War Crimes During the Civil War

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It was total war. A war to break the spirit of the south. A war to punish the civillians so why wouldn't they be considered combatants? It's the war we should have fought in the middle east.

The moment you start killing innocent civilians you're nothing more than a murderer.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

The problem with the Civil War..is the North didn't go far enough. Every Southern Soldier should have been impaled. Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee should have been drawn and quartered..with their heads put up on spikes until they were fly blown. It should be a crime to fly the star and bars.

Sadly..none of that came to pass.

Yes, mass murder and torture. How fun.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

The problem with the Civil War is that the south didn't win. Had the south won, we would not have the totalitarian government we have today. Secession would have taught the union a lesson they would never forget. Instead, we have states planning for the collapse of the federal government and continuity when it's gone.

It was a strong central government that turned the US into an economic superpower

Actually, it was WWII that turned the US into an economic super power.

 

[Katzndogz]

The problem with the Civil War is that the south didn't win. Had the south won, we would not have the totalitarian government we have today. Secession would have taught the union a lesson they would never forget. Instead, we have states planning for the collapse of the federal government and continuity when it's gone.

It was a strong central government that turned the US into an economic superpower

There is a difference between a strong central government and a totalitarian central government. I'm hoping we go the way of the old Soviet Union. It looks like we will.

 

[rightwinger]

The problem with the Civil War is that the south didn't win. Had the south won, we would not have the totalitarian government we have today. Secession would have taught the union a lesson they would never forget. Instead, we have states planning for the collapse of the federal government and continuity when it's gone.

It was a strong central government that turned the US into an economic superpower

Actually, it was WWII that turned the US into an economic super power.

And in WWII the ENTIRE manufacturing capability and all raw materials were managed by a strong central government.

We never could have executed the manufacturing miracle that was the US war machine if we had to rely on negotiating between 48 states

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The problem with the Civil War is that the south didn't win. Had the south won, we would not have the totalitarian government we have today. Secession would have taught the union a lesson they would never forget. Instead, we have states planning for the collapse of the federal government and continuity when it's gone.

It was a strong central government that turned the US into an economic superpower

Actually, it was WWII that turned the US into an economic super power.

Actually it was neither. It was the industrial revolution.

 

[whitehall]

We can talk about international treaties governing war and such but the winning side writes the history books and Sherman is seen as a hero instead of a lunatic. What general in his right mind would put the torch to the city of Atlanta because he thought he was the "sword of God". What general but a drunk would tell his commanders to lay waste to the South so that a crow would have to pack a lunch when he flies over the land. Under Grant, the Union Troops justified looting and burning and pillaging the Shenandoah Valley against innocent civilians whose loyalties actually were with the North. Meanwhile the hypocrites in New York City were lynching every Black person on the nearest lamp post during the "draft riots". You can find the truth easily enough but selected crap written by the northern newspapers at the time is what usually passes for history in the second rate elementary US school system.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

It was a strong central government that turned the US into an economic superpower

Actually, it was WWII that turned the US into an economic super power.

And in WWII the ENTIRE manufacturing capability and all raw materials were managed by a strong central government.

We never could have executed the manufacturing miracle that was the US war machine if we had to rely on negotiating between 48 states

That's somewhat true.

Obviously a balance is necessary, and I don't even think a strong central government is a bad thing. In fact, most wouldn't if they understood that that isn't the problem, the ENTIRE problem facing us today is people have became selfish. It's all about ME. MY RIGHTS dammit; let other people get theirs. It's reflected on this message board even.

It's sad really.

 

[w1994]

Aside from this obviously biased source, do you have reliable evidence that Lincoln knew about civilians being raped and murdered and that he condoned or permitted such behavior?

Response:
Yes, it is called the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion. It was put together by the Northern government during the Civil War. There are records galore of the many impropreities carried out by men of the Union Army. I'll look some up for you with page numbers and the whole works.

 

[w1994]

It was a strong central government that turned the US into an economic superpower

Actually, it was WWII that turned the US into an economic super power.

Actually it was neither. It was the industrial revolution.

Response:
Actually, it was the combination of a piece of real estate that offered an abundance of opportunities, coupled with people desperate enough to work themselves half to death and clever enough to figure out how to make it pay off. Work ethic mostly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This thread is like Michael Myers. It just won't die.

 

[Katzndogz]

There were no war crimes during the Civil War.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There were no war crimes during the Civil War.

 

[whitehall]

The winning side writes the history books so criminal behavior that would not be tolerated anywhere in the civilized world is ignored. Was Grant really a drunk? What sane person would tell his generals to plunder civilians "so a crow would have to pack a lunch" if he was flying over the South? Look at old photos of general Sherman and you might be convinced that rumors that he was insane were true. What sane person would order civilians out of a city and set it on fire? Maybe during the "dark ages" but certainly not in the civilized 19th century. Union general David "black dave" Hunter was an arsonist and pillager who murdered civilians in the Shenandoah Valley. When his band of pirates thought they were confronted by a real army at Lynchburg, which was a bluff, the cowards fled into the mountains rather than fight.

