# War Crimes During the 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


----------



## slackjawed

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.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

slackjawed said:


> 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.


----------



## slackjawed

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## jillian

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> 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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;s war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Targeting Civilians
Click to expand...


Thank heaven for google... What possible credibility should some revisionist who calls Abraham Lincoln "dishonest Abe" have?  Answser: None. Thanks anyway.

BTW, it was the Civil War... not the war for southern independence; not the war against northern aggression....

wanna go there? we could call it the "war against southern traitors".

And another word to the wise: NOTHING is a crime unless a law makes it illegal. You can talk about ethics; you can talk about morality; you can even opine about the wonders of philosophy...

but a war *CRIME* is only a *CRIME* if a law has been written against it.

And if I sound a bit harsh? It's because I REALLY hate bogus scholarship and revisionist history.


----------



## slackjawed

Jillian, my grandmother was from Alabama and called it the war of the vanities.....


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank heaven for google... What possible credibility should some revisionist who calls Abraham Lincoln "dishonest Abe" have?  Answser: None. Thanks anyway.
> 
> BTW, it was the Civil War... not the war for southern independence; not the war against northern aggression....
> 
> wanna go there? we could call it the "war against southern traitors".
> 
> And another word to the wise: NOTHING is a crime unless a law makes it illegal. You can talk about ethics; you can talk about morality; you can even opine about the wonders of philosophy...
> 
> but a war *CRIME* is only a *CRIME* if a law has been written against it.
> 
> And if I sound a bit harsh? It's because I REALLY hate bogus scholarship and revisionist history.
Click to expand...


Well I happen to agree with Prof. DiLorenzo when he calls Lincoln "Dishonest Abe," but that's not important.

It would be more appropriate to call it the "war against southern traitors" than to call it a Civil War, though I would disagree that the southern states were traitors.  The Confederates were not fighting to take over the government, they were fighting for their own self-government.  The same way the colonies fought for their independence against Great Britain.

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


----------



## slackjawed

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

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


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

slackjawed said:


> "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?


----------



## Iriemon

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?


----------



## slackjawed

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> "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?
Click to expand...


Not that it wasn't a tragedy, it wasn't illegal.
What world events would you suppose would prompt the WORLD to pass laws regarding the treatment of civilians during wartime AND outlaw genocide in 1949?

If it had been illegal, as it is now, Germans would have been tried for genocide, as they are today. They couldn't try them then because there was no law to charge them with violating. 
That doesn't mean it was right, or that it wasn't a tragedy. It simply wasn't against any existing laws.


----------



## slackjawed

Iriemon said:


> 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?



There are various historical sources that detail civilian injury, death and property losses. 
Grant's autobiography is one of the best, along with  the ghost written autobiography of Sherman.


----------



## cenantua

It seems rather curious that only those "crimes" committed in the South by Union soldiers are remembered when, in fact, there were some just as nasty inflicted by Southerners on Southerners. I suppose the worst part of this is when some of these same Southerners could have been considered neighbors. Union soldiers did not corner the "market" on incidents of horror inflicted on Southern civilians during the Civil War, Confederate soldiers and officials can also be added to the list of perpetrators.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

cenantua said:


> It seems rather curious that only those "crimes" committed in the South by Union soldiers are remembered when, in fact, there were some just as nasty inflicted by Southerners on Southerners. I suppose the worst part of this is when some of these same Southerners could have been considered neighbors. Union soldiers did not corner the "market" on incidents of horror inflicted on Southern civilians during the Civil War, Confederate soldiers and officials can also be added to the list of perpetrators.



Did you have any incidents in particular you wanted to share with us?


----------



## slackjawed

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> cenantua said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems rather curious that only those "crimes" committed in the South by Union soldiers are remembered when, in fact, there were some just as nasty inflicted by Southerners on Southerners. I suppose the worst part of this is when some of these same Southerners could have been considered neighbors. Union soldiers did not corner the "market" on incidents of horror inflicted on Southern civilians during the Civil War, Confederate soldiers and officials can also be added to the list of perpetrators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you have any incidents in particular you wanted to share with us?
Click to expand...


