.

Targeting Civilians

War crimes were committed by both sides of the conflict as well as by the banditti that ran wild colored in the sides of either the "South" or the "Union." When a population refuses to surrender, that population in modern society will pay a horrible price.

It is what it is.