War Crimes During the Civil War

[Peach]

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.

From Sherman to Beauregard is a large range. Pickens (Gov, SC) , Stephens (Davis' VP) Generals: Bloody Bill, Stuart, CUSTER, Doubleday, Meade............too many to list.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

I think it's fair to debate whether slavery was a central cause of the Civil War. But I think it's impossible to deny it was A cause of the war.

My standard challenge to folks that would deny slavery as one of the causes is to ask them to look up the Declaration of Secession for the Confederate states and take a drink every time the word Slave, Slavery, or Negro is used. If they're still alive tomorrow I'll stop by the ICU with flowers to speed their recovery from Alcohol poisoning.

The irony is that slavery ultimately did doom the South to failure. There were only two win conditions for the South:

1. Inflict heavy early losses on the North and hope public support for the war collapses.
2. European intervention.

Slavery was a huge propaganda issue in Northern newspapers ensuring public support for the war despite the fact the South was inflicting incredible losses on the North. Slavery also ensured that Europe, which had abolished the slave trade on the ocean using military force, would never enter the war.

There was never an option 3 for the South because in the long run the North would always win. The numbers (population, manufacturing, GDP, rail lines) were all on the North's side.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

So your slavery comment in your earlyer statement is now moot. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Dante]

Dr.Traveler: "I think it's fair to debate whether slavery was a central cause of the Civil War."

I don't. The states had issues with the Constitution and interpretation since the very beginning. The Constitution contained many compromises, compromises agreed upon before the document went to the people to be ratified. Yet with all the issues that arose, one dominated heated argument: slavery.

The Declaration of Secession is an interesting document that most all Confederacy backers seem to run away from. I was taught that when arguments were raised in S.C. to water down the slavery issue concerning state's rights, that idea was nixed so as to not confuse things.

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.

I think it's fair to debate whether slavery was a central cause of the Civil War. But I think it's impossible to deny it was A cause of the war.

My standard challenge to folks that would deny slavery as one of the causes is to ask them to look up the Declaration of Secession for the Confederate states and take a drink every time the word Slave, Slavery, or Negro is used. If they're still alive tomorrow I'll stop by the ICU with flowers to speed their recovery from Alcohol poisoning.

The irony is that slavery ultimately did doom the South to failure. There were only two win conditions for the South:

1. Inflict heavy early losses on the North and hope public support for the war collapses.
2. European intervention.

Slavery was a huge propaganda issue in Northern newspapers ensuring public support for the war despite the fact the South was inflicting incredible losses on the North. Slavery also ensured that Europe, which had abolished the slave trade on the ocean using military force, would never enter the war.

There was never an option 3 for the South because in the long run the North would always win. The numbers (population, manufacturing, GDP, rail lines) were all on the North's side.

 

[Toro]

I don't know much about this subject but I was listening to a podcast about the Civil War today.

the radicals on the Southern side stood for a free, independent, Southern republic. A republic that would be founded on slavery, with slavery as its cornerstone, as Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, famously said in a speech known as "The Cornerstone Speech."

He explicitly repudiated Thomas Jefferson's doctrine that all men are created equal, and he said: We in our new republic have a new dogma, that we are a republic whose cornerstone is slavery. ...

GROSS: So both sides, for the extremes of both sides, it was about slavery. And yet, there are still arguments about what was the Civil War really about. And some people say: Oh, it wasn't really about slavery. Why are we still arguing about what the Civil War was about?

GOODHEART: Well, you know, when you go back, and you look at the actual documents and debates from the time, of course, many people have said since then that it was about states' rights. But really the only significant state right that people were arguing about in 1860 was the right to own what was known as slave property - property and slaves - unimpeded and to be able to travel with that property anywhere that you wanted to, to be able to spread slavery across the United States.

So it's clear that this was really about slavery in almost every significant way. But, you know, we've sort of pushed that to the side because, of course, we want to believe that our country is a country that's always stood for freedom. And I think it can be difficult for Americans to accept.

