War Crimes During the Civil War

[Epsilon Delta]

Do I or any of YOU doubt that War crimes happened duing EVERY WAR that Americans EVER fought?​

I surely don't.

​

[/FONT]

I have no doubts, war is another form of accepted and state sanctioned murder.

As to your question why the outrage is limited to this war, it's certainly not. However, too many people have false pre-conceptions about the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, the "moral north," and the "evil south."

Well, I think the preconceptions come about just because the north was abolishing slavery and the south wanted to continue it... and Slavery = Evil. Regardless of the motives or actions, wouldn't you say that's the key things that shapes the perception?

As for War Crimes... well, yeah, isn't that basically a given? I've no doubt either that the North committed war crimes, but jeez, the South had SLAVES!! Both sides probably committed some gross attrocities. But, really, is there ANY war we can find in which there weren't any War Crimes? I mean, all the way back in history.

So... uh... yeah, what's the point? aioshdpaosdihdpo

 

[slackjawed]

There were southern civilians held at andersonville, one of my family members was killed there because he wouldn't fight. He was from Alabama.
terminology is everything, I still maintain there were no w"war crimes' during the civil war because there were no laws defining it. There were atrocities committed by both sides, but there were no crimes, no law-no crime.
Targeting civilians is still common in wars. We (the usa) were carpet bombing europe during wwii, there were no laws against it until 1949. It wasn't a crime. The when the treaty was signed, it still happens because the perpetrator can claim there are military targets in civilian areas and 'not violate the international law' concerning bombing civilians.
Read that treaty, you can find it on wiki as well as other places. As long as the bombing country "has sufficient reason to suspect" there are military targets, they do not violate the treaty by bombing, even if it turns out there is nothing but civilians there.

The civil war was prosecuted according to the the laws in force at the time and the 'standard practices' at the time.
While it is educational to study history, and attempt to learn from it and make things better for humanity as a whole, it serves no purpose to rewrite history. That's what the Soviet Union attempted to do (as well as others). Once the government failed, and the real historians started to examine the revisionist history that the soviets had distributed, they realized that one of the oldest and culture rich areas in the world had lost the common memory of the real events. One could say that this part of the world lost a good deal of their common identity.
The civil war was a time when many attrocities against civilians and soldiers were committed. The fact of the matter is while these were atrocities, they simply were not crimes. Governments define crimes by passing laws, there were no, therefore no crimes.
The famous quote from gen. Sherman was made during a conversation with Lincoln and other military higher ups. Lincoln was questioning him about the actions of his men before they took Atlanta, but after they took Nashville and Chattanooga, Tn and London, KY. The battle of london was especially brutal, and the stories about soldiers on both sides not only killing , but raping and torturing civilians on both sides. Specifically, this was the event that Lincoln was asking Sherman about, they were under his command. His response "War is Hell." was repeated by the leaders on both sides as a rationalization for the cruelity and destruction.
It should be noted that this rationalization is still being used today.
Just because we have laws about these things today, doesn't mean these things were illegal in the past. That is attempting to create a revisionist history. That in itself is a crime against humanity, a group or especially a government rewriting history to their own ends is indeed a crime against humanity as defined in international treaties in the 1980's.
I love to discuss history with most anyone, but I lose patience real quick with those that make up facts and try to rewrite history. Now, that being said, there is always more than one point of view, even about past events, that's different than trying to rewrite history.
Claiming there were "war crimes" during the American Civil war is attempting to recreate your own version of history due to the historical fact that no laws defining these actions as crimes existed.
It is accurate to say that atrocities were committed during the war.
As for Lincoln being dishonest Abe or a cruel man, I personally do not think that is true.
I point to his pressuring Jefferson Davis to allow a truce on during the battle of Lookout Mountain. Did you know that because of the pressure, and the concern by both davis and lincoln over the growing number of deserters on both sides. The men stooped the fighting at midnite, and set up tables and ate together, played games and socialized with each other. At the stroke of the bell at the next midnight, the shooting started all over again.

This thinking is further demonstrated after the civil war in the actions taken by the USA during the "indian wars". A lot of the same generals that fought in the civil war were generals during the indian wars. (Crook, Custer, Miles, Buchannon, and yes even W.T. Sherman. ) At about the same time, (slightly earlier) Europe was experiencing the Crimean war, a conflict even more brutal and barbaric than the US Civil war. The treatment of prisoners during the civil war and the crimean war provided the impetus for the world to create treaties(and laws) to define certains actions as war crimes. Prior to that, these actions may have been deplorable, but they simply were not crimes.
When I lived in the Bay area in 1965, i legally bought LSD. It was not illegal. It was not a controlled substance. I was legal until 1966. Did I commit crimes in 1965? Of course not, there was no law defining buying lsd as a crime until 1966. If i bought it after that, then it was crime.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do I or any of YOU doubt that War crimes happened duing EVERY WAR that Americans EVER fought?​

I surely don't.

​

[/FONT]

I have no doubts, war is another form of accepted and state sanctioned murder.

As to your question why the outrage is limited to this war, it's certainly not. However, too many people have false pre-conceptions about the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, the "moral north," and the "evil south."

Well, I think the preconceptions come about just because the north was abolishing slavery and the south wanted to continue it... and Slavery = Evil. Regardless of the motives or actions, wouldn't you say that's the key things that shapes the perception?