Andersonville Prison


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

slackjawed said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cenantua said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems rather curious that only those "crimes" committed in the South by Union soldiers are remembered when, in fact, there were some just as nasty inflicted by Southerners on Southerners. I suppose the worst part of this is when some of these same Southerners could have been considered neighbors. Union soldiers did not corner the "market" on incidents of horror inflicted on Southern civilians during the Civil War, Confederate soldiers and officials can also be added to the list of perpetrators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you have any incidents in particular you wanted to share with us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andersonville Prison
Click to expand...


Well the claim was southern crimes against other southerners, but you do bring up a good point.  The P.O.W. policy of the Civil War was atrocious on both sides.  Had Lincoln been willing to exchange P.O.W.'s, however, many of the men at Andersonville may not have died there.

Point Lookout and Camp Douglass represent two cases of the Union's mistreatment of southern P.O.W.'s, and, unlike in the Confederacy, there was no lack of food or medicine in the Union.  Also, the Confederate commander of Andersonville Prison, Henry Wirz, was tried and hanged for his "war crimes."  Neither of the two Union commanders of Point Lookout or Camp Douglass received similar punishments.


----------



## editec

> The administration&#8217;s battle plan was known as the "Anaconda Plan" because it sought to blockade all Southern ports and inland waterways and starving the Southern civilian economy. Even drugs and medicines were on the government&#8217;s list of items that were to be kept out of the hands of Southerners, as far as possible.


 
Standard operating procedure in modern war.




> In October of 1864 he ordered a subordinate, General Louis Watkins, to go to Fairmount, Georgia, "burn ten or twelve houses" and "kill a few at random," and "let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon."


 
*War crime. *



> [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Another Sherman biographer, Lee Kennett, found that in Sherman&#8217;s army "the New York regiments were . . . filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World." Although it is rarely mentioned by "mainstream" historians, many acts of rape were committed by these federal soldiers. ​
> [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The University of South Carolina&#8217;s library contains a large collection of thousands diaries and letters of Southern women that mention these unspeakable atrocities. ​
> 
> [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Shermans&#8217; band of criminal looters (known as "bummers") sacked the slave cabins as well as the plantation houses. As Grimsley describes it, "With the utter disregard for blacks that was the norm among Union troops, the soldiers ransacked the slave cabins, taking whatever they liked." A routine procedure would be to hang a slave by his neck until he told federal soldiers where the plantation owners&#8217; valuables were hidden. [/FONT]​[/FONT][/FONT]




*Another war crime*, but sadly the above is typical of wars since time began.​ 
I'm not excusing it, merely noting that it was (and still is) a fairly routine fact of war that soldiers steal from civilians and rape and _routinely_ kill civilians who get in their way.​ 




> After the Confederate army had finally evacuated the Shenandoah Valley in the autumn of 1864 Sheridan&#8217;s 35,000 infantry troops essentially burned the entire valley to the ground. As Sheridan described it in a letter to General Grant, in the first few days he "destroyed over 2200 barns . . . over 70 mills . . . have driven in front of the army over 4000 head of stock, and have killed . . . not less than 3000 sheep. . . . Tomorrow I will continue the destruction."