Certainly it's difficult for Southern Americans to accept that their ancestors fought a war on behalf of slavery. And I think that Northerners really, for the cause of national reconciliation, decided to push that aside, decided to accept Southerners' denials or demurrals.

GROSS: You know, it's - in terms of how we're still talking about what was the war really about, in 2010, the governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, made a statement about Confederate History Month. And he didn't mention slavery in it. He praised those who fought for their homes and communities and commonwealth, but there was no mention of slavery. And he got a lot of criticism for that.

And Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said that the Civil War was about slavery, and that remark was considered, like, very important, a very important admission.

'1861': A Social History Of The Civil War : NPR

 

[Unkotare]

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?

Article II, Section 2

 

[Dante]

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.

So your slavery comment in your earlyer[sic] statement is now moot. Thanks for pointing that out.

moot? I have no idea what you are talking about here. You seem stuck in a loop of some kind. If I made a slavery comment that is not in this post, I cannot address it directly.

but, moving along...

The Ambassadors of the Confederacy in Europe were using whatever arguments they could in order to enlist European support for their cause; secession. The arguments made were irrelevant to the North's stated goal of not allowing secession.

 

[Dante]

I don't know much about this subject but I was listening to a podcast about the Civil War today.

the radicals on the Southern side stood for a free, independent, Southern republic. A republic that would be founded on slavery, with slavery as its cornerstone, as Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, famously said in a speech known as "The Cornerstone Speech."

He explicitly repudiated Thomas Jefferson's doctrine that all men are created equal, and he said: We in our new republic have a new dogma, that we are a republic whose cornerstone is slavery. ...

GROSS: So both sides, for the extremes of both sides, it was about slavery. And yet, there are still arguments about what was the Civil War really about. And some people say: Oh, it wasn't really about slavery. Why are we still arguing about what the Civil War was about?

GOODHEART: Well, you know, when you go back, and you look at the actual documents and debates from the time, of course, many people have said since then that it was about states' rights. But really the only significant state right that people were arguing about in 1860 was the right to own what was known as slave property - property and slaves - unimpeded and to be able to travel with that property anywhere that you wanted to, to be able to spread slavery across the United States.

So it's clear that this was really about slavery in almost every significant way. But, you know, we've sort of pushed that to the side because, of course, we want to believe that our country is a country that's always stood for freedom. And I think it can be difficult for Americans to accept.

Certainly it's difficult for Southern Americans to accept that their ancestors fought a war on behalf of slavery. And I think that Northerners really, for the cause of national reconciliation, decided to push that aside, decided to accept Southerners' denials or demurrals.

GROSS: You know, it's - in terms of how we're still talking about what was the war really about, in 2010, the governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, made a statement about Confederate History Month. And he didn't mention slavery in it. He praised those who fought for their homes and communities and commonwealth, but there was no mention of slavery. And he got a lot of criticism for that.

And Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said that the Civil War was about slavery, and that remark was considered, like, very important, a very important admission.

'1861': A Social History Of The Civil War : NPR

The leaders and Slave owning class initiated the secession fight, but we cannot deny many lower class people in the Rebel Army "fought for their homes and communities and commonwealth" as well as their culture and heritage.

It is always interesting when Southerners gloss over or totally ignore the central component: slavery.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

Article II, Section 2

Can you quote the exact language that says that the Commander-in-Chief can, in your words, "declare policy against those areas in open rebellion?"

 

[Dante]

Ordinances of Secession

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't know much about this subject but I was listening to a podcast about the Civil War today.

the radicals on the Southern side stood for a free, independent, Southern republic. A republic that would be founded on slavery, with slavery as its cornerstone, as Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, famously said in a speech known as "The Cornerstone Speech."

He explicitly repudiated Thomas Jefferson's doctrine that all men are created equal, and he said: We in our new republic have a new dogma, that we are a republic whose cornerstone is slavery. ...