As for War Crimes... well, yeah, isn't that basically a given? I've no doubt either that the North committed war crimes, but jeez, the South had SLAVES!! Both sides probably committed some gross attrocities. But, really, is there ANY war we can find in which there weren't any War Crimes? I mean, all the way back in history.

So... uh... yeah, what's the point? aioshdpaosdihdpo

The problem with that line of thinking is that the north wasn't abolishing slavery. An amendment was in the process of being passed that would have made slavery a permanent fixture where it already existed, and Lincoln supported this amendment. Also, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave because it only applied to the Confederate States where Lincoln had no jurisdiction. No slaves were freed in the five border states or anywhere the Union troops had taken over in the Confederacy.

Lincoln waged his war against the south for the sole purpose of forcing them back into the Union so that they could pay their taxes and tariffs. In his first Inaugural Address he stated that he wouldn't resort to warfare so long as the seceded states continued paying tribute to the Union.

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." - Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

As to why I made this thread, to discuss the war crimes committed during the Civil War or the War for Southern Independence as I prefer to call it. This is the history forum so it seems appropriate to discuss history, especially since so many are under the delusion that Lincoln was a great President and that the northern states were fighting the evil south to end slavery.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There were southern civilians held at andersonville, one of my family members was killed there because he wouldn't fight. He was from Alabama.
terminology is everything, I still maintain there were no w"war crimes' during the civil war because there were no laws defining it. There were atrocities committed by both sides, but there were no crimes, no law-no crime.
Targeting civilians is still common in wars. We (the usa) were carpet bombing europe during wwii, there were no laws against it until 1949. It wasn't a crime. The when the treaty was signed, it still happens because the perpetrator can claim there are military targets in civilian areas and 'not violate the international law' concerning bombing civilians.
Read that treaty, you can find it on wiki as well as other places. As long as the bombing country "has sufficient reason to suspect" there are military targets, they do not violate the treaty by bombing, even if it turns out there is nothing but civilians there.

The civil war was prosecuted according to the the laws in force at the time and the 'standard practices' at the time.
While it is educational to study history, and attempt to learn from it and make things better for humanity as a whole, it serves no purpose to rewrite history. That's what the Soviet Union attempted to do (as well as others). Once the government failed, and the real historians started to examine the revisionist history that the soviets had distributed, they realized that one of the oldest and culture rich areas in the world had lost the common memory of the real events. One could say that this part of the world lost a good deal of their common identity.
The civil war was a time when many attrocities against civilians and soldiers were committed. The fact of the matter is while these were atrocities, they simply were not crimes. Governments define crimes by passing laws, there were no, therefore no crimes.
The famous quote from gen. Sherman was made during a conversation with Lincoln and other military higher ups. Lincoln was questioning him about the actions of his men before they took Atlanta, but after they took Nashville and Chattanooga, Tn and London, KY. The battle of london was especially brutal, and the stories about soldiers on both sides not only killing , but raping and torturing civilians on both sides. Specifically, this was the event that Lincoln was asking Sherman about, they were under his command. His response "War is Hell." was repeated by the leaders on both sides as a rationalization for the cruelity and destruction.
It should be noted that this rationalization is still being used today.
Just because we have laws about these things today, doesn't mean these things were illegal in the past. That is attempting to create a revisionist history. That in itself is a crime against humanity, a group or especially a government rewriting history to their own ends is indeed a crime against humanity as defined in international treaties in the 1980's.
I love to discuss history with most anyone, but I lose patience real quick with those that make up facts and try to rewrite history. Now, that being said, there is always more than one point of view, even about past events, that's different than trying to rewrite history.
Claiming there were "war crimes" during the American Civil war is attempting to recreate your own version of history due to the historical fact that no laws defining these actions as crimes existed.
It is accurate to say that atrocities were committed during the war.
As for Lincoln being dishonest Abe or a cruel man, I personally do not think that is true.
I point to his pressuring Jefferson Davis to allow a truce on during the battle of Lookout Mountain. Did you know that because of the pressure, and the concern by both davis and lincoln over the growing number of deserters on both sides. The men stooped the fighting at midnite, and set up tables and ate together, played games and socialized with each other. At the stroke of the bell at the next midnight, the shooting started all over again.

This thinking is further demonstrated after the civil war in the actions taken by the USA during the "indian wars". A lot of the same generals that fought in the civil war were generals during the indian wars. (Crook, Custer, Miles, Buchannon, and yes even W.T. Sherman. ) At about the same time, (slightly earlier) Europe was experiencing the Crimean war, a conflict even more brutal and barbaric than the US Civil war. The treatment of prisoners during the civil war and the crimean war provided the impetus for the world to create treaties(and laws) to define certains actions as war crimes. Prior to that, these actions may have been deplorable, but they simply were not crimes.
When I lived in the Bay area in 1965, i legally bought LSD. It was not illegal. It was not a controlled substance. I was legal until 1966. Did I commit crimes in 1965? Of course not, there was no law defining buying lsd as a crime until 1966. If i bought it after that, then it was crime.

Murder, rape, theft, and destruction of private property are all crimes, unless, as Voltaire stated and you seem to be re-affirming, it is done "to the sound of trumpets."

Sherman himself admitted that he should be hanged for the crimes he committed under the code he learned at West Point.

I've never heard of this event on Lookout Mountain taking place, and it doesn't fit Lincoln's policy of not recognizing the legitimacy of the Confederate States or their President, Jefferson Davis. I'll need to see some sources for this.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I have no doubts, war is another form of accepted and state sanctioned murder.

