War Crimes During the Civil War

[cavboy]

Denying a civilian shelter, food, clothes and the means to attain them is a crime in any age.The Southern people in large numbers were denied these things in the United States Army's invasion. Take Fredericksburg as a small example of the United States Army's hostility toward the South and it's people.Because a small group of Mississippi soldiers prevented the "Grand Army" from constructing its pontoon bridges for the attack upon the Confederate Army behind the town, Burnside ordered the town shelled to dislodge the Mississippians.As a result, 8,000 shells hit the small town of Fredericksburg! Again, 8,000 ! The shelling didn't have the desired effect and the Mississipians remained until assaulted by large groups of Federal infantry.When the United States Army gained full control of Fredericksburg, the soldiers looted and pillaged to their hearts delight, and no effort was made to stop them by their command structure.They then proceeded to get their butts kicked by the Confederate Army behind the town.Fredericksburg did not regain its 1860 population of 5,200 for 100 years , as it and the surrounding countryside was devestatingly stripped of resources by the United States Army that camped around it for seven months.One can only imagine what the United States Army actually did in the South as the war went on, and
the emnity of that force grew as it failed to easily defeat a foe that it looked down upon to begin with. "Soldiers" from the United States Army raided my 3rd GreatGrandmother's house in Duplin, North Carolina and were so terrorising that they caused the poor, old woman to have a heart attack and die.Im sure that thousands of similar horrors could be told, but the victor wrote and writes the history to this day. And seccession is a right that without being guaranteed, the Constitution would not have been adopted.Read our Founder's and their views...please educate yourselves.It is well known that Jefferson believed that any people had the right to throw off the chains of an opressive government. And if the war was for the freedom of the slaves, why didn't Lincoln free them in April of 1861.And if the North was so compassionate to the plight of slaves and African Americans in general, why did the people of New York riot during the war and have as their main target the Afican Americans of that city, whom they lynched and assaulted in large numbers?The full extent of the devestation of the South will never be known until the intelligentzia decides that it should be known, and for 150 years they have decided to portray a false history of the bloodiest conflict in American history.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Really? How?

 

[Unkotare]

During the War for Southern Independence ]

Do you mean the US Civil War?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The claim that both sides were equally guilty is utter horseshit. For one thing, almost every battle was conducted in Confederate territory. How could Confederate soldiers commit war crimes against Northern citizens if they weren't ever in the North?

Why should American citizens be under assault from the government in the first place?

 

[jillian]

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

the war for southern independence? well, at least it's better than calling it the war of northern aggression. not by much... but ok. pssst... it was the "civil war".

i don't like revisionist history, kevin.

did they "target" civilians just because this guy said so? seems to me everyone was busy fighting...on both sides... and doing what they needed to do to try to defeat each other.

you know they were lucky that lincoln didn't have them all tried for treason and hung.

government was centralized when the constitution replaced the articles of confederation. get over it.

 

[editec]

TOTAL WAR means targeting the society that supports the enemy's war efforts.

If you want to call that a war crime, be my guest.

But that is the world we live in now, and that world really started for us back in the Civil War.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

The claim that both sides were equally guilty is utter horseshit. For one thing, almost every battle was conducted in Confederate territory. How could Confederate soldiers commit war crimes against Northern citizens if they weren't ever in the North?

Why should American citizens be under assault from the government in the first place?

That you believe that the CSA troops did not commit war cirmes against Southern civilians reveals that you are merely ignorant and perhaps stupid. The Confederacy confiscated almost every horse and cow from the Shenandoah Valley before the year 1863 finished is merely one example.

Do not give us the tired, old "poor, poor South." The sorry bastards got what they deserved when the fired on Old Glory, when they could not accept constitutional, electoral process.

 

[rightwinger]

Treason is a crime....so is owning slaves

They got what they deserved

 

[amartin315]

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.

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.

Laws can be applied retroactively.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

The claim that both sides were equally guilty is utter horseshit. For one thing, almost every battle was conducted in Confederate territory. How could Confederate soldiers commit war crimes against Northern citizens if they weren't ever in the North?

Why should American citizens be under assault from the government in the first place?

