War Crimes During the Civil War

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

Yes, I absolutely would apply the same standards to all of that. Murder is murder, whether it's a private individual or it's sanctioned by the state. Slavery in the south, and slavery in general, was among the worst crimes against humanity.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A discussion I had earlier this morning prompted me to create this thread. During the War for Southern Independence Lincoln and his generals used the strategy of total war to fight the Confederacy. In other words, no southern civilian be they man, woman, or child or any southern slave was safe from northern aggression.

One hundred thirty-six years after General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Americans are still fascinated with the War for Southern Independence. The larger bookstores devote an inordinate amount of shelf space to books about the events and personalities of the war; Ken Burns’s "Civil War" television series and the movie "Gettysburg" were blockbuster hits; dozens of new books on the war are still published every year; and a monthly newspaper, Civil War News, lists literally hundreds of seminars, conferences, reenactments, and memorial events related to the war in all 50 states and the District of Columbia all year long. Indeed, many Northerners are "still fighting the war" in that they organize a political mob whenever anyone attempts to display a Confederate heritage symbol in any public place.

Americans are still fascinated by the war because many of us recognize it as the defining event in American history. Lincoln’s war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the "rewriting" of the Constitution by federal judges, "total war," the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big "problem solver."

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln’s war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln’s war.

Targeting Civilians

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!

So you contend that there was no other choice but for northern troops to murder, rape, and pillage the southern civilians and slaves? I would counter with, if they couldn't win the war without resorting to those extremes then they obviously didn't deserve to win the war, and that there never should have been a war to begin with. Lincoln should have been diplomatic, rather than aggressive.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Absolutely I agree with Ron Paul on that. The Civil War was pointless. If we wanted to free slaves we could have adopted a peaceful way to do so the same way every other civilized country of the time did, and if we wanted to try and preserve the Union then diplomacy would have served our interests better than force.

 

[DamnYankee]

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.

I have held a different opinion on that and have found various legal opinions to back it up. This was written recently, when certain "blue" states were considering the option.

The Argument for a Right of Unilateral Secession: A Pact Among the States

The U.S. Constitution does not expressly recognize or deny a right of secession. Accordingly, the argument for a right of unilateral secession begins (and pretty much ends) with a claim about the very nature of the Constitution.

That document, by the terms of its Article VII, only obtained legal force through the ratification by nine states, and then only in the states so ratifying it. Because the Constitution derived its initial force from the voluntary act of consent by the sovereign states, secessionists argued, a state could voluntarily and unilaterally withdraw its consent from the Union.

In this view, the Constitution is a kind of multilateral treaty, which derives its legal effect from the consent of the sovereign parties to it. Just as sovereign nations can withdraw from a treaty, so too can the sovereign states withdraw from the Union.

The Arguments Against a Right of Unilateral Secession

Most of the arguments against a right of unilateral secession can be found in President Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address of March 1861. But as University of Texas Law Professor Sanford Levinson observes in a recent article in the Tulsa Law Review (and in condensed form in an April 2003 column on this site), Lincoln's case against a unilateral right of secession is hardly airtight.

First, Lincoln asserted that the fundamental law in every national government rejects the idea of its own termination. And indeed, as of 1861, no national constitutions expressly provided for their own dissolution. But this argument does not respond to the secessionists' claim that the U.S. Constitution's Article VII impliedly provided for the possibility of dissolution.

Second, Lincoln denied that the Union was a mere voluntary association--and claimed that even if it were, ordinary principles of contract law would bar unilateral secession. Lincoln noted that while one party can breach a contract, the consent of all parties is required to rescind a contract. But secessionists analogized the Constitution to a treaty, not a contract--on the ground that each state was more like a sovereign nation than a human being. And under treaty law, unilateral rescission is permissible.

Third, Lincoln claimed that the Union was older than the Constitution. In his view, it dated as far back as the Articles of Association of 1774, when the signatory parties were all colonies of England. Lincoln's claim, however, does not respond to the secessionist argument rooted in Article VII; on the secessionists' view, the Constitution implicitly affirmed a right to secede from the Union, regardless of the pre-Constitution character of the Union.