As to your question why the outrage is limited to this war, it's certainly not. However, too many people have false pre-conceptions about the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, the "moral north," and the "evil south."

Well, I think the preconceptions come about just because the north was abolishing slavery and the south wanted to continue it... and Slavery = Evil. Regardless of the motives or actions, wouldn't you say that's the key things that shapes the perception?

As for War Crimes... well, yeah, isn't that basically a given? I've no doubt either that the North committed war crimes, but jeez, the South had SLAVES!! Both sides probably committed some gross attrocities. But, really, is there ANY war we can find in which there weren't any War Crimes? I mean, all the way back in history.

So... uh... yeah, what's the point? aioshdpaosdihdpo

The problem with that line of thinking is that the north wasn't abolishing slavery. An amendment was in the process of being passed that would have made slavery a permanent fixture where it already existed, and Lincoln supported this amendment. Also, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave because it only applied to the Confederate States where Lincoln had no jurisdiction. No slaves were freed in the five border states or anywhere the Union troops had taken over in the Confederacy.

Lincoln waged his war against the south for the sole purpose of forcing them back into the Union so that they could pay their taxes and tariffs. In his first Inaugural Address he stated that he wouldn't resort to warfare so long as the seceded states continued paying tribute to the Union.

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." - Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

As to why I made this thread, to discuss the war crimes committed during the Civil War or the War for Southern Independence as I prefer to call it. This is the history forum so it seems appropriate to discuss history, especially since so many are under the delusion that Lincoln was a great President and that the northern states were fighting the evil south to end slavery.

Well, yeah, yeah, I didn't mean that the North was abolishing slavery or that it was fighting to abolish it, I'm saying that in the North were "Free States" and the South were "Slave States". What I mean is, just pretending for a second this has nothing to do with the US, if there's a war between State A and State B and State A is a slave state and State B is a non-slave state, I would think that most people (or me, anyways) would tend to side with State B, all other things being equal.

And yeah, posting this in the history forum seems very appropriate, I just hadn't noticed cuz I usually just go into them straight from "new posts". ASOIDHAPDSOISHDAPDOI.

That said, jeez, regardless of whether it was right or wrong thank God you guys lost! From a Central American perspective, the US Civil War should probably be considered a definitive point in our history as well, because it's pretty clear what would've happened if the South had won: To hell with "Manifest Destiny", the new frontier was Cuba on one side and Panama on the other. The only piece of military "folklore" in my country is from only 5 years before the Civil War, when bastard filibuster William Walker tried to seize Central America to turn into some sort of Slaving empire; no doubt more would've come had the South won- there was nowhere else to go but south. We would've seen a gigantic slave state stretching from Virginia to South America- who knows what would've happened to us, but thankfully we sent that gringo dog back to the hole he crawled out of!!

[/Nationalist rant]

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, I think the preconceptions come about just because the north was abolishing slavery and the south wanted to continue it... and Slavery = Evil. Regardless of the motives or actions, wouldn't you say that's the key things that shapes the perception?

As for War Crimes... well, yeah, isn't that basically a given? I've no doubt either that the North committed war crimes, but jeez, the South had SLAVES!! Both sides probably committed some gross attrocities. But, really, is there ANY war we can find in which there weren't any War Crimes? I mean, all the way back in history.

So... uh... yeah, what's the point? aioshdpaosdihdpo

The problem with that line of thinking is that the north wasn't abolishing slavery. An amendment was in the process of being passed that would have made slavery a permanent fixture where it already existed, and Lincoln supported this amendment. Also, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave because it only applied to the Confederate States where Lincoln had no jurisdiction. No slaves were freed in the five border states or anywhere the Union troops had taken over in the Confederacy.

Lincoln waged his war against the south for the sole purpose of forcing them back into the Union so that they could pay their taxes and tariffs. In his first Inaugural Address he stated that he wouldn't resort to warfare so long as the seceded states continued paying tribute to the Union.

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." - Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

As to why I made this thread, to discuss the war crimes committed during the Civil War or the War for Southern Independence as I prefer to call it. This is the history forum so it seems appropriate to discuss history, especially since so many are under the delusion that Lincoln was a great President and that the northern states were fighting the evil south to end slavery.

Well, yeah, yeah, I didn't mean that the North was abolishing slavery or that it was fighting to abolish it, I'm saying that in the North were "Free States" and the South were "Slave States". What I mean is, just pretending for a second this has nothing to do with the US, if there's a war between State A and State B and State A is a slave state and State B is a non-slave state, I would think that most people (or me, anyways) would tend to side with State B, all other things being equal.

And yeah, posting this in the history forum seems very appropriate, I just hadn't noticed cuz I usually just go into them straight from "new posts". ASOIDHAPDSOISHDAPDOI.

That said, jeez, regardless of whether it was right or wrong thank God you guys lost! From a Central American perspective, the US Civil War should probably be considered a definitive point in our history as well, because it's pretty clear what would've happened if the South had won: To hell with "Manifest Destiny", the new frontier was Cuba on one side and Panama on the other. The only piece of military "folklore" in my country is from only 5 years before the Civil War, when bastard filibuster William Walker tried to seize Central America to turn into some sort of Slaving empire; no doubt more would've come had the South won- there was nowhere else to go but south. We would've seen a gigantic slave state stretching from Virginia to South America- who knows what would've happened to us, but thankfully we sent that gringo dog back to the hole he crawled out of!!