GROSS: So both sides, for the extremes of both sides, it was about slavery. And yet, there are still arguments about what was the Civil War really about. And some people say: Oh, it wasn't really about slavery. Why are we still arguing about what the Civil War was about?

GOODHEART: Well, you know, when you go back, and you look at the actual documents and debates from the time, of course, many people have said since then that it was about states' rights. But really the only significant state right that people were arguing about in 1860 was the right to own what was known as slave property - property and slaves - unimpeded and to be able to travel with that property anywhere that you wanted to, to be able to spread slavery across the United States.

So it's clear that this was really about slavery in almost every significant way. But, you know, we've sort of pushed that to the side because, of course, we want to believe that our country is a country that's always stood for freedom. And I think it can be difficult for Americans to accept.

Certainly it's difficult for Southern Americans to accept that their ancestors fought a war on behalf of slavery. And I think that Northerners really, for the cause of national reconciliation, decided to push that aside, decided to accept Southerners' denials or demurrals.

GROSS: You know, it's - in terms of how we're still talking about what was the war really about, in 2010, the governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, made a statement about Confederate History Month. And he didn't mention slavery in it. He praised those who fought for their homes and communities and commonwealth, but there was no mention of slavery. And he got a lot of criticism for that.

And Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said that the Civil War was about slavery, and that remark was considered, like, very important, a very important admission.

'1861': A Social History Of The Civil War : NPR

I would say the debate about tariffs was most certainly a significant issue that people were arguing about at the time.

 

[Unkotare]

Where is that in the Constitution?

Article II, Section 2

Can you quote the exact language that says that the Commander-in-Chief can, in your words, "declare policy against those areas in open rebellion?"

Let's talk again after (if) you graduate from high school.

 

[Dante]

I would say the debate about tariffs was most certainly a significant issue that people were arguing about at the time.

yeah, and we all know how tariffs played in the hands of rebels calling for the dogs of war to be unleashed. 'Break up the union!' 'Tariffs now, tariffs never, for tariffs and god!'

 

[Toro]

I don't know much about this subject but I was listening to a podcast about the Civil War today.

the radicals on the Southern side stood for a free, independent, Southern republic. A republic that would be founded on slavery, with slavery as its cornerstone, as Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, famously said in a speech known as "The Cornerstone Speech."

He explicitly repudiated Thomas Jefferson's doctrine that all men are created equal, and he said: We in our new republic have a new dogma, that we are a republic whose cornerstone is slavery. ...

GROSS: So both sides, for the extremes of both sides, it was about slavery. And yet, there are still arguments about what was the Civil War really about. And some people say: Oh, it wasn't really about slavery. Why are we still arguing about what the Civil War was about?

GOODHEART: Well, you know, when you go back, and you look at the actual documents and debates from the time, of course, many people have said since then that it was about states' rights. But really the only significant state right that people were arguing about in 1860 was the right to own what was known as slave property - property and slaves - unimpeded and to be able to travel with that property anywhere that you wanted to, to be able to spread slavery across the United States.

So it's clear that this was really about slavery in almost every significant way. But, you know, we've sort of pushed that to the side because, of course, we want to believe that our country is a country that's always stood for freedom. And I think it can be difficult for Americans to accept.

Certainly it's difficult for Southern Americans to accept that their ancestors fought a war on behalf of slavery. And I think that Northerners really, for the cause of national reconciliation, decided to push that aside, decided to accept Southerners' denials or demurrals.

GROSS: You know, it's - in terms of how we're still talking about what was the war really about, in 2010, the governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, made a statement about Confederate History Month. And he didn't mention slavery in it. He praised those who fought for their homes and communities and commonwealth, but there was no mention of slavery. And he got a lot of criticism for that.

And Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said that the Civil War was about slavery, and that remark was considered, like, very important, a very important admission.

'1861': A Social History Of The Civil War : NPR

I would say the debate about tariffs was most certainly a significant issue that people were arguing about at the time.