Moreover, experience in the very early days of the Constitution belies Lincoln's assertion. Nationalists frequently claim that the states were never sovereign: As colonies, they were under British dominion, and they declared and won their independence as the United States. Thus, the nationalists opine, there was no time during which any of the states exercised full sovereignty. Yet, as Professor Levinson has noted, that is not entirely true: North Carolina and Rhode Island, which did not ratify the Constitution until after President Washington was inaugurated, were treated by the new national government as essentially foreign sovereigns until they formally accepted the Constitution. That treatment, Levinson argues, and I tend to agree, indicates that all the states were in an important sense sovereign when they entered into the Constitution.

Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.

But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.

The Judgment of War and the Supreme Court: No Right of Unilateral Secession

Perhaps the best argument for Lincoln's view is one that he did not make expressly, but that can fairly be inferred from his general approach: Whatever the status of the states when they entered the Union, they perpetually gave up important attributes of sovereignty in doing so. Among these was--and is--a right of unilateral secession.

In this view, it is significant that Article VII sets out the provision for original ratification, and that Article IV empowers Congress to admit new States, but that no provision of the Constitution authorizes a state to leave the Union. The juxtaposition of what the Constitution says about states entering the Union and what it does not say about them leaving, indicates that the door to the Union swings in but not out.

But this inference is only that, and there was considerable uncertainty about the legality of unilateral secession in the first seven decades following the Constitution's adoption. That uncertainty was put to rest not by the superior strength of the anti-secessionist argument, but by Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox.

The military resolution of the secession question was then given legal force by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1868 case of Texas v. White. The Court ruled there that even Texas--an independent republic before it joined the Union in 1845--had no right to secede. "The Constitution," the Court said, "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."

Does the Constitution Permit Secession by Mutual Agreement?

Texas v. White is settled law. It stands for the proposition that the Constitution prohibits unilateral secession. By implication, Texas v. White also prohibits expulsion of a state that wishes to remain part of the Union. (Expulsion, satirically advanced recently in a column by Mike Thompson, also would seem to run afoul of Article V of the Constitution, which provides "that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.") What does Texas v. White have to say about secession by mutual agreement?

If the Union is truly indestructible, then states cannot secede even if the national government is willing to let them go. Can that be right? Are the states trapped in a permanent marriage that even an amicable divorce cannot end?

There is reason to think that the Supreme Court's "indestructible" formulation in Texas v. White was hyperbole. After all, Article IV makes clear that the states are not indestructible. Congress can, with the approval of the state in question, shatter a state into fragments. That is how Massachusetts divided into what we now call Maine and Massachusetts and also how Virginia became present-day Virginia and West Virginia (although in the latter case, the original Virginia did not approve of the division because most of the state was, at the time, part of the Confederacy).

So if the states are not really indestructible, as the Court in Texas v. White claimed, perhaps the Union isn't indestructible either.

And indeed, the Supreme Court in Texas v. White recognized that secession by mutual agreement stands on a different footing from unilateral secession. After finding against a state's right of unilateral secession, the Court acknowledged an exception for secession "through revolution, or through consent of the States."

Let us put aside the possibility of revolution, for a revolution is the repudiation of the existing legal regime. Presumably, any change at all could be authorized by a successful revolution--in the sense that after the revolution the legal rules that existed under the prior constitution have no further independent force. What about the reference to "consent of the States?"

By What Mechanism Can States Secede Through Mutual Agreement?

Despite their rhetoric about the permanence and indestructibility of the Union, both Lincoln in his First Inaugural, and the Supreme Court in Texas v. White, strongly implied that it would be possible for one or more states to leave the Union with the consent of the Union as a whole.

By what legal mechanism would such secession through mutual agreement be accomplished? The most obvious answer is a statute enacted by Congress. Just as Congress can approve the admission of new states, the argument would go, so it can let old states leave.

Yet lodging the power to approve secession in Congress presents at least two difficulties.


If Congress Alone Approves a Secession Petition, What Counts as Approval?

The first difficulty is a matter of arithmetic.

Suppose that Congress simultaneously received secession petitions from all the blue states, and that the Congressional delegations of these states all supported these petitions. Suppose further that a minority of the Congressional representatives of the red states also supported the petitions. (Their reaction: "Good riddance.") Adding the votes of representatives from the blue states to the votes of representatives from the minority of red states would yield a pro-secession majority in the existing Congress.