[/Nationalist rant]

Well when you say "you guys lost," I'm not part of the south. I'm from Ohio.

Your analogy about State A being free and State B being a slave state is missing one key fact, State A would gladly settle the war simply to bring State B back into a Union regardless of the issue of slavery. State A, despite being a free state, is not interested in bringing freedom to the slaves in State B. Therefore, we have to look at it from an angle of do we agree that State B has the right to leave the Union with State A, which I believe 100% that they do.

 

[Shogun]

"Killing innocent civilians remains a war crime regardless of how you want to spin it."

Your right, it's been a crime since 1949.....

Well, I hate to bring it up, but under that thinking any Jews killed by Nazis during WW2 must have simply been casualties of war and it wasn't really a tragedy. Right?

oh no you di'in't go there!




Interesting topic, dude!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"Killing innocent civilians remains a war crime regardless of how you want to spin it."

Your right, it's been a crime since 1949.....

Well, I hate to bring it up, but under that thinking any Jews killed by Nazis during WW2 must have simply been casualties of war and it wasn't really a tragedy. Right?

oh no you di'in't go there!




Interesting topic, dude!

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but thanks I guess.

 

[Cary]

Very detailed post Cary, and you're correct that it was slave-women that were in the majority of those raped by Union soldiers. My only question is why do you describe Prof. DiLorenzo's portrayal of Lincoln as "derogatory?" In my opinion DiLorenzo's "portrayal" of Lincoln is extremely accurate.

Thank you for responding to my post Kevin. I must confess that most of what I know about Dr Dilorenzo is from debating or arguing with fellow Southerners about President Lincoln. Many of these folks harbor and speak deep "Lost Cause" sentiments and propaganda. Did Lincoln twist the US Constituion like a pretzel? He sure did. Did Lincoln break the law by violating the first amendment and jailing those who spoke out against him and in support of the Confederacy. You bet he did. Keeping the state of Maryland in the Union wasn't easy and Lincoln definitely cracked a dozen eggs preparing that omelet.

Still knowing that I hold Lincoln in high regard. I say this because I have tried very hard to put myself in Lincoln's place with his driven end goal of holding the nation together. I have read about and appreciate him by playing a simulated strategy game of what would I have done and I answer myself by saying anything necessary and anything that worked was necessary. I also have not uncovered evidence that Lincoln was vindictive nor driven by a blood lust. To the contrary I believe that man lived four years of hell in the WH. Lincoln's hell was losing a child while in office, being married to a mentally unstable wife, and suffering blowhard, prima donna, incompetant, Generals and a lengthy chain of defeats especially in the Eastern theatre thanks to General Robert E. Lee and his awesome Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.

It is my opinion that the most costly shot fired during the entire war was the one fired by JWB at Ford's theatre. I believe had Lincoln survived the war he would have prevailed over the post war "bloody shirt" republicans and greatly softened the hard blow of reconstruction in the South. The ACW was not what the "Lost Cause" crowd preaches and it definitely wasn't the "Noble North fighting the Evil South to free the slaves" either. Another belief I hold is that Lincoln struggled with guilt for the war breaking out on his watch.

Look at Lincoln's public call for volunteers to put down "the rebellion". All he accomplished was to enlarge and intensify military mobilization in the CSA as the upper South seceded shortly after. No wonder Lincoln was desperate in holding on to Maryland and the border states. Another thing about Lincoln that is the epitome of irony especially if compared to todays poll driven political scene is that Lincoln's best popularity enhancing move was getting assassinated. The man was viciously attacked and called a bumpkin, an ape, and other less than flattering things and those insult throwers were Northerners not Confederates.

I would also like to address anyone who refers to the CSA as traitors. My ancestors were no more traitors than the Americans who fought 80 some years before them in what is called the Revolutionary War. I say that was the first American Civil War in that one third of Americans fought for independance from English rule another third was loyalist or blatantly opportunistic at best and yet another just wanted to move West and get away from everything. It seems a war is called a Revolution when it is successful in the event it isn't successful then it is labled a rebellion.

Respectfully

Cary

 

[mash107]

The problem with that line of thinking is that the north wasn't abolishing slavery. An amendment was in the process of being passed that would have made slavery a permanent fixture where it already existed, and Lincoln supported this amendment. Also, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave because it only applied to the Confederate States where Lincoln had no jurisdiction. No slaves were freed in the five border states or anywhere the Union troops had taken over in the Confederacy.

Lincoln waged his war against the south for the sole purpose of forcing them back into the Union so that they could pay their taxes and tariffs. In his first Inaugural Address he stated that he wouldn't resort to warfare so long as the seceded states continued paying tribute to the Union.

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." - Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

As to why I made this thread, to discuss the war crimes committed during the Civil War or the War for Southern Independence as I prefer to call it. This is the history forum so it seems appropriate to discuss history, especially since so many are under the delusion that Lincoln was a great President and that the northern states were fighting the evil south to end slavery.

Well, yeah, yeah, I didn't mean that the North was abolishing slavery or that it was fighting to abolish it, I'm saying that in the North were "Free States" and the South were "Slave States". What I mean is, just pretending for a second this has nothing to do with the US, if there's a war between State A and State B and State A is a slave state and State B is a non-slave state, I would think that most people (or me, anyways) would tend to side with State B, all other things being equal.

