War Crimes During the Civil War

[Unkotare]

Not to mention how the Emancipation Proclamation allowed 5 Union states to keep slavery, along with any Confederate territories under Union occupation like New Orleans.

The EP did not "allow" those states to "keep slavery," Lincoln had no authority to simply declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere but in those states in open rebellion. That's why we needed the 13th Amendment.

Umm... He had no authority to declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere period. Not to mention any of the other things he did not have the authority to do that he did regardless, such as suspending habeas corpus. If you think that's what stopped him from abolishing slavery in the border states then you're delusional. The Emancipation Proclamation was no grand crusade against slavery, nor was the Civil War in general, it was merely a war measure designed to hurt the Confederacy. Nothing more, nothing less.

You seem to be quite ignorant about the history of that time.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The EP did not "allow" those states to "keep slavery," Lincoln had no authority to simply declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere but in those states in open rebellion. That's why we needed the 13th Amendment.

Umm... He had no authority to declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere period..

Yes he did. He was Commander-in-Chief during a time of war.

Which puts him in charge of the U.S. armed forces during said time of war. It doesn't mean he can simply do whatever he wants.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The EP did not "allow" those states to "keep slavery," Lincoln had no authority to simply declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere but in those states in open rebellion. That's why we needed the 13th Amendment.

Umm... He had no authority to declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere period. Not to mention any of the other things he did not have the authority to do that he did regardless, such as suspending habeas corpus. If you think that's what stopped him from abolishing slavery in the border states then you're delusional. The Emancipation Proclamation was no grand crusade against slavery, nor was the Civil War in general, it was merely a war measure designed to hurt the Confederacy. Nothing more, nothing less.

You seem to be quite ignorant about the history of that time.

It's funny you should mention that, because I was thinking something rather similar of you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Umm... He had no authority to declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere period..

Yes he did. He was Commander-in-Chief during a time of war.

Which puts him in charge of the U.S. armed forces during said time of war. It doesn't mean he can simply do whatever he wants.

kevin is correct

 

[whitehall]

What Sgt Bales did to Afghans is nothing compared to what the union army did to Southern civilians. In a just world General Grant would have been indicted for war crimes.

 

[Publius1787]

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

If you’re asking which side had moral justification on their side, it was the south. If you’re pointing out war crimes to make the case, you needn’t be.

 

[whitehall]

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

If you’re asking which side had moral justification on their side, it was the south. If you’re pointing out war crimes to make the case, you needn’t be.

What does having "moral justification" mean in an argument about war crimes? Is it alleged that the South had "moral justification" to commit crimes? I don't understand the intent of the post.

 

[Publius1787]

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.



Targeting Civilians

If you’re asking which side had moral justification on their side, it was the south. If you’re pointing out war crimes to make the case, you needn’t be.

What does having "moral justification" mean in an argument about war crimes? Is it alleged that the South had "moral justification" to commit crimes? I don't understand the intent of the post.

Instead of debating the claim on its false merits I debated it from the reason the claim was made. When most people complain about war crimes they do so to deaminize the other side; Often outside the more relevant argument; As to cause distraction to make up for their lack of ability to debate the real issue. I just made a claim about the real issue.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you’re asking which side had moral justification on their side, it was the south. If you’re pointing out war crimes to make the case, you needn’t be.

yeah, the Roman Catholic Bishop in SC, Bishop Lynch, argued that ending slavery would be immoral because blacks would be thrown into the free market place where they would die a slow death.

Bishop Lynch (cute name for a Southern White Man, eh?), was the Confederacy's Point Man in Europe. HE waited a few years to get his pardon before coming back to the evil United States of America

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Instead of debating...

I bet you don't know jack shit about Bishop Lynch and others who were big in the Confederacy

 

[Publius1787]

If you’re asking which side had moral justification on their side, it was the south. If you’re pointing out war crimes to make the case, you needn’t be.

yeah, the Roman Catholic Bishop in SC, Bishop Lynch, argued that ending slavery would be immoral because blacks would be thrown into the free market place where they would die a slow death

At what point was the North’s stated goal to abolish slavery or fight a war specifically to end it? I must have missed that in my history books. I suppose my BA in history doesn’t count anymore because I was never taught that. Oh, you were just throwing out a red herring or engage in in a Biased Sample Fallacy? If that is the case then carry on. I wont bother you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you’re asking which side had moral justification on their side, it was the south. If you’re pointing out war crimes to make the case, you needn’t be.

yeah, the Roman Catholic Bishop in SC, Bishop Lynch, argued that ending slavery would be immoral because blacks would be thrown into the free market place where they would die a slow death

At what point was the North’s stated goal to abolish slavery or fight a war specifically to end it? I must have missed that in my history books. I suppose my BA in history doesn’t count anymore because I was never taught that. Oh, you were just throwing out a red herring or engage in in a Biased Sample Fallacy? If that is the case then carry on. I wont bother you.

At what point was the North’s stated goal to abolish slavery or fight a war specifically to end it?

The North's stated goal was to keep the nation intact.

The point in time where the South’s stated goal was to secede, because the North would not allow the South, with it's demands concerning slavery, to throw out the baby with the bathwater, is where the Rubicon was crossed. That point unleashed the dogs of war, and the South has been trying to rewrite history ever since.

 

[Unkotare]

Umm... He had no authority to declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere period..

Yes he did. He was Commander-in-Chief during a time of war.

Which puts him in charge of the U.S. armed forces during said time of war. It doesn't mean he can simply do whatever he wants.

As commander of the Union forces he could declare policy against those areas in open rebellion and therefore considered enemy territory. Open a book once in a while.

 

[Unkotare]

Umm... He had no authority to declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere period. Not to mention any of the other things he did not have the authority to do that he did regardless, such as suspending habeas corpus. If you think that's what stopped him from abolishing slavery in the border states then you're delusional. The Emancipation Proclamation was no grand crusade against slavery, nor was the Civil War in general, it was merely a war measure designed to hurt the Confederacy. Nothing more, nothing less.

You seem to be quite ignorant about the history of that time.

It's funny you should mention that, because I was thinking something rather similar of you.

The difference is you don't know what you are talking about and I do.

 

[Unkotare]

Yes he did. He was Commander-in-Chief during a time of war.

Which puts him in charge of the U.S. armed forces during said time of war. It doesn't mean he can simply do whatever he wants.

kevin is correct

It was a war measure legitimized by his war powers as President. Hence, its limited scope and its legality.

 

[whitehall]

Instead of debating...

I bet you don't know jack shit about Bishop Lynch and others who were big in the Confederacy

"Jack shit and big in the confederacy"? Does dante want to make a serious historical observation or play a videop game?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Instead of debating...

I bet you don't know jack shit about Bishop Lynch and others who were big in the Confederacy

"Jack shit and big in the confederacy"? Does dante want to make a serious historical observation or play a videop game?

another dope who doesn't know.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

If you’re asking which side had moral justification on their side, it was the south. If you’re pointing out war crimes to make the case, you needn’t be.

If only I had known..

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes he did. He was Commander-in-Chief during a time of war.

Which puts him in charge of the U.S. armed forces during said time of war. It doesn't mean he can simply do whatever he wants.

As commander of the Union forces he could declare policy against those areas in open rebellion and therefore considered enemy territory. Open a book once in a while.

Where is that in the Constitution?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You seem to be quite ignorant about the history of that time.

It's funny you should mention that, because I was thinking something rather similar of you.

The difference is you don't know what you are talking about and I do.

It's funny you should mention that...