But notice what happens if Congress permits secession under these circumstances: Secession will have been allowed even though a majority of the representatives of one of the resulting pieces--the remaining red state rump United States--opposed it. That hardly seems consistent with the notion of secession by mutual agreement.

One might thus conclude that Congress can only approve a secession petition if the controlling bill obtains a majority of the votes of representatives of non-seceding states in both houses of Congress.

But while that solution makes some theoretical sense, it is also, from a constitutional perspective, arbitrary. Why this particular mechanism rather than some other mechanism--such as a national referendum, or a two-thirds (or three-quarters or three-fifths) vote in the existing Congress?

Can Secession Only Be Approved by a Constitutional Amendment?

Once we acknowledge the ad hoc character of any mechanism by which Congress would approve secession petitions, we must confront a deeper conceptual problem: Congress only has the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Yet as we saw in our discussion of unilateral secession, despite granting Congress the power to admit new states, the Constitution says nothing about secession. And under the Tenth Amendment, silence in such matters means there is no federal power: Powers not enumerated "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

How might the states respectively, or the people, act collectively to approve the secession of one or more states? The Constitution sets forth no mechanism to answer this question either, although the process of constitutional amendment would pretty clearly suffice.

Although the Constitution sets forth a number of mechanisms for its own amendment, the same procedure has consistently been used: Proposal of amendments by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. This formula seems well designed to ensure that any secession petition has the backing of the nation as a whole.

Recent Canadian experience is instructive on this last point. In 1998, in the Reference re Secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada held that neither the Constitution of Canada, nor international law, gives Quebec a right to secede unilaterally. Nevertheless, the Court also said that if a secession referendum were to be adopted by the people of Quebec, the national government of Canada would incur a duty to enter into good-faith negotiations toward a secession agreement that would then be adopted by constitutional amendment.

But the notion that secession by mutual agreement in the United States requires a constitutional amendment itself creates conceptual difficulty. A plain reading of the U.S. Constitution makes clear that of course secession can be approved by amendment: The text of Article V purports to make only two provisions of the rest of the Constitution unamendable, and the absence of authority to approve secession is not one of these unamendable features. So if the Supreme Court in Texas v. White thought that secession could only be approved by constitutional amendment, why did the Justices distinguish between unilateral secession and secession by mutual agreement?

In so doing, the Court must have meant to imply that under the existing Constitution, there is some mechanism for secession by mutual agreement. A constitutional amendment, once adopted, could authorize unilateral secession as well secession by mutual agreement. It only made sense for the White Court to distinguish between unilateral secession and secession by mutual agreement on the assumption that the Constitution we have already permits the latter--albeit through a wholly unspecified mechanism.

A Political Question: Why No Court May Ever Rule on Secession

With respect to the possibility of secession by mutual agreement, we are left in much the same position that Americans in the first seven decades of the Union occupied with respect to unilateral secession: We must struggle to interpret the sounds of the Constitution's silence.

That conclusion in turn suggests that no court will likely answer the question--except perhaps in the way that the Supreme Court in Texas v. White gave its retroactive approval to the verdict of the Civil War battlefield.

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held in a 5–3 decision that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DamnYankee]

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

I believe I have found an answer to those questions, Cary, although they are just someone's opinion....

The main rationale for the argument that states could not legally secede was derived from the Articles of Confederation's description of the American Union as perpetual. This, combined with the current Constitution's expressed goal of creating a more perfect Union, suggested that the United States was now more perfectly perpetual. Also cited was the statement in Article Four of the United States Constitution that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." This implies that Texas would always be a state, distinct from its government (since the Constitution refers to a state as having a government rather than being a government). This also suggested that the Constitution could work to ensure states remain intact and to regulate state governments. As the Court wrote, "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." Hence Texas would still be a state even when laws are passed saying it is independent. Such laws would be "absolutely null".

The court did allow some possibility of the divisibility of the Union in the following statement:

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

Justice Grier, in a dissent in which Justices Swayne and Miller joined, denied that Texas remained a state, on the basis not that Texas had successfully seceded but that she had become a "conquered province". Grier cited precedent that a state is defined as an entity with representation in the United States Congress. During the Civil War, Texas had lost that representation. Thus, her status had become more analogous to an Indian tribe than to a state.

Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[editec]

We are, regardless of who are ancestors were, where they came from, all the progeny of people who suffered war CRIMES.

Now as the South?

