Were Lincoln, Grant, and Sheridan War Criminals?

[whitehall]

The winning side gets to set the rules but if the current trend of judging 19th century adventures by modern standards holds true it sems that Grant's generals would have been hanged for war crimes.

 

[1srelluc]

All world leaders since time immemorial are and have been war criminals. The leaders of nations of men think not in terms of the welfare of the individual or of even hundreds of individuals, but think nothing of spending thousands, ten thousand or millions of lives if doing so serves their cause. The original idea of countless people living together in cities, kingdoms and nations was never meant to be in service of the common good or wealth but rather enrichment of the rulers who lorded over them. Belief in the kindness, goodness or morality of any world leader over another is the height of naïveté. Mankind only raises tyrants to lord over him. Been that way for many, many millennia. Putin is a partial throwback to tyrants of a more honorable if not civilized era. Naked tyranny will turn up again in the world, sooner than most people would or want to believe. After that happens, the Joe Bidens, Donald Trumps, and Justin Trudeaus of the world will seem like tranquil Sunday afternoons by comparison. Perhaps our world needs a modern-day Attila, Hannibal or Genghis to set things straight.

I don't about the part in bold but the rest was well put.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Biden and others going on about Putin being a war criminal must never have heard tell of Sherman's March to the Sea and the whole "I can make this march and I intend to make Georgia Howl" thing.

Not to mention the sacking of the Shenandoah Valley and Gen. Sheridan quipping "A carrion crow in his flight across must either carry his rations or starve" during "The Great Burning" in 1864.

The Burning: Shenandoah Valley in Flames (U.S. National Park Service)

Both operations had the full support and blessing of both Grant and Lincoln, countless thousands suffered the effects of "scorched earth" at the hands of "invaders".

So were they they all war criminals or is it one of those "Oh, well that's different" type of things?

You need to seriously go fuck yourself. Putin is murdering thousands to restore an empire.

 

[1srelluc]

You need to seriously go fuck yourself. Putin is murdering thousands to restore an empire.

And Lincoln's armies killed thousands to restore the Union.....Not much difference from where I sit.

 

[Zincwarrior]

And Lincoln's armies killed thousands to restore the Union.....Not much difference from where I sit.

Then you sit in the land of the insane. Ukraine is a separate country. Always has been. Good to see you are on the side of tyranny.

 

[Persuader]

Is Putin a war criminal, only when it can be proved that during the war or occupation he purposely slaughtered unarmed people, or has the definition of war criminal changed? His unprovoked invasion of Ukraine doesn’t in my opinion make him a war criminal only another communist exercising Stalinistic behavior on his weaker neighbors in the attempt to reclaim what the USSR once was under Stalin. He underestimated the resolve of Ukrainians who knew their history and what life was like under communist rule. What the idiot did accomplish was to awaken and strengthen NATO in Europe and need for Ukraine to clean up its act so that it possibly could be asked to join NATO, exactly the opposite of what he set out to do. He should never had kicked the sleeping dog.

Putin certainly underestimated the Ukrainian People....was it just stupidity or did his intelligence operatives feed him faulty information?....I tend to think a combination of the two.

Also, the chinese have made a good point that the democrats goaded putin to go to war.

I think there is something to that....I reember back when The Don was trying to get Russia into our orbit and away from China that the democrats were constantly belittling Russia and Trumps efforts to befriend them and possibly make them an ally.

One of the first things biden did after his regime assumed power was to belittle Putin.

I said at the time that there was no good reason for America and Russia to be enemies that just like back when we needed them in WWII to fight the Nazis....we now need them to help us contain China.

 

[Persuader]

Exactly and that has always been the case. It was moral to own slaves 200 years ago but no longer. It is call change and anyone who says there is an absolute moral code is kidding themselves.

It was legal to own slaves but many at that time even Southerners did not think it was moral.

Mr. Lincoln could have fostered a gradual elimination of slavery ......first by stopping the importation of slaves, then in deep consultation with the Southern States arrive at an agreement to gradually eradicate that peculiar institution.

This could have been accomplished by re-imbursing the owners of slave by buying them back on a gradual basis and sending the freed slaves back to Africa(they are just too different to ever live in our socity in a peaceful and equitable manner) this coupled with advancing technology that was eliminating the necessity of slaves to operate plantations would have ended slavey in a peaceful manner and prevented all the racial problems we have today.

 

[1srelluc]

Then you sit in the land of the insane. Ukraine is a separate country. Always has been. Good to see you are on the side of tyranny.

The citizens of the South declared as such and got invaded for our trouble.

 

[TNHarley]

yes.
Lincoln was a mass murdering tyrant. His tyranny is the worst in US history.
John Wilkes Booth did this country a YUGE favor.