And yeah, posting this in the history forum seems very appropriate, I just hadn't noticed cuz I usually just go into them straight from "new posts". ASOIDHAPDSOISHDAPDOI.

That said, jeez, regardless of whether it was right or wrong thank God you guys lost! From a Central American perspective, the US Civil War should probably be considered a definitive point in our history as well, because it's pretty clear what would've happened if the South had won: To hell with "Manifest Destiny", the new frontier was Cuba on one side and Panama on the other. The only piece of military "folklore" in my country is from only 5 years before the Civil War, when bastard filibuster William Walker tried to seize Central America to turn into some sort of Slaving empire; no doubt more would've come had the South won- there was nowhere else to go but south. We would've seen a gigantic slave state stretching from Virginia to South America- who knows what would've happened to us, but thankfully we sent that gringo dog back to the hole he crawled out of!!

[/Nationalist rant]

Well when you say "you guys lost," I'm not part of the south. I'm from Ohio.

Your analogy about State A being free and State B being a slave state is missing one key fact, State A would gladly settle the war simply to bring State B back into a Union regardless of the issue of slavery. State A, despite being a free state, is not interested in bringing freedom to the slaves in State B. Therefore, we have to look at it from an angle of do we agree that State B has the right to leave the Union with State A, which I believe 100% that they do.

Agreed, which begs the question..

If State A was so adamant about abolishing slavery, why wouldn't they buy all the slaves and free them for a fraction of what war would cost? Like the British did.

Simple answer... they were, obviously, more concerned about member states seceding than freeing any slave. Lincoln did say he would rather the nation be together with slavery than apart without. Now, the question remains... why do States (besides Texas) have a right to secede?

 

[Shogun]

Well, I hate to bring it up, but under that thinking any Jews killed by Nazis during WW2 must have simply been casualties of war and it wasn't really a tragedy. Right?

oh no you di'in't go there!




Interesting topic, dude!

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but thanks I guess.

I have to say.. I was quite entertained to see the mention of the holocaust. Other than that, this is an interesting thread topic. kudos.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, yeah, yeah, I didn't mean that the North was abolishing slavery or that it was fighting to abolish it, I'm saying that in the North were "Free States" and the South were "Slave States". What I mean is, just pretending for a second this has nothing to do with the US, if there's a war between State A and State B and State A is a slave state and State B is a non-slave state, I would think that most people (or me, anyways) would tend to side with State B, all other things being equal.

And yeah, posting this in the history forum seems very appropriate, I just hadn't noticed cuz I usually just go into them straight from "new posts". ASOIDHAPDSOISHDAPDOI.

That said, jeez, regardless of whether it was right or wrong thank God you guys lost! From a Central American perspective, the US Civil War should probably be considered a definitive point in our history as well, because it's pretty clear what would've happened if the South had won: To hell with "Manifest Destiny", the new frontier was Cuba on one side and Panama on the other. The only piece of military "folklore" in my country is from only 5 years before the Civil War, when bastard filibuster William Walker tried to seize Central America to turn into some sort of Slaving empire; no doubt more would've come had the South won- there was nowhere else to go but south. We would've seen a gigantic slave state stretching from Virginia to South America- who knows what would've happened to us, but thankfully we sent that gringo dog back to the hole he crawled out of!!

[/Nationalist rant]

Well when you say "you guys lost," I'm not part of the south. I'm from Ohio.

Your analogy about State A being free and State B being a slave state is missing one key fact, State A would gladly settle the war simply to bring State B back into a Union regardless of the issue of slavery. State A, despite being a free state, is not interested in bringing freedom to the slaves in State B. Therefore, we have to look at it from an angle of do we agree that State B has the right to leave the Union with State A, which I believe 100% that they do.

Agreed, which begs the question..

If State A was so adamant about abolishing slavery, why wouldn't they buy all the slaves and free them for a fraction of what war would cost? Like the British did.

Simple answer... they were, obviously, more concerned about member states seceding than freeing any slave. Lincoln did say he would rather the nation be together with slavery than apart without. Now, the question remains... why do States (besides Texas) have a right to secede?

States have a right to secede because they were the ones who created the federal government as their agent, and willingly joined the Union when adopting the Constitution when they didn't have to. North Carolina and Rhode Island were the last two states to adopt the Constitution, and until they did so they were independent of the established Union because it only took the ratification of nine states to make the new federal government official. On top of that, upon ratifying the Constitution New York, Virginia, and I believe Rhode Island all explicitly retained the right to leave the compact should it become destructive towards their sovereignty and liberty.

“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.” – John Quincy Adams

“Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” – Thomas Jefferson

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Very detailed post Cary, and you're correct that it was slave-women that were in the majority of those raped by Union soldiers. My only question is why do you describe Prof. DiLorenzo's portrayal of Lincoln as "derogatory?" In my opinion DiLorenzo's "portrayal" of Lincoln is extremely accurate.

Thank you for responding to my post Kevin. I must confess that most of what I know about Dr Dilorenzo is from debating or arguing with fellow Southerners about President Lincoln. Many of these folks harbor and speak deep "Lost Cause" sentiments and propaganda. Did Lincoln twist the US Constituion like a pretzel? He sure did. Did Lincoln break the law by violating the first amendment and jailing those who spoke out against him and in support of the Confederacy. You bet he did. Keeping the state of Maryland in the Union wasn't easy and Lincoln definitely cracked a dozen eggs preparing that omelet.

