April 9, 1865

[martybegan]

Marty, please don't tire yourself out.

Stop believing Hitler.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Stop believing Hitler.

Oh, I believe he was interested. Locking people up like that was right up his alley.

 

[martybegan]

Oh, I believe he was interested. Locking people up like that was right up his alley.

There were no locks on reservations.

It was a dick move on our part but comparing it to the Holocaust is pathetic.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

There were no locks on reservations.

It was a dick move on our part but comparing it to the Holocaust is pathetic.

We are not. It is in the context of what he said he was thinking.

You are so old that you can compare notes with him much more quickly than you wnt.

 

[martybegan]

We are not. It is in the context of what he said he was thinking.

You are so old that you can compare notes with him much more quickly than you wnt.

Your response is a Kamala worthy word salad.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

My response was worthy of a decent, moral human who understands your types.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Maybe so to a certain extent through 1863. In 1864 and 1865, the combat was brutal and would be repeated on a much larger scale 50 years later in WW1. Prisoner exchanges didn't happen much after 1863 and the prisons on both sides became uncivil at best.

The lack of prisoner exchanges was a deliberate decision. The Confederacy badly needed those imprisoned combat troops, and they would have been back in combat within weeks. The Union had plenty of manpower. Conditions in Confederate POW camps were bad, but the entire South was starving. There is no excuse for the way the Union treated POWs.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The lack of prisoner exchanges was a deliberate decision. The Confederacy badly needed those imprisoned combat troops, and they would have been back in combat within weeks. The Union had plenty of manpower. Conditions in Confederate POW camps were bad, but the entire South was starving. There is no excuse for the way the Union treated POWs.

Prisoner swaps were stopped by Grant due to mistreatment-torture, murder and enslavement- of Black prisoners by the CSA.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Prisoner swaps were stopped by Grant due to mistreatment-torture, murder and enslavement- of Black prisoners by the CSA.

Only in small part. The were mainly stopped to deprive the CSA of valuable field soldiers.

 

[longly]

No, it would not. The South was ground down.

However, there was still resistance—a violent resistance, in fact—an insurgency that the Union Army ultimately lost, primarily due to political considerations, much like the United States' experience in Vietnam.

There were Southerners who were murdered by Union soldiers. I use the term "murdered" because these actions were not official government policy. However, many Union officers, including generals, often looked the other way when Southerners were killed, abused, or even raped.

Things might have gone better if Lincoln hadn't been assassinated, but he was, and to some extent, we still live with the consequences today.

Black Union soldiers did kill white Southerners and others, and they were often able to claim self-defense to avoid punishment. The number of murders was probably quite small, but they were magnified in the minds of Southern white Southerners because the Union Army maintained total censorship of all newspapers. In the absence of reliable information, people tended to believe the worst.

After Lincoln was killed, the North sought revenge. They achieved their revenge, but after growing tired of the occupation, they left, abandoning the Black population to face the consequences. White Southerners saw Black people as the enemy, even though only a very small number had actually served in the Union Army. I think this was part of the motivation behind Jim Crow laws, as white people felt the need to separate themselves from Black people to protect themselves. As I said, I don’t condone revenge, but it had a lasting impact. It just goes to show that revenge is always a very bad idea. Revenge just causes more revenge.

 

[longly]

That is reasonable, so thank you for that.

Nonetheless, the Blue would have killed the entire south if necessary.

They almost did it. Twenty-five percent of all Southerner of military-aged were killed during the war, and another large percentage was left crippled for life. The result was an entire generation of Southern men who suffered from PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). In other words, an entire generation of dangerously traumatized individuals roaming around with guns.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

However, there was still resistance—a violent resistance, in fact—an insurgency that the Union Army ultimately lost, primarily due to political considerations, much like the United States' experience in Vietnam.

There were Southerners who were murdered by Union soldiers. I use the term "murdered" because these actions were not official government policy. However, many Union officers, including generals, often looked the other way when Southerners were killed, abused, or even raped.

Things might have gone better if Lincoln hadn't been assassinated, but he was, and to some extent, we still live with the consequences today.

Black Union soldiers did kill white Southerners and others, and they were often able to claim self-defense to avoid punishment. The number of murders was probably quite small, but they were magnified in the minds of Southern white Southerners because the Union Army maintained total censorship of all newspapers. In the absence of reliable information, people tended to believe the worst.