 

[odanny]

Biden and others going on about Putin being a war criminal must never have heard tell of Sherman's March to the Sea and the whole "I can make this march and I intend to make Georgia Howl" thing.

Not to mention the sacking of the Shenandoah Valley and Gen. Sheridan quipping "A carrion crow in his flight across must either carry his rations or starve" during "The Great Burning" in 1864.

The Burning: Shenandoah Valley in Flames (U.S. National Park Service)

Both operations had the full support and blessing of both Grant and Lincoln, countless thousands suffered the effects of "scorched earth" at the hands of "invaders".

So were they they all war criminals or is it one of those "Oh, well that's different" type of things?

They were fighting a war, against a hostile nation that waged it against the United States.

Grant and Sherman knew exactly how to win the war, the only way was to take away the Confederates means of support. And that's what they did. Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln are all HEROES.



Fuck the Confederacy, and fuck you for supporting it.

 

[DudleySmith]

Yes, all three were war criminals, by anybody's standards, left or right. First the illegal war, then the deliberate mass murders of allegedly 'freed' slaves by disease and starvation in 'Contraband Camps', then all those atrocities against native americans under Pope during the war, followed by GRant and their Generals in the West.

 

[1srelluc]

They were fighting a war, against a hostile nation that waged it against the United States.

Grant and Sherman knew exactly how to win the war, the only way was to take away the Confederates means of support. And that's what they did. Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln are all HEROES.



Fuck the Confederacy, and fuck you for supporting it.

So what gave Lincoln the right to invade another nation?

Now if he did not see the Confederacy as a nation then why did he not just invade SC when they (state troops) fired on Ft. Sumter instead of calling for 75K volunteers two days later with a eye on invading Virginia, which he did three months later culminating in the Battle of First Manassas?

 

[odanny]

So what gave Lincoln the right to invade another nation?

Now if he did not see the Confederacy as a nation then why did he not just invade SC when they (state troops) fired on Ft. Sumter instead of calling for 75K volunteers two days later with a eye on invading Virginia, which he did three months later culminating in the Battle of First Manassas?

Why debate alternate history?

In your mind, the Confederacy was justified in breaking from the United States, and in starting a war against the United States. Lincoln was not only the great emancipator, he was also wise in his decision to not seek vengeance against the traitorous south, although I'm not so sure, 150 years later, that this was the right strategy. Perhaps he should have burned the Confederacy to the ground, all of it. These states have perpetuated racism and division in this great country since that war ended.

I say again: Fuck the Confederacy.

 

[1srelluc]

Why debate alternate history?

In your mind, the Confederacy was justified in breaking from the United States, and in starting a war against the United States. Lincoln was not only the great emancipator, he was also wise in his decision to not seek vengeance against the traitorous south, although I'm not so sure, 150 years later, that this was the right strategy. Perhaps he should have burned the Confederacy to the ground, all of it. These states have perpetuated racism and division in this great country since that war ended.

I say again: Fuck the Confederacy.

I'll grant you that we should have picked our own cotton.

 

[DudleySmith]

These states have perpetuated racism and division in this great country since that war ended.

Ah, another tard who couldn't even attemot to explain why all those oppressed Negroes chose to stay in the South instead of migrating to the allegedly 'free North n stuff. After all, they had some12 years of Reconstruction to flee into the loving arms of Enlightened And Freedom Loving Yankees. lol another example of public school education running loose.

 

[odanny]

I'll grant you that we should have picked our own cotton.

Yea, the country would be a little different today, wouldn't it? No ugly legacy of slavery, and not still dealing with the fallout of having a permanent underclass in America.

 

[alang1216]

It was legal to own slaves but many at that time even Southerners did not think it was moral.

Mr. Lincoln could have fostered a gradual elimination of slavery ......first by stopping the importation of slaves, then in deep consultation with the Southern States arrive at an agreement to gradually eradicate that peculiar institution.

You're delusional. The Southern states were ready to go to war to protect that peculiar institution.

This could have been accomplished by re-imbursing the owners of slave by buying them back on a gradual basis

So you'd tax the Northerners to pay 'reparations' to the South? Right.

and sending the freed slaves back to Africa(they are just too different to ever live in our socity in a peaceful and equitable manner)

Too ignorant to even address. Of course we could have sent the Europeans back to Europe and solved the problem that way.

this coupled with advancing technology that was eliminating the necessity of slaves to operate plantations would have ended slavey in a peaceful manner and prevented all the racial problems we have today.

That is exactly what Eli Whitney believed until it turned out it was exactly the opposite.

 

[Persuader]

You're delusional. The Southern states were ready to go to war to protect that peculiar institution.


So you'd tax the Northerners to pay 'reparations' to the South? Right.