Certainly, I do not doubt that some civilians were killed.

But that killing civilians was NOT an official policy not even when Sherman killed a few of them.

Had it been the offical policy, then millions of Southerners -- not scores or hundreds or even thousands -- but MILLIONS of them would have been killed.

It would have been easy to do, but it was NOT done.

I find it more than just a little amusing that you sons of the South really expect any of us to be outraged about how the seccionists suffered given how they treated human beings when they owned them.

Seriously are you boys ******* nuts?

You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when your entire society was based on a ******* crime against HUMANITY?!

Go **** yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause to continue owning slaves.

You forefather were ******* monsters.

You're just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers sorry defeated slaver ******* asses.

The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.

Whining ******* crybabies, the lot of yas.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We are, regardless of who are ancestors were, where they came from, all the progeny of people who suffered war CRIMES.

Now as the South?

Certainly, I do not doubt that some civilians were killed.

But that killing civilians was NOT an official policy not even when Sherman killed a few of them.

Had it been the offical policy, then millions of Southerners -- not scores or hundreds or even thousands -- but MILLIONS of them would have been killed.

It would have been easy to do, but it was NOT done.

I find it more than just a little amusing that you sons of the South really expect any of us to be outraged about how the seccionists suffered given how they treated human beings when they owned them.

Seriously are you boys ******* nuts?

You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when your entire society was based on a ******* crime against HUMANITY?!

Go **** yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause to continue owning slaves.

You forefather were ******* monsters.

You're just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers sorry defeated slaver ******* asses.

The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.

Whining ******* crybabies, the lot of yas.

This is an utterly ridiculous post, ed. For one, it wasn't just "a few" southerners that were killed by Sherman, and Sherman wasn't the only Union officer committing crimes. Sheridan comes to mind, and so does Benjamin Butler. And it was Sherman's official policy to kill innocent southerners, by the way. Also, let's not forget the fact that the Union troops also murdered, raped, and pillaged the slaves as well.

The full fury of the abolitionists? Abolitionists were an extreme minority even in the north, what could they have possibly done on their own?

As for the entire society supposedly being based on slavery, utterly ridiculous. Slaves were expensive to buy and expensive to own, only a minority of large plantation owners were able to afford them. A majority of southerners were not slave owners.

A large portion of the officer corps of the USA should have been hanged for crimes against humanity, along with Abraham Lincoln.

The Confederates didn't commit treason ed, the only thing they're guilty of, in respect to secession, is trying to assert the American tradition of self-government.

 

[Cary]

We are, regardless of who are ancestors were, where they came from, all the progeny of people who suffered war CRIMES.

Now as the South?

Certainly, I do not doubt that some civilians were killed.

But that killing civilians was NOT an official policy not even when Sherman killed a few of them.

Had it been the offical policy, then millions of Southerners -- not scores or hundreds or even thousands -- but MILLIONS of them would have been killed.

It would have been easy to do, but it was NOT done.

I find it more than just a little amusing that you sons of the South really expect any of us to be outraged about how the seccionists suffered given how they treated human beings when they owned them.

Seriously are you boys ******* nuts?

You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when your entire society was based on a ******* crime against HUMANITY?!

Go **** yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause to continue owning slaves.

You forefather were ******* monsters.

You're just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers sorry defeated slaver ******* asses.

The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.

Whining ******* crybabies, the lot of yas.

You know it really is sad to encounter an ignorant life form such as yourself. Nothing is so pathetic as a jerk who is proud of his shortcomings and then strives to share their idiotic profanity riddled rants with others as if stupidity would be value added if shared with others. What you don't know about history would exceed the capacity of many hard drives.

Best of luck in all your future thought processes.

 

[hopner33]

Kevin, why do you care so much about dispelling the myth of Lincoln and questioning parts of the Civil War?

Do you just want to educate people on inaccuracies, or is it more of a critique on what goes on today in America?

I am trying to figure out why the Civil War, and good old Abe, is still such a hot button issue in America, and why people are constantly trying to discover "the man" behind the myth. So, why are you posting on this message board about Abraham Lincoln?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I simply try to bring Father Abraham back down to the realm of mortals where he belongs. He's not the saint people believe him to be, and the Civil War was unjust and unnecessary.