After Lincoln was killed, the North sought revenge. They achieved their revenge, but after growing tired of the occupation, they left, abandoning the Black population to face the consequences. White Southerners saw Black people as the enemy, even though only a very small number had actually served in the Union Army. I think this was part of the motivation behind Jim Crow laws, as white people felt the need to separate themselves from Black people to protect themselves. As I said, I don’t condone revenge, but it had a lasting impact. It just goes to show that revenge is always a very bad idea. Revenge just causes more revenge.

Only in your mind, longly. The rebs were finished.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

They almost did it. Twenty-five percent of all Southerner of military-aged were killed during the war, and another large percentage was left crippled for life. The result was an entire generation of Southern men who suffered from PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). In other words, an entire generation of dangerously traumatized individuals roaming around with guns.

They almost did it. Twenty-five percent of all Southerner of military-aged were killed during the war, and another large percentage was left crippled for life. The result was an entire generation of Southern men who suffered from PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). In other words, an entire generation of dangerously traumatized individuals roaming around with guns.

They failed bigly, longly.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Prisoner swaps were stopped by Grant due to mistreatment-torture, murder and enslavement- of Black prisoners by the CSA.

False. Grant was not the one who halted the prisoner exchanges. Grant was not even in command when the exchanges were stopped.

And can you quote Grant saying that the Confederates were torturing and murdering black Union POWs?

Myth: General Ulysses S. Grant stopped the prisoner exchange, and is thus responsible for all of the suffering in Civil War prisons on both sides - Andersonville National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

For context, folks should know that you have said that the murderous, vicious Sioux were the "good guys" in the Plains Indian Wars. The Sioux routinely tortured and murdered prisoners, Indian and white alike, and preyed upon weaker tribes, taking their lands and enslaving part of their population.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

False. Grant was not the one who halted the prisoner exchanges. Grant was not even in command when the exchanges were stopped.

And can you quote Grant saying that the Confederates were torturing and murdering black Union POWs?

Myth: General Ulysses S. Grant stopped the prisoner exchange, and is thus responsible for all of the suffering in Civil War prisons on both sides - Andersonville National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

For context, folks should know that you have said that the murderous, vicious Sioux were the "good guys" in the Plains Indian Wars. The Sioux routinely tortured and murdered prisoners, Indian and white alike, and preyed upon weaker tribes, taking their lands and enslaving part of their population.

Mike's deflection to the Sioux and his mischaracterization Grant's role are dispicable maneuvers by anyone, much less by one who think he is a historian.

Both Union and CSA were committing war crimes in their handline of POW matters.

Mike will not tell you about Grant's overeall role and attitudes about prisoner exchanges.

 

[Unkotare]

Only in your mind, longly. The rebs were finished.

Towards the end of the war, things had gotten so bad for the "confederacy" that they were seriously considering emancipation in the southern states. They surrendered before it could be voted on.

 

[longly]

Only in your mind, longly. The rebs were finished.

So, you think it's imaginary? Let's see if we can do a little thought experiment. First, let me ask you this question: after a war, what do you call it when an army is in total control of defeated territory? That's an occupation, right? Do you disagree with that?

I contend that the southern white population faced abuse during the post-war occupation. While I can't point to hard documentation—likely due to press censorship by the U.S. Army at the time—I am confident it occurred. History shows that after every war, when a defeated population is helpless and hatred runs high, atrocities follow. Even some Black family histories recount instances of Black Union soldiers returning to plantations and killing white residents. For the first couple of years, Union Army generals and officers often turned a blind eye until the hatred cooled. If you argue this didn't happen, I must ask: what makes Union Army soldiers so fundamentally different from soldiers anywhere else in the world? They loved, hated, and feared just like everyone else.

If these are not the points you consider imaginary, please clarify. It may take me some time to respond, but I will.

 

[Unkotare]

... While I can't point to hard documentation—...—I am confident it occurred....

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I am not going to indulge your nonsense. You have an opinion, and that's fine for you. You admit to have no evidence.

But not reality. Various pockets of resistance would have been stamped out quickly. Your
"confidence" is fine for you, but of no interest to me.