Southerners didn't consider themselves to be Americans during the Civil War, therefor they weren't attacked by their own government. Well except in the case where the CSA stole their stuff .

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

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.

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.

Laws can be applied retroactively.

in fact they can't.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

The claim that both sides were equally guilty is utter horseshit. For one thing, almost every battle was conducted in Confederate territory. How could Confederate soldiers commit war crimes against Northern citizens if they weren't ever in the North?

Why should American citizens be under assault from the government in the first place?

Southerners didn't consider themselves to be Americans during the Civil War, therefor they weren't attacked by their own government. Well except in the case where the CSA stole their stuff .

No, they considered themselves Virginians, South Carolinians, and so on and so forth, though I get what you're saying. On the flip side, however, Lincoln did consider them to still be a part of the United States, and therefore must have considered himself as attacking his own citizens.

On a related note, how many times is this thread going to be resurrected?

 

[paperview]

Ah...fond memories.

 

[Katzndogz]

It was total war. A war to break the spirit of the south. A war to punish the civillians so why wouldn't they be considered combatants? It's the war we should have fought in the middle east.

 

[Peach]

It seems rather curious that only those "crimes" committed in the South by Union soldiers are remembered when, in fact, there were some just as nasty inflicted by Southerners on Southerners. I suppose the worst part of this is when some of these same Southerners could have been considered neighbors. Union soldiers did not corner the "market" on incidents of horror inflicted on Southern civilians during the Civil War, Confederate soldiers and officials can also be added to the list of perpetrators.

Did you have any incidents in particular you wanted to share with us?

Andersonville Prison

Andersonville was atrocious.

 

[Sallow]

While what they did may be considered war crimes today, there was no Geneva Conventions until 1864. The treaties affecting treatment of civilians during wartime were not adopted until 1949. It wasn't against international law until then. The USA had been placed under martial law, so the law was basically what Lincoln said it was.
So technically speaking, there were no war crimes during the civil war.
The discussion of the loss of states rights, loss of individual rights and the federal power grab is more interesting. These issues are directly related to the topic you posted.

That's ridiculous. War crimes are war crimes, and the law was not "basically what Lincoln said it was." Lincoln had no jurisdiction over the Confederate States. Destroying southern towns and murdering, raping, and pillaging southern slaves and civilians are war crimes.

The problem with the Civil War..is the North didn't go far enough. Every Southern Soldier should have been impaled. Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee should have been drawn and quartered..with their heads put up on spikes until they were fly blown. It should be a crime to fly the star and bars.

Sadly..none of that came to pass.

 

[Katzndogz]

The problem with the Civil War is that the south didn't win. Had the south won, we would not have the totalitarian government we have today. Secession would have taught the union a lesson they would never forget. Instead, we have states planning for the collapse of the federal government and continuity when it's gone.

 

[rightwinger]

Did you have any incidents in particular you wanted to share with us?

Andersonville Prison

Andersonville was atrocious.

Andersonville was the result of Union policies

Up until 1864, both sides exchanged prisoners and there was no need for large prison camps. In 1864, Grant decided he did not want southern soldiers reentering the fight so he refused to exchange

The South was not prepared to hold large numbers of Union soldiers. The Union blockades and Shermans march were starving the south. They had to choose whether they should feed their soldiers, civilians or prisoners and the prisoners lost out

They also didn't understand sanitation and how disease was spread. Add spreading disease to soldiers weak from starvation and you have a disaster

 

[rightwinger]

The problem with the Civil War is that the south didn't win. Had the south won, we would not have the totalitarian government we have today. Secession would have taught the union a lesson they would never forget. Instead, we have states planning for the collapse of the federal government and continuity when it's gone.

It was a strong central government that turned the US into an economic superpower

 

[paperview]

The problem with the Civil War is that the south didn't win. Had the south won, we would not have the totalitarian government we have today. Secession would have taught the union a lesson they would never forget. Instead, we have states planning for the collapse of the federal government and continuity when it's gone.

Had the South won, we wouldn't be here today, nor the America you know and love.

The confederacy would have been invaded and conquered easily by foreign forces salivating for the opening that would be theirs.