​ 
*Not a war crime*...unless of course you're willing to admit that ALL WAR is a CRIME. This is SOP for war.​ 


> Sherman himself admitted after the war that he was taught at West Point that he could be hanged for the things he did. ​


 
Burning down houses, crops, factories, blowing up bridges and on and on and on...all perfectly legitmate acts of war according to the ways wars are done now, and were always done in the past, too.​ 
Basically, while I understand the outrage, what I do NOT understand is why this outrage is so limited to THIS WAR.​ 
Hell america (and pretty much every other army in the world) has destroyed the enemies capacity to conduct war by destroying the infrastructure of the nation (and that ALWAYS INCLUDES CIVILIAN PROPERTY) since time began.​ 
So let's recap, shall we?​ 
Destroying or OFFICIALLY CONFISCATING civilian infrastructure? ​ 
*Not a war crime.*​ 
Raping or killing innocent civilians?​ 
*WAR CRIME*​ 
Individual soldiers STEALING civilian property for personal use?​ 
*War crime.*​ 

Do I or any of YOU doubt that War crimes happened duing EVERY WAR that Americans EVER fought?​ 
I surely don't.
​


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

editec said:


> 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."


----------



## Cary

slackjawed said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cenantua said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems rather curious that only those "crimes" committed in the South by Union soldiers are remembered when, in fact, there were some just as nasty inflicted by Southerners on Southerners. I suppose the worst part of this is when some of these same Southerners could have been considered neighbors. Union soldiers did not corner the "market" on incidents of horror inflicted on Southern civilians during the Civil War, Confederate soldiers and officials can also be added to the list of perpetrators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you have any incidents in particular you wanted to share with us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andersonville Prison
Click to expand...


Reply to post by Cary.......
Andersonville was a tragedy to be sure but if one wants to point out malice, cruelty, and inhuman treatment of prisoners Ft Douglass (I believe it was just outside of Chicago) bears mention. As bad as Andersonville was the Confederate authorities had little to give the Federal prisoners there and even less to deny them. The trial and death sentance for the Andersonville Commandant Henry Wirz was a travesty full of denied fairness and outright lies brought forth by the victors against the vanquished. The Federal Government in general and the Commandants of Ft Douglass in particular were far more deliberate, cruel, and inhuman in that they actually had access to adequete food, medicene, stores, and care yet they chose to withold as much as possible of the aforementioned not to mention engaged in barbarism, cruelty, and torture that surpassed just about everthing at Andersonville, unless one wants to bring up the incidents of Union prisoners viciously preying upon each other.

The American Civil War (ACW) was a terrible bloody event in our nation's past. In my opinion describing the ACW as the War for Southern Independance can be correctly argued as accurate. Having said that calling the ACW the war for the Preservation of the Union is equally descriptive and true. I do not subscribe to Dr DiLorenzo's mostly derogatory portrayal of Lincoln. Although I do wish to draw attention to the fact that the Federal government has increased exponentially in size and power since the Spring of 1865.

As to war crimes many were committed by both sides. I offerThe most famous example of total war as Sherman's mostly unopposed march through Georgia and the Carolinas. Much has been written about Sherman's march but the rape of white women was actually a rare occurance the yankee soldiers were much more likely to rape a slave woman. The destruction of and theft of personal property was immense and that is the way Sherman and his officers wanted it. Debate still rages over the burning of Columbia South Carolina but let it be said that burning fit the tempo and theme of Sherman's march.

War Crimes per say in the ACW are often and perhaps best charged or held in the heart and mind of the student of the time period. I ask any reader of this post if they would consider artillery bombardment of civilians as a war crime? How about torture, scalping, hanging, outright murder and of course theft and destruction of personal property? I am not a big fan of General Sherman in fact all my ACW ancestors wore gray uniforms but total war was defined by Sherman in one of his famous quotes. Sherman said war is hell and many remember him for stating such. The second part of the quote however is not quite as well known. It went something like this. "War is Hell... you can not refine it."

Displays of outstanding valor and heroism were quite common in both the Federal and Confederate Armies. I personally subscribe to the practice of studying and appreciating history through the eyes and thoughts of those who lived it.  Year 2009 judgemental conclusions based upon the mores, feelings, and political positions of today are in my opinion poor appreciation of historical events often becoming outright ludicrous if compared to what came after. I know a published scholar who I hold in very high regard who summed up the study of history very well.  My learned friend said "It only happened one way, one time and that is what we should strive to learn and teach." 

Cary


----------



## 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.


----------



## Epsilon Delta

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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."
Click to expand...


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

Epsilon Delta said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

slackjawed said:


> 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

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Epsilon Delta said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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]
Click to expand...


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

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> "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?
Click to expand...


oh no you di'in't go there!




Interesting topic, dude!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Shogun said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> "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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh no you di'in't go there!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting topic, dude!
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Cary

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> 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

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but thanks I guess.
Click to expand...


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

mash107 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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

Cary said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Cary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> 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

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> mash107 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> 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
Click to expand...


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?



Kevin_Kennedy said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Cary said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Toro said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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

GHook93 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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!
Click to expand...


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

GHook93 said:


> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


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

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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*.
Click to expand...



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

Cary said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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 fucking _nuts?_

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

Go fuck yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause_ to continue owning slaves._

You forefather were fucking monsters.

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

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

Whining fucking crybabies, the lot of yas.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

editec said:


> 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 fucking _nuts?_
> 
> You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when* your entire society was based on a fucking crime against HUMANITY?!*
> 
> Go fuck yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause_ to continue owning slaves._
> 
> You forefather were fucking monsters.
> 
> You're  just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers  sorry defeated slaver fucking asses.
> 
> The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.
> 
> Whining fucking 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

editec said:


> 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 fucking _nuts?_
> 
> You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when* your entire society was based on a fucking crime against HUMANITY?!*
> 
> Go fuck yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause_ to continue owning slaves._
> 
> You forefather were fucking monsters.
> 
> You're  just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers  sorry defeated slaver fucking asses.
> 
> The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.
> 
> Whining fucking 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

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> 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

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking _nuts?_
> 
> You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when* your entire society was based on a fucking crime against HUMANITY?!*
> 
> Go fuck yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause_ to continue owning slaves._
> 
> You forefather were fucking monsters.
> 
> You're  just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers  sorry defeated slaver fucking asses.
> 
> The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.
> 
> Whining fucking 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

KGB said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking _nuts?_
> 
> You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when* your entire society was based on a fucking crime against HUMANITY?!*
> 
> Go fuck yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause_ to continue owning slaves._
> 
> You forefather were fucking monsters.
> 
> You're  just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers  sorry defeated slaver fucking asses.
> 
> The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.
> 
> Whining fucking 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the southerners were traitors to the flag....& need we raise the morality of owning slaves....how about their treatment?
Click to expand...


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

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> 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
Click to expand...

Andersonville National Historic Site - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Old Rocks

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


----------



## Old Rocks

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> 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

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking _nuts?_
> 
> You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when* your entire society was based on a fucking crime against HUMANITY?!*
> 
> Go fuck yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause_ to continue owning slaves._
> 
> You forefather were fucking monsters.
> 
> You're  just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers  sorry defeated slaver fucking asses.
> 
> The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.
> 
> Whining fucking 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.
Click to expand...


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

Old Rocks said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Andersonville National Historic Site - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Old Rocks said:


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



No, they fought for their independence.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Old Rocks said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


The south didn't start the war.  Lincoln was unwilling to meet or be diplomatic with the southern states whatsoever, so when he belligerently tried to re-supply Fort Sumter, knowing full well what would happen by the way, they had to act.  They had no problem waiting for Fort Sumter to run through it's supplies and be abandoned by the Union troops, but they were not willing to allow a Union fort within their borders for any extended period of time.  Which is understandable.  Also, nobody was killed at Fort Sumter.