Still knowing that I hold Lincoln in high regard. I say this because I have tried very hard to put myself in Lincoln's place with his driven end goal of holding the nation together. I have read about and appreciate him by playing a simulated strategy game of what would I have done and I answer myself by saying anything necessary and anything that worked was necessary. I also have not uncovered evidence that Lincoln was vindictive nor driven by a blood lust. To the contrary I believe that man lived four years of hell in the WH. Lincoln's hell was losing a child while in office, being married to a mentally unstable wife, and suffering blowhard, prima donna, incompetant, Generals and a lengthy chain of defeats especially in the Eastern theatre thanks to General Robert E. Lee and his awesome Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.

It is my opinion that the most costly shot fired during the entire war was the one fired by JWB at Ford's theatre. I believe had Lincoln survived the war he would have prevailed over the post war "bloody shirt" republicans and greatly softened the hard blow of reconstruction in the South. The ACW was not what the "Lost Cause" crowd preaches and it definitely wasn't the "Noble North fighting the Evil South to free the slaves" either. Another belief I hold is that Lincoln struggled with guilt for the war breaking out on his watch.

Look at Lincoln's public call for volunteers to put down "the rebellion". All he accomplished was to enlarge and intensify military mobilization in the CSA as the upper South seceded shortly after. No wonder Lincoln was desperate in holding on to Maryland and the border states. Another thing about Lincoln that is the epitome of irony especially if compared to todays poll driven political scene is that Lincoln's best popularity enhancing move was getting assassinated. The man was viciously attacked and called a bumpkin, an ape, and other less than flattering things and those insult throwers were Northerners not Confederates.

I would also like to address anyone who refers to the CSA as traitors. My ancestors were no more traitors than the Americans who fought 80 some years before them in what is called the Revolutionary War. I say that was the first American Civil War in that one third of Americans fought for independance from English rule another third was loyalist or blatantly opportunistic at best and yet another just wanted to move West and get away from everything. It seems a war is called a Revolution when it is successful in the event it isn't successful then it is labled a rebellion.

Respectfully

Cary

It seems that you do not see secession as legitimate power of the individual states?

As to Lincoln not being "vindictive" or "driven by a blood lust," Lincoln has been praised by many for his extreme micro-management of the war. This leads me to believe that he very clearly understood what was happening between his troops and southern civilians and slaves, and that he condoned every bit of it so that he could force the south back into the Union to pay their tribute to the federal government. His intent was to utterly destroy the south, and he succeeded.

Though I do agree that he probably would have been a more powerful check against the "Radical Republicans" than was Andrew Johnson during the Reconstruction period.

 

[mightypeon]

Considering War crime less wars:

The German Danish (1864) war and the Prussia Austrian War (1868) before the German unification could be examples for that.

The Danish war was between "internationally recogniced" opponents, it was fairly one sided, short and neither side had any interest in starting Terror tactics.
Also, neither side was going all out, it was a limited war over some piece of real estate. Defeat would not mean the end of the world for either warfaring party (although the Prusso-Austrian alliance would have become the laughingstock of the world had the Danes defeated them).

The Prussian Austrian war was over a political question (and a lot of real estate, but that was during the negotiations), there was a big battle and then it was more or less over.

 

[Cary]

Very detailed post Cary, and you're correct that it was slave-women that were in the majority of those raped by Union soldiers. My only question is why do you describe Prof. DiLorenzo's portrayal of Lincoln as "derogatory?" In my opinion DiLorenzo's "portrayal" of Lincoln is extremely accurate.

Thank you for responding to my post Kevin. I must confess that most of what I know about Dr Dilorenzo is from debating or arguing with fellow Southerners about President Lincoln. Many of these folks harbor and speak deep "Lost Cause" sentiments and propaganda. Did Lincoln twist the US Constituion like a pretzel? He sure did. Did Lincoln break the law by violating the first amendment and jailing those who spoke out against him and in support of the Confederacy. You bet he did. Keeping the state of Maryland in the Union wasn't easy and Lincoln definitely cracked a dozen eggs preparing that omelet.

Still knowing that I hold Lincoln in high regard. I say this because I have tried very hard to put myself in Lincoln's place with his driven end goal of holding the nation together. I have read about and appreciate him by playing a simulated strategy game of what would I have done and I answer myself by saying anything necessary and anything that worked was necessary. I also have not uncovered evidence that Lincoln was vindictive nor driven by a blood lust. To the contrary I believe that man lived four years of hell in the WH. Lincoln's hell was losing a child while in office, being married to a mentally unstable wife, and suffering blowhard, prima donna, incompetant, Generals and a lengthy chain of defeats especially in the Eastern theatre thanks to General Robert E. Lee and his awesome Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.

It is my opinion that the most costly shot fired during the entire war was the one fired by JWB at Ford's theatre. I believe had Lincoln survived the war he would have prevailed over the post war "bloody shirt" republicans and greatly softened the hard blow of reconstruction in the South. The ACW was not what the "Lost Cause" crowd preaches and it definitely wasn't the "Noble North fighting the Evil South to free the slaves" either. Another belief I hold is that Lincoln struggled with guilt for the war breaking out on his watch.

Look at Lincoln's public call for volunteers to put down "the rebellion". All he accomplished was to enlarge and intensify military mobilization in the CSA as the upper South seceded shortly after. No wonder Lincoln was desperate in holding on to Maryland and the border states. Another thing about Lincoln that is the epitome of irony especially if compared to todays poll driven political scene is that Lincoln's best popularity enhancing move was getting assassinated. The man was viciously attacked and called a bumpkin, an ape, and other less than flattering things and those insult throwers were Northerners not Confederates.