 

[Katzndogz]

The winning side writes the history books so criminal behavior that would not be tolerated anywhere in the civilized world is ignored. Was Grant really a drunk? What sane person would tell his generals to plunder civilians "so a crow would have to pack a lunch" if he was flying over the South? Look at old photos of general Sherman and you might be convinced that rumors that he was insane were true. What sane person would order civilians out of a city and set it on fire? Maybe during the "dark ages" but certainly not in the civilized 19th century. Union general David "black dave" Hunter was an arsonist and pillager who murdered civilians in the Shenandoah Valley. When his band of pirates thought they were confronted by a real army at Lynchburg, which was a bluff, the cowards fled into the mountains rather than fight.

Those orders came from Lincoln. Sherman was doing what he was told to do. He was told to wage total war to destroy everything so that the will of the Southerners to fight would be broken. Was Lincoln insane? He gave the orders.

 

[w1994]

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.

Technically means just that. There were no laws against attacking civilians, Lincoln was bound only by 'moral' law.
From Lincoln's point of view, the Confederate states were still part of the Union, that's kinda why they fought a war.
During times of martial law, the executive in chief makes the rules. The law was whatever Lincoln said it was once he declared martial law. Martial law was one of the political/legal means he used to make the war "legal".
If Obama declared martial law today, whatever he decided was best would be law, and enforced by the military. Check the constitution.

Response:
If Lincoln was bound by moral law, he wore those bindings rather losely. It was fotunate for him that he could exploit the huge void of laws pertaining to war crimes. I'm sure it was an inspiration to him to take advantage of such a consequence free situation. He wouldn't get by with doing any of that now. We fancy ourselves as being too intellectually evolved to allow our presidents knuckles to leave such primal drag marks in the ground like a caveman. These days he would actually be expected to overthrow his anger management problems and use some real tact, diplomacy and decorum to rectify the situation. Just because legislation had not yet been passed defining what a war crime was, doesn't make those acts or events any less immoral or any less of an atrocity. Does it? It depends on your moral standards I guess. If you're a bigoted, North loving, South hater, then all is right with the world because Civil War Southerners were not real Americans and they got what they deserved. Northerners have decided that they hold the monopoly on what it is to be an American and that they are the definition of an American (so, they think). Southerners are not "real Americans," unless they are pro North as far as the Civil War is concerned. Yankees have decided that any departure at all from being pro North, is synonymous with being "un-American". I'll bet white folks in the South never thought they'd end up on the list of "conquered people" with blacks folks and the Native Indians. Might makes right! It doesn't have to be fair, it just has to work in order to stay in power. It's the Yankee way. I was schooled in Nebraska. As far as the Civil War is concerned, we didn't have a dog in the fight. We were just sittin on the fence watching the other two have a fued. We weren't even a state in the Union and yet it was God awful important to sculpt our tender, gullible, trusting little minds to pick the "correct side" as far as the subject of the Civil War was concerned. In our public school, we were taught to be pro North. It's the American way. What a horrible thing to do to the people of our country. Teaching everybody, generation after generation after generation, that the South is the sole criminal and villain of our country's history. If there is an ugly stain in the history of the USA, point the finger at white Southerners. If there is an ugly stain in the history of white folks in America, push it off on a Southerner. The way American History has been taught in our country, is the direct result of the North winning the war. They won the war so they get to tell it their way. That's part of the joys of victory and the spoils of war. We expect the South to sit on their stool of everlasting repentance and just keep taking all the bashing and insults. That's not right. Southern blood has spilled in every war this county has been in and yet the South is only remembered as a region of people who brought shame to our country in the 19th century. The bias in which American History has been taught, renders it inaccurate and therefore useless but it still seems to work for the North loving, South hating agenda. Go figure.

 

[Katzndogz]

War crimes aren't war crimes unless and until there is a law making whatever activity it was criminal. There were no such laws during the Civil War so there were no war crimes. All you can do is say if such activity was conducted today it would be a war crime.

 

[rightwinger]

War crimes aren't war crimes unless and until there is a law making whatever activity it was criminal. There were no such laws during the Civil War so there were no war crimes. All you can do is say if such activity was conducted today it would be a war crime.

So would slavery

 

[The Infidel]

War crimes aren't war crimes unless and until there is a law making whatever activity it was criminal. There were no such laws during the Civil War so there were no war crimes. All you can do is say if such activity was conducted today it would be a war crime.

So would slavery

Yep... just because there is no law stating not to do a certain activity.... that does'nt negate the fact that you a human.

My Bible tells me certain things are moral, and certain things that are not moral. Plus human nature compels me not to treat others like animals.

So on this one I am with RW

 

[Katzndogz]

War crimes aren't war crimes unless and until there is a law making whatever activity it was criminal. There were no such laws during the Civil War so there were no war crimes. All you can do is say if such activity was conducted today it would be a war crime.

So would slavery

Quite true! When slavey was legal, it was in fact very legal. It was legal right up to the time the first law was passed against it.