Too ignorant to even address. Of course we could have sent the Europeans back to Europe and solved the problem that way.


That is exactly what Eli Whitney believed until it turned out it was exactly the opposite.

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Ag…

A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnec…

www.goodreads.com

'The study of American slavery is a crowded field and each year the historical profession witnesses the publication of several new books. Despite this steady onslaught of scholarship, significant gaps remain in our understanding of slavery and its influence on the South. One area that has lacked sustained attention is the nexus of slavery and technological development. Several new books demonstrate that changes in technology profoundly altered the lives and labor of slaves. Historians have approached the presence of technology in a slave society from several different traditions. Some scholars argued that plantation development and mechanical progress were difficult to wed together, while others noted the progressive nature of southern agricultural production, but discussions of white attitudes and behavior overshadowed the effects of machinery on the lives of slaves. An innovative approach has emphasized the employment of slaves in factories, but such works have done little to provide insight into how technological innovation influenced plantation slaves. Several new studies have reversed these trends and promise to lead us in important directions. Examinations of the cotton gin, steamboats, sugar plantations, and clocks have revealed that technology brought enormous change to the bulk of slaves, not just those living in urban areas or working in factories. Patterns and practices of work, opportunities for autonomy, and time away from the master's unstinting gaze, all changed because of mechanical innovation. Taken together, these new works also provide clues to the making and remaking of the southern economy and society.'

https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2006.00313.x

The Intimate Link between Technology and Slavery

Slavery and technology are more intimately linked than you might think. Today, tech might be the only way to finally destroy slavery forever.

interestingengineering.com

 

[Persuader]

I'll grant you that we should have picked our own cotton.

Poor Whites and Slavery in the Antebellum South: An Interview with Historian Keri Leigh Merritt

Her well-timed new book is "Masterless Men: Poor Whites and Slavery in the Antebellum South."

historynewsnetwork.org

 

[Persuader]

Poor Whites and Slavery in the Antebellum South: An Interview with Historian Keri Leigh Merritt

Her well-timed new book is "Masterless Men: Poor Whites and Slavery in the Antebellum South."

historynewsnetwork.org

Poor white wage earners up north led miserable lives and often starved....black slaves on the plantation had everything provided for them....good healthy food, clothes, housing and medical care....had many children and lived to ripe old ages......because the slaves were very valuable and plantation owners being good businessmen understood the necessity of taking good care of their valuable property.

On the other hand white wage earners up north were worked to death, suffered constant hunger and nearly froze and often did in the cold northern winters.

These manufacturing jobs where poor whites worked were repetitious and hazardous. And from their meager earnings, Northern laborers had to pay for every one of life's necessities.

Theiy led miserable unhealthy lives and died young.

This continued up till the thirties when unions such as the UAW were organized and led finally to what is now known as the middle class.

educationviews.org

Similarities of wage work with slavery​

Critics of wage work have drawn several similarities between wage work and slavery:

1. Since the chattel slave is property, his value to an owner is in some ways higher than that of a worker who may quit, be fired or replaced. The chattel slave's owner has made a greater investment in terms of the money paid for the slave. For this reason, in times of recession chattel slaves could not be fired like wage laborers. A "wage slave" could also be harmed at no (or less) cost. American chattel-slaves in the 19th century had improved their standard of living from the 18th century[25] and – according to historians Fogel and Engerman – plantation records show that slaves worked less, were better fed and whipped only occasionally – their material conditions in the 19th century being "better than what was typically available to free urban laborers at the time".[26] This was partially due to slave psychological strategies under an economic system different from capitalist wage-slavery. According to Mark Michael Smith of the Economic History Society, "although intrusive and oppressive, paternalism, the way masters employed it, and the methods slaves used to manipulate it, rendered slaveholders' attempts to institute capitalistic work regimens on their plantation ineffective and so allowed slaves to carve out a degree of autonomy".[38]
2. Unlike a chattel slave, a wage laborer can (barring unemployment or lack of job offers) choose between employers, but those employers usually constitute a minority of owners in the population for which the wage laborer must work while attempts to implement workers' control on employers' businesses may be considered an act of theft or insubordination and thus be met with violence, imprisonment or other legal and social measures. The wage laborer's starkest choice is to work for an employer or to face poverty or starvation. If a chattel slave refuses to work, a number of punishments are also available; from beatings to food deprivation – although economically rational slave-owners practiced positive reinforcement to achieve best results and before losing their investment by killing an expensive slave.[39][40]
3. Historically, the range of occupations and status positions held by chattel slaves has been nearly as broad as that held by free persons, indicating some similarities between chattel slavery and wage slavery as well.[41]
4. Like chattel slavery, wage slavery does not stem from some immutable "human nature", but represents a "specific response to material and historical conditions.

Wage slavery - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org