 

[hopner33]

I simply try to bring Father Abraham back down to the realm of mortals where he belongs. He's not the saint people believe him to be, and the Civil War was unjust and unnecessary.

That is all fair.

The mythic Lincoln seems to have a couple of distinct attributes. 1) He was the Great Emancipator who fundamentally altered the position of an entire race and 2) He preserved liberty and democracy for America by saving the Union.
These actions combined with his backwoods background, honesty, and genuine good character makes him a hero and that is the myth of Lincoln.

Obviously a lot of the above is hogwash/exaggerated. Do you attack it just because you desire perfect historical accuracy, or do you have a problem with any god like figure?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Historical and constitutional accuracy.

 

[KGB]

the Civil War was the war of southern treachery & treason...fortunately, the right side won....

 

[KGB]

We are, regardless of who are ancestors were, where they came from, all the progeny of people who suffered war CRIMES.

Now as the South?

Certainly, I do not doubt that some civilians were killed.

But that killing civilians was NOT an official policy not even when Sherman killed a few of them.

Had it been the offical policy, then millions of Southerners -- not scores or hundreds or even thousands -- but MILLIONS of them would have been killed.

It would have been easy to do, but it was NOT done.

I find it more than just a little amusing that you sons of the South really expect any of us to be outraged about how the seccionists suffered given how they treated human beings when they owned them.

Seriously are you boys ******* nuts?

You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when your entire society was based on a ******* crime against HUMANITY?!

Go **** yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause to continue owning slaves.

You forefather were ******* monsters.

You're just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers sorry defeated slaver ******* asses.

The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.

Whining ******* crybabies, the lot of yas.

This is an utterly ridiculous post, ed. For one, it wasn't just "a few" southerners that were killed by Sherman, and Sherman wasn't the only Union officer committing crimes. Sheridan comes to mind, and so does Benjamin Butler. And it was Sherman's official policy to kill innocent southerners, by the way. Also, let's not forget the fact that the Union troops also murdered, raped, and pillaged the slaves as well.

The full fury of the abolitionists? Abolitionists were an extreme minority even in the north, what could they have possibly done on their own?

As for the entire society supposedly being based on slavery, utterly ridiculous. Slaves were expensive to buy and expensive to own, only a minority of large plantation owners were able to afford them. A majority of southerners were not slave owners.

A large portion of the officer corps of the USA should have been hanged for crimes against humanity, along with Abraham Lincoln.

The Confederates didn't commit treason ed, the only thing they're guilty of, in respect to secession, is trying to assert the American tradition of self-government.

the southerners were traitors to the flag....& need we raise the morality of owning slaves....how about their treatment?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We are, regardless of who are ancestors were, where they came from, all the progeny of people who suffered war CRIMES.

Now as the South?

Certainly, I do not doubt that some civilians were killed.

But that killing civilians was NOT an official policy not even when Sherman killed a few of them.

Had it been the offical policy, then millions of Southerners -- not scores or hundreds or even thousands -- but MILLIONS of them would have been killed.

It would have been easy to do, but it was NOT done.

I find it more than just a little amusing that you sons of the South really expect any of us to be outraged about how the seccionists suffered given how they treated human beings when they owned them.

Seriously are you boys ******* nuts?

You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when your entire society was based on a ******* crime against HUMANITY?!

Go **** yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause to continue owning slaves.

You forefather were ******* monsters.

You're just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers sorry defeated slaver ******* asses.

The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.

Whining ******* crybabies, the lot of yas.

This is an utterly ridiculous post, ed. For one, it wasn't just "a few" southerners that were killed by Sherman, and Sherman wasn't the only Union officer committing crimes. Sheridan comes to mind, and so does Benjamin Butler. And it was Sherman's official policy to kill innocent southerners, by the way. Also, let's not forget the fact that the Union troops also murdered, raped, and pillaged the slaves as well.

The full fury of the abolitionists? Abolitionists were an extreme minority even in the north, what could they have possibly done on their own?

As for the entire society supposedly being based on slavery, utterly ridiculous. Slaves were expensive to buy and expensive to own, only a minority of large plantation owners were able to afford them. A majority of southerners were not slave owners.

A large portion of the officer corps of the USA should have been hanged for crimes against humanity, along with Abraham Lincoln.