I would also like to address anyone who refers to the CSA as traitors. My ancestors were no more traitors than the Americans who fought 80 some years before them in what is called the Revolutionary War. I say that was the first American Civil War in that one third of Americans fought for independance from English rule another third was loyalist or blatantly opportunistic at best and yet another just wanted to move West and get away from everything. It seems a war is called a Revolution when it is successful in the event it isn't successful then it is labled a rebellion.

Respectfully

Cary

It seems that you do not see secession as legitimate power of the individual states?

As to Lincoln not being "vindictive" or "driven by a blood lust," Lincoln has been praised by many for his extreme micro-management of the war. This leads me to believe that he very clearly understood what was happening between his troops and southern civilians and slaves, and that he condoned every bit of it so that he could force the south back into the Union to pay their tribute to the federal government. His intent was to utterly destroy the south, and he succeeded.

Though I do agree that he probably would have been a more powerful check against the "Radical Republicans" than was Andrew Johnson during the Reconstruction period.

Kevin first off I do not believe the nation would have been better served in the long run by splitting up. One of the things I used to do with friends who shared my passion for history is play alternative history speculation, in other words trying to predict the past had the South won Independance but that is getting off topic. That said that I am fiercely proud of my Confederate ancestors and their fight for Southern Independance. Arguing or debating the legality of any state or region to establish their own soverign state ignores human nature and the history of human events IMO.

If the majority of people in any state or region who feel abused, oppressed, or severely neglected by whatever Union, central government or greater state of which they happen to belong speech, action, work, and even revolution aimed toward Independance is going to occur. I believe this is even mentioned in one of the founding documents of the original 13 states but my less than perfect memory can't cite specifics at the moment. Secession never got its day in court and I do not regard the case of I believe it was White vs the USA in Texas shortly after the war as anything other than a rubber stamp the victors claiming hard won spoils by force of arms. My less than perfect memory says the judges in that case disallowed the plantiff by saying Texas had never left the Union.

Isn't that ruling conveniant and if that was so how come the former Confederate states were re-admitted to the Union post war? I ask how can a state be readmitted if it never left? The Federals had Jefferson Davis imprisoned after the war and Davis would have welcomed he and secession having their day in court but somehow the Feds wanted to let that sleeping dog lie undisturbed. Kevin you appear to be very well read so you know all Confederates were not pro secession.

By the way I love the three quotes you use as your signature especially Voltaire's about murder. Oh and have you ever read anything about Lincoln ignoring, condoning, or visiting Camp Douglass or Pt. Lookout during the war?

Respectfully

Cary

 

[Toro]

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.

Would you apply the same standards to the slaughter of American natives by white Americans? How about to the American allies funded by the United States in America who have killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Latin America? Was slavery in the south a crime against humanity?

 

[Cary]

Well when you say "you guys lost," I'm not part of the south. I'm from Ohio.

Your analogy about State A being free and State B being a slave state is missing one key fact, State A would gladly settle the war simply to bring State B back into a Union regardless of the issue of slavery. State A, despite being a free state, is not interested in bringing freedom to the slaves in State B. Therefore, we have to look at it from an angle of do we agree that State B has the right to leave the Union with State A, which I believe 100% that they do.

Agreed, which begs the question..

If State A was so adamant about abolishing slavery, why wouldn't they buy all the slaves and free them for a fraction of what war would cost? Like the British did.

Simple answer... they were, obviously, more concerned about member states seceding than freeing any slave. Lincoln did say he would rather the nation be together with slavery than apart without. Now, the question remains... why do States (besides Texas) have a right to secede?

States have a right to secede because they were the ones who created the federal government as their agent, and willingly joined the Union when adopting the Constitution when they didn't have to. North Carolina and Rhode Island were the last two states to adopt the Constitution, and until they did so they were independent of the established Union because it only took the ratification of nine states to make the new federal government official. On top of that, upon ratifying the Constitution New York, Virginia, and I believe Rhode Island all explicitly retained the right to leave the compact should it become destructive towards their sovereignty and liberty.

“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.” – John Quincy Adams

“Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” – Thomas Jefferson

Interesting post Kevin thank you for sharing those quotes. However the founding fathers disagreed often and strongly. Washington for one was a huge supporter of a strong central government. I support states rights but in reality states rights didn't exactly serve the CSA well.

I know you read about Confederate state governors like I believe it was Brown from Georgia threatening to withold stores such as uniforms from being sent to the Army of Northern Virginia (ANV) unless they sent all troops from Georgia home to repel the Union Army from the state of Georgia. Longstreet was sent to Georgia to reinforce the Confederate Army of Tennesse and they did just that for a short time when they defeated the Federals at Chickamauga and chased them back to Chattanooga.

Respectfully

Cary

 

[GHook93]

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

War is hell what is your point! In every conflict civilian casualties are unavoidable, especially when both the sides are close to each other in military strength!

 

[GHook93]

So again what is your point as a Ron Paul supporter are you going to agree with him that we shouldn't have fought the civil war?