And Lincoln isn't even in the running for one of the best Presidents.  He not only waged a destructive and unnecessary war on states that were exercising their constitutional rights, but he suspended constitutional rights in the north as well.  Many innocent people were jailed or deported under Lincoln's dictatorial rule.  Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham comes to mind.  Lincoln deported him to the Confederacy for a speech he made, violating his first amendment rights.  Many northern newspapers were also shut down for daring to question the all-powerful Lincoln.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Old Rocks said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking _nuts?_
> 
> You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when* your entire society was based on a fucking crime against HUMANITY?!*
> 
> Go fuck yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause_ to continue owning slaves._
> 
> You forefather were fucking monsters.
> 
> You're  just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers  sorry defeated slaver fucking asses.
> 
> The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.
> 
> Whining fucking 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Did you have any evidence to back up this claim?


----------



## editec

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fucking _nuts?_
> 
> You expect our sysmpathy and our outrage over a handful of war crimes when* your entire society was based on a fucking crime against HUMANITY?!*
> 
> Go fuck yourselves and your precious conceits about the nobility of your forefathers and their glorious cause_ to continue owning slaves._
> 
> You forefather were fucking monsters.
> 
> You're just god damned lucky that the full fury of the abolishionists wasn't unleashed upon your forefathers sorry defeated slaver fucking asses.
> 
> The whole officer corps of the CSA should have been hanged for treason.
> 
> Whining fucking 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Document it. Tally it. Get back to me with the numbers, okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The full fury of the abolitionists? Abolitionists were an extreme minority even in the north, what could they have possibly done on their own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had the POLTICAL power been just a tad stronger, the retribution they'd have imposed on the South would have been horrific.
> 
> The Seccsionists can than their lucky stars there were enough LIBERALS on the North to treat the former rebellious states with some degree of mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One out of every four families owned slaves, Kevin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A large portion of the officer corps of the USA should have been hanged for crimes against humanity, along with Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had the South won, I don't doubt they would have
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can agree to disagree about the wording of what they did.
> 
> As to your whining about how badly the South was treated?
> 
> My utter lack of sympathy for them is based on their utter lack of sympathy for their slaves, Kevin.
> 
> You speak of the war as though killing civilians was common, yet to date all you do is make these exaggerated claims without any real support.
> 
> Civilians are killed in every war.
> 
> In a civil war one can expect very high numbers, yet to my knowledge there is NO evidence to support you theory of mass killings.
> 
> Do you believe that if I KNEW that were true I would DENY it?
> 
> ME? _Mr. outraged by ever example of such things no matter WHO does it_?
> 
> Where is your evidence to support your claim that there was systemic murder of civilians?
> 
> A couple of rapes, a pattern of scallywags looting and killing?
> 
> They're not PART of the union army and they're not part of the official (or unoffical policies of the Union aArmy either.
> 
> They're just examples of the freaking criminals who follow wars to take advantage of the anarchy that have existed since wars began.
> 
> *Incidently...go here to read websites documenting the stories of union soldiers who were hanged or shot for mudering civilians, raping civilians or looting civilians.*
> 
> *Your claim that such behavior was an OFFICAL POLICY is put to rest when one reads case after case of UNION soliders being tried by a courts martial and then being PUT TO DEATH for such behavior.*
Click to expand...


----------



## Old Rocks

One of my Great-great grandfathers was hung by Quintrell when he was on leave from the Union Army. There were those on both sides that killed for the pleasure of killing. However, whether North or South, the Civil War was amazing for it's lack of civilian casualties. In the Battle of Gettysburg there was only one civilian killed.


----------



## wayne

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;s war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Targeting Civilians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank heaven for google... What possible credibility should some revisionist who calls Abraham Lincoln "dishonest Abe" have?  Answser: None. Thanks anyway.
> 
> BTW, it was the Civil War... not the war for southern independence; not the war against northern aggression....
> 
> wanna go there? we could call it the "war against southern traitors".
> 
> And another word to the wise: NOTHING is a crime unless a law makes it illegal. You can talk about ethics; you can talk about morality; you can even opine about the wonders of philosophy...
> 
> but a war *CRIME* is only a *CRIME* if a law has been written against it.
> 
> And if I sound a bit harsh? It's because I REALLY hate bogus scholarship and revisionist history.
Click to expand...


In the South, it is called War Between the States among other things.  Are you saying we don't have the right to name events as we see fit? Do we have to get you alls permission before we can write a book? Do you doubt that the North committed atrocities during and after the war? Sherman himself used prisoners as forced labor and executed southern prisoners as revenge for the actions of raiders. When his foraging parties were out they were pretty much free to do what ever they wanted. Are you saying that men then were any different then than they are now?   

Also, how do people commit treason against themselves? Succession was democratically voted on in states conventions where a legal quorum had been attained.  As we see it the government belongs to the people not the other way around. An imperialist sees the people as the property if the government not a democratically minded person.


----------



## Evangelical

How was it a "Civil War" when independent states were fighting against each other?  Only Lincoln's Administration considered it a Civil War, not even other nations in the world considered it a Civil War.

That is one "War crime" was the blockade, which was wholly illegal, because to blockade a nation you needed British approval (1860 was witness to the British world order) and you needed to declare war against that country.

Lincoln had NEITHER.

For this reason, many blockade runners avoided the law during and after the war when tried in US courts, the blockade was deemed illegal because the war itself was illegal.  In a court of law the US could not defend itself for what it had done to the South.


----------



## sksmith

On July 30, 1863, President Lincoln had issued orders that for every soldier of the United States killed in violation of the *laws of war*, a rebel soldier shall be executed.


So there were laws for "war crime" . Just saying.


----------



## SouthernbyGrace

> Thank heaven for google... What possible credibility should some revisionist who calls Abraham Lincoln "dishonest Abe" have?  Answser: None. Thanks anyway.
> 
> BTW, it was the Civil War... not the war for southern independence; not the war against northern aggression....
> 
> wanna go there? we could call it the "war against southern traitors".
> 
> And another word to the wise: NOTHING is a crime unless a law makes it illegal. You can talk about ethics; you can talk about morality; you can even opine about the wonders of philosophy...
> 
> but a war *CRIME* is only a *CRIME* if a law has been written against it.
> 
> And if I sound a bit harsh? It's because I REALLY hate bogus scholarship and revisionist history.



From Google:
_ex parte Milligan

On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional._

Also, from Merriam Webster Online (via Google):
_Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country
_

So, hate all you want, but it was a war for Southern Independence. It was provided for in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. That's not "bogus scholarship" or "revisionist history". It is FACT, documented and verifiable. When the Southern states seceded they had the constitutional right to do so. They were no longer "citizens of the same country". Lincoln's stubborn refusal to acknowledge them as a separate country does not change anything. They legally seceded and established themselves as an independent country, so it was not a civil war.

Once Lincoln's declaration of martial law was deemed unconstitutional many of his actions did indeed become criminal. Lincoln was a tyrannical and misguided zealot with an agenda to preserve his impression of "union" at all costs, including liberty and self-determination. Sorry to break it to you, but your hero was one of this country's biggest villains. He forever changed this country's government from being "for the people, by the people" to being "for the desires of the president, by the will of the president".  And just because some of his actions weren't crimes under then-established laws doesn't relieve him of the moral responsibility for committing them.


----------



## SouthernbyGrace

I checked out your link. It proves nothing. In fact, it lists their _*crimes*_ along with the method of their execution. There is no mention of the executions being carried out by southerners, neither military nor civilian. What was that link supposed to demonstrate? All I saw was a list of Union criminals, their crimes, their sentence, and the dates of execution. Was there something else in it to support your claims of southern atrocities against Union soldiers? I didn't see a list of atrocities, only justice.


----------



## GHook93

War is chaos, bad thing happen during chaos!

I think a bigger crime is making fellow human being slaves and suceeding from the Union!


----------



## The Infidel

An even worse crime was dragging this stupid thread out of the closet.



I think we have bigger things to be worried about as a nation IMO


----------



## poiboi99

Believe it or not, Lincoln felt very deeply for the suffering the country was enduring both North and South.  He considered all participants to be United States citizens and that made their problems his responsibility.  His heavy-handed approach toward McDowell. McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, and Meade resulted in defeat every time.  In the spring of 1864, He decided to take a more "hands-off" approach and appointed Grant to command all Union forces.  "Total war" only began when Grant and Sherman were loosed from all governmental restrictions.  It was never Lincoln's intention to destroy the south.  His Generals saw it as expedient and carried it through.


----------



## paperview

General Sherman: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 American Hero.


----------



## editec

Was there an offial policy condoning murder or rape of civilians?

No. 

I don't doubt those things happened. Those things happen in wars.  

Are they war crimes? Undoubtably.

There WAS an official policy of conducting _all out economic wa_r on the South, though. 

That is _not_ a war crime, _not even NOW_, is that a war crime.

And I have no doubt whatever that civilians died then and die now as a result of the fact that war is a war on not only the military, but upon the _economy_ that supplies the military.


----------



## paperview

Has Jefferson Davis' official  Proclamation that ALL free blacks - ones in the South as well as the North' were to be placed in "slave status" - forever - been brought up yet?


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The south didn't start the war.  Lincoln was unwilling to meet or be diplomatic with the southern states whatsoever
> ....
Click to expand...

The South started the war before Lincoln even stepped in office.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> General Sherman:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Hero.



Warfare against civilians in the south during the Civil War and genocide against the Indians afterwards doesn't make one a hero in my book.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Has Jefferson Davis' official  Proclamation that ALL free blacks - ones in the South as well as the North' were to be placed in "slave status" - forever - been brought up yet?



Probably.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> 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
Click to expand...


War crimes were committed by both sides of the conflict as well as by the banditti that ran wild colored in the sides of either the "South" or the "Union."  When a population refuses to surrender, that population in modern society will pay a horrible price.

It is what it is.


----------



## cavboy

Denying a civilian shelter, food, clothes and the means to attain them is a crime in any age.The Southern people in large numbers were denied these things in the United States Army's invasion. Take Fredericksburg as a small example of the United States Army's hostility toward the South and it's people.Because a small group of Mississippi  soldiers prevented the "Grand Army" from constructing its pontoon bridges for the attack upon the Confederate Army behind the town, Burnside ordered the town shelled to dislodge the Mississippians.As a result, 8,000 shells hit the small town of Fredericksburg! Again, 8,000 ! The shelling didn't have the desired effect and the Mississipians remained until assaulted by large groups of Federal infantry.When the United States Army gained full control of Fredericksburg, the soldiers looted and pillaged to their hearts delight, and no effort was made to stop them by their command structure.They then proceeded to get their butts kicked by the Confederate Army behind the town.Fredericksburg did not regain its 1860 population of 5,200 for 100 years , as it and the surrounding countryside was devestatingly stripped of resources by the United States Army that camped around it for seven months.One can only imagine what the United States Army actually did in the South as the war went on, and
 the emnity of that force grew as it failed to easily defeat a foe that it looked down upon to begin with. "Soldiers" from the United States Army raided my 3rd GreatGrandmother's house in Duplin, North Carolina and were so terrorising that they caused the poor, old woman to have a heart attack and die.Im sure that thousands of similar horrors could be told, but the victor wrote and writes the history to this day. And seccession is a right that without being guaranteed, the Constitution would not have been adopted.Read our Founder's and their views...please educate yourselves.It is well known that Jefferson believed that any people had the right to throw off the chains of an opressive government. And if the war was for the freedom of the slaves, why didn't Lincoln free them in April of 1861.And if the North was so compassionate to the plight of slaves and African Americans in general, why did the people of New York riot during the war and have as their main target the Afican Americans of that city, whom they lynched and assaulted in large numbers?The full extent of the devestation of the South will never be known until the intelligentzia decides that it should be known, and for 150 years they have decided to portray a false history of the bloodiest conflict in American history.


----------



## bripat9643

paperview said:


> The South started the war before Lincoln even stepped in office.



Really?  How?


----------



## Unkotare

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> During the War for Southern Independence ]





Do you mean the US Civil War?


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> War crimes were committed by both sides of the conflict as well as by the banditti that ran wild colored in the sides of either the "South" or the "Union."  When a population refuses to surrender, that population in modern society will pay a horrible price.
> 
> It is what it is.



The claim that both sides were equally guilty is utter horseshit.  For one thing, almost every battle was conducted in Confederate territory.  How could Confederate soldiers commit war crimes against Northern citizens if they weren't ever in the North?

Why should American citizens be under assault from the government in the first place?


----------



## jillian

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> 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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;s war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Targeting Civilians
Click to expand...


the war for southern independence? well, at least it's better than calling it the war of northern aggression. not by much... but ok. pssst... it was the "civil war". 

i don't like revisionist history, kevin.

did they "target" civilians just because this guy said so? seems to me everyone was busy fighting...on both sides... and doing what they needed to do to try to defeat each other. 

you know they were lucky that lincoln didn't have them all tried for treason and hung.

government was centralized when the constitution replaced the articles of confederation. get over it.


----------



## editec

TOTAL WAR means targeting the society that supports the enemy's war efforts.

If you want to call that a war crime, be my guest.

But that is the world we live in now, and that world really started for us back in the Civil War.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> War crimes were committed by both sides of the conflict as well as by the banditti that ran wild colored in the sides of either the "South" or the "Union."  When a population refuses to surrender, that population in modern society will pay a horrible price.
> 
> It is what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that both sides were equally guilty is utter horseshit.  For one thing, almost every battle was conducted in Confederate territory.  How could Confederate soldiers commit war crimes against Northern citizens if they weren't ever in the North?
> 
> Why should American citizens be under assault from the government in the first place?
Click to expand...


That you believe that the CSA troops did not commit war cirmes against Southern civilians reveals that you are merely ignorant and perhaps stupid.  The Confederacy confiscated almost every horse and cow from the Shenandoah Valley before the year 1863 finished is merely one example.

Do not give us the tired, old "poor, poor South."  The sorry bastards got what they deserved when the fired on Old Glory, when they could not accept constitutional, electoral process.


----------



## rightwinger

Treason is a crime....so is owning slaves

They got what they deserved


----------



## amartin315

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank heaven for google... What possible credibility should some revisionist who calls Abraham Lincoln "dishonest Abe" have?  Answser: None. Thanks anyway.
> 
> BTW, it was the Civil War... not the war for southern independence; not the war against northern aggression....
> 
> wanna go there? we could call it the "war against southern traitors".
> 
> And another word to the wise: NOTHING is a crime unless a law makes it illegal. You can talk about ethics; you can talk about morality; you can even opine about the wonders of philosophy...
> 
> but a war *CRIME* is only a *CRIME* if a law has been written against it.
> 
> And if I sound a bit harsh? It's because I REALLY hate bogus scholarship and revisionist history.
Click to expand...


Laws can be applied retroactively.


----------



## Unknown_Soldier

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> War crimes were committed by both sides of the conflict as well as by the banditti that ran wild colored in the sides of either the "South" or the "Union."  When a population refuses to surrender, that population in modern society will pay a horrible price.
> 
> It is what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that both sides were equally guilty is utter horseshit.  For one thing, almost every battle was conducted in Confederate territory.  How could Confederate soldiers commit war crimes against Northern citizens if they weren't ever in the North?
> 
> Why should American citizens be under assault from the government in the first place?
Click to expand...




Southerners didn't consider themselves to be Americans during the Civil War, therefor they weren't attacked by their own government. Well except in the case where the CSA stole their stuff .


----------



## Unknown_Soldier

amartin315 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank heaven for google... What possible credibility should some revisionist who calls Abraham Lincoln "dishonest Abe" have