The Confederates didn't commit treason ed, the only thing they're guilty of, in respect to secession, is trying to assert the American tradition of self-government.

the southerners were traitors to the flag....& need we raise the morality of owning slaves....how about their treatment?

Traitors in what way? That they believed in the American principle of self-government? That they believed the words of the Declaration of Independence, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Yes, quite a bunch of "traitors" there.

As to slavery, there can be no doubt that it was a terrible practice. But equally terrible were Union troops that robbed southern slaves of the little that they had, murdered them, or raped slave women. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[Old Rocks]

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

Andersonville National Historic Site - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

Kevin, the South fought for the enslavement of human beings. Enough said.

 

[Old Rocks]

I simply try to bring Father Abraham back down to the realm of mortals where he belongs. He's not the saint people believe him to be, and the Civil War was unjust and unnecessary.

Then why did the South start the war? Abraham Lincoln was one of the best Presidents. The South tried to Balkanize America. Lincoln preserved the Union.

 

[Old Rocks]

We are, regardless of who are ancestors were, where they came from, all the progeny of people who suffered war CRIMES.

Now as the South?

Certainly, I do not doubt that some civilians were killed.

But that killing civilians was NOT an official policy not even when Sherman killed a few of them.

Had it been the offical policy, then millions of Southerners -- not scores or hundreds or even thousands -- but MILLIONS of them would have been killed.

It would have been easy to do, but it was NOT done.

I find it more than just a little amusing that you sons of the South really expect any of us to be outraged about how the seccionists suffered given how they treated human beings when they owned them.

Seriously are you boys ******* nuts?

You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when your entire society was based on a ******* crime against HUMANITY?!

Go **** yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause to continue owning slaves.

You forefather were ******* monsters.

You're just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers sorry defeated slaver ******* asses.

The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.

Whining ******* crybabies, the lot of yas.

This is an utterly ridiculous post, ed. For one, it wasn't just "a few" southerners that were killed by Sherman, and Sherman wasn't the only Union officer committing crimes. Sheridan comes to mind, and so does Benjamin Butler. And it was Sherman's official policy to kill innocent southerners, by the way. Also, let's not forget the fact that the Union troops also murdered, raped, and pillaged the slaves as well.

The full fury of the abolitionists? Abolitionists were an extreme minority even in the north, what could they have possibly done on their own?

As for the entire society supposedly being based on slavery, utterly ridiculous. Slaves were expensive to buy and expensive to own, only a minority of large plantation owners were able to afford them. A majority of southerners were not slave owners.

A large portion of the officer corps of the USA should have been hanged for crimes against humanity, along with Abraham Lincoln.

The Confederates didn't commit treason ed, the only thing they're guilty of, in respect to secession, is trying to assert the American tradition of self-government.

What crap. They tried to balkanize America. Had the Confederates succeeded, it would not have been long until Texas succeeded from the Confederacy, and then the South would have been fighting another civil war.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A discussion I had earlier this morning prompted me to create this thread. During the War for Southern Independence Lincoln and his generals used the strategy of total war to fight the Confederacy. In other words, no southern civilian be they man, woman, or child or any southern slave was safe from northern aggression.

One hundred thirty-six years after General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Americans are still fascinated with the War for Southern Independence. The larger bookstores devote an inordinate amount of shelf space to books about the events and personalities of the war; Ken Burns’s "Civil War" television series and the movie "Gettysburg" were blockbuster hits; dozens of new books on the war are still published every year; and a monthly newspaper, Civil War News, lists literally hundreds of seminars, conferences, reenactments, and memorial events related to the war in all 50 states and the District of Columbia all year long. Indeed, many Northerners are "still fighting the war" in that they organize a political mob whenever anyone attempts to display a Confederate heritage symbol in any public place.

Americans are still fascinated by the war because many of us recognize it as the defining event in American history. Lincoln’s war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the "rewriting" of the Constitution by federal judges, "total war," the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big "problem solver."

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln’s war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln’s war.

Targeting Civilians

Andersonville National Historic Site - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Andersonville has already been addressed in this thread. As I stated before, the POW situation on both sides was terrible, but had Lincoln been willing to exchange POW's then perhaps many of those men at Andersonville need not have died. Also, Point Lookout and Camp Douglass were Union prisons that were as bad as Andersonville, and unlike in the Confederacy there was no shortage of supplies such as food or medication. They simply let the southern prisoners suffer.