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Thank you for responding to my post Kevin. I must confess that most of what I know about Dr Dilorenzo is from debating or arguing with fellow Southerners about President Lincoln. Many of these folks harbor and speak deep "Lost Cause" sentiments and propaganda. Did Lincoln twist the US Constituion like a pretzel? He sure did. Did Lincoln break the law by violating the first amendment and jailing those who spoke out against him and in support of the Confederacy. You bet he did. Keeping the state of Maryland in the Union wasn't easy and Lincoln definitely cracked a dozen eggs preparing that omelet.

Still knowing that I hold Lincoln in high regard. I say this because I have tried very hard to put myself in Lincoln's place with his driven end goal of holding the nation together. I have read about and appreciate him by playing a simulated strategy game of what would I have done and I answer myself by saying anything necessary and anything that worked was necessary. I also have not uncovered evidence that Lincoln was vindictive nor driven by a blood lust. To the contrary I believe that man lived four years of hell in the WH. Lincoln's hell was losing a child while in office, being married to a mentally unstable wife, and suffering blowhard, prima donna, incompetant, Generals and a lengthy chain of defeats especially in the Eastern theatre thanks to General Robert E. Lee and his awesome Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.

It is my opinion that the most costly shot fired during the entire war was the one fired by JWB at Ford's theatre. I believe had Lincoln survived the war he would have prevailed over the post war "bloody shirt" republicans and greatly softened the hard blow of reconstruction in the South. The ACW was not what the "Lost Cause" crowd preaches and it definitely wasn't the "Noble North fighting the Evil South to free the slaves" either. Another belief I hold is that Lincoln struggled with guilt for the war breaking out on his watch.

Look at Lincoln's public call for volunteers to put down "the rebellion". All he accomplished was to enlarge and intensify military mobilization in the CSA as the upper South seceded shortly after. No wonder Lincoln was desperate in holding on to Maryland and the border states. Another thing about Lincoln that is the epitome of irony especially if compared to todays poll driven political scene is that Lincoln's best popularity enhancing move was getting assassinated. The man was viciously attacked and called a bumpkin, an ape, and other less than flattering things and those insult throwers were Northerners not Confederates.

I would also like to address anyone who refers to the CSA as traitors. My ancestors were no more traitors than the Americans who fought 80 some years before them in what is called the Revolutionary War. I say that was the first American Civil War in that one third of Americans fought for independance from English rule another third was loyalist or blatantly opportunistic at best and yet another just wanted to move West and get away from everything. It seems a war is called a Revolution when it is successful in the event it isn't successful then it is labled a rebellion.

Respectfully

Cary

It seems that you do not see secession as legitimate power of the individual states?

As to Lincoln not being "vindictive" or "driven by a blood lust," Lincoln has been praised by many for his extreme micro-management of the war. This leads me to believe that he very clearly understood what was happening between his troops and southern civilians and slaves, and that he condoned every bit of it so that he could force the south back into the Union to pay their tribute to the federal government. His intent was to utterly destroy the south, and he succeeded.

Though I do agree that he probably would have been a more powerful check against the "Radical Republicans" than was Andrew Johnson during the Reconstruction period.

Kevin first off I do not believe the nation would have been better served in the long run by splitting up. One of the things I used to do with friends who shared my passion for history is play alternative history speculation, in other words trying to predict the past had the South won Independance but that is getting off topic. That said that I am fiercely proud of my Confederate ancestors and their fight for Southern Independance. Arguing or debating the legality of any state or region to establish their own soverign state ignores human nature and the history of human events IMO.

If the majority of people in any state or region who feel abused, oppressed, or severely neglected by whatever Union, central government or greater state of which they happen to belong speech, action, work, and even revolution aimed toward Independance is going to occur. I believe this is even mentioned in one of the founding documents of the original 13 states but my less than perfect memory can't cite specifics at the moment. Secession never got its day in court and I do not regard the case of I believe it was White vs the USA in Texas shortly after the war as anything other than a rubber stamp the victors claiming hard won spoils by force of arms. My less than perfect memory says the judges in that case disallowed the plantiff by saying Texas had never left the Union.

Isn't that ruling conveniant and if that was so how come the former Confederate states were re-admitted to the Union post war? I ask how can a state be readmitted if it never left? The Federals had Jefferson Davis imprisoned after the war and Davis would have welcomed he and secession having their day in court but somehow the Feds wanted to let that sleeping dog lie undisturbed. Kevin you appear to be very well read so you know all Confederates were not pro secession.

By the way I love the three quotes you use as your signature especially Voltaire's about murder. Oh and have you ever read anything about Lincoln ignoring, condoning, or visiting Camp Douglass or Pt. Lookout during the war?

Respectfully

Cary

As to whether the south would have been better off, who can say for sure? The fact is that I believe in the right of secession, and the Confederacy clearly felt they'd be better off split from the Union. Perhaps they would have found, had they been given the chance, that they were indeed better off within the Union than without and attempted to re-join.

Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that secession is unconstitutional, but I fail to find in the Constitution where secession is prohibited from the states. Also, the 10th amendment reserves the power to the states that which is not forbidden to them or ceded to the federal government.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - 10th Amendment

I am aware that all the Confederates were not pro-secession, Jefferson Davis himself was personally against seceding but went with his first loyalty to his state of Mississippi.

I'm not sure that I've ever read anything about Lincoln acknowledging Camp Douglass or Point Lookout, but it's possible that I simply overlooked something. If you have any information about it I'd certainly be interested in hearing about it.

Thank you for the comments on my signature, I feel the three quotes are all 100% true.