I took a class in economic history of North America in college, and my professor said that tariffs were a big reason for the Civil War. That was the first time I'd ever heard of another issue other than slavery being a cause of the war. The university was in Canada and the professor was Canadian, so he didn't have any horse in this race, but I always thought he was exaggerating somewhat. The economic impact of abolition to Southern whites was far, far greater than tariffs.

He was an interesting guy. He taught that slavery stunted the economic development of the South. It discouraged the formation of large cities, where there are economies of scale which allows innovation to be commercialized, as well as large pools of capital, which is how innovation is funded. Slavery instead encouraged the agrarian economy and the maintenance of the county seat as the primary center for commerce, which discouraged manufacturing.

 

[editec]

More CSA nonsense from our resident haters of the United State of America

The premise of this thread is a lie

Civilians were not targeted.

Had they been targeted for total war he Northern troops would have killed every citizen of the CSA.

 

[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

and the South was fighting to keep it's niggars in chains. That would be a war crime today too.

Unleash the dogs of war and...

You sound like Adolph Hitler apologists who claim Hitler was only copying American practices when he sent the Jews to their deaths in camps. You blame Lincoln for targeting civilians? read history. Ever since the dawn of mankind Armies have slaughtered and pillaged civilian fortresses.

Lincoln allowed Southerners to live because it was a civil war. He did not order troops to slaughter all civilians and take any survivors in chains, though the last part might have been an appropriate sort of justice indeed.

If that were true then no one would have seceded after the passage of the Corwin Amendment.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Article II, Section 2

Can you quote the exact language that says that the Commander-in-Chief can, in your words, "declare policy against those areas in open rebellion?"

Let's talk again after (if) you graduate from high school.

Well I'm currently a senior in college, so how about answering the question?

 

[Unkotare]

Can you quote the exact language that says that the Commander-in-Chief can, in your words, "declare policy against those areas in open rebellion?"

Let's talk again after (if) you graduate from high school.

Well I'm currently a senior in college, so how about answering the question?

LOL! I knew it! You are a little school boy talking out your ass. STFU and hit the books kid. You might learn something after all.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't know much about this subject but I was listening to a podcast about the Civil War today.



'1861': A Social History Of The Civil War : NPR

I would say the debate about tariffs was most certainly a significant issue that people were arguing about at the time.

I took a class in economic history of North America in college, and my professor said that tariffs were a big reason for the Civil War. That was the first time I'd ever heard of another issue other than slavery being a cause of the war. The university was in Canada and the professor was Canadian, so he didn't have any horse in this race, but I always thought he was exaggerating somewhat. The economic impact of abolition to Southern whites was far, far greater than tariffs.

He was an interesting guy. He taught that slavery stunted the economic development of the South. It discouraged the formation of large cities, where there are economies of scale which allows innovation to be commercialized, as well as large pools of capital, which is how innovation is funded. Slavery instead encouraged the agrarian economy and the maintenance of the county seat as the primary center for commerce, which discouraged manufacturing.

The problem is that too many people want to look at just one cause. The issue of slavery played its part in the south's decision to secede, no question. The south didn't feel like the north was upholding its end of the bargain regarding slavery, and they saw in Lincoln somebody openly hostile to the expansion of slavery which they believed would further hurt their slave system. However, tariffs were also a very contentious issue between the north and the south for decades. Just look back to Jackson and Calhoun's showdown over South Carolina threatening to nullify Jackson's tariff. Lincoln was an open supporter of high tariffs, and upon being elected one of his first acts was to sign a dramatic increase in the tariff. So the south saw the election of a candidate hostile to the expansion of slavery and a supporter of high tariffs which would unduly hurt the southern economy, and that's why they split. They were sick and tired of trying to work within the existing system on these issues, and they saw Lincoln as being against their interests in both so that was the final straw.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

More CSA nonsense from our resident haters of the United State of America

The premise of this thread is a lie

Civilians were not targeted.

Had they been targeted for total war he Northern troops would have killed every citizen of the CSA.

Tell that to Atlanta.

"My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom."

"To the persistent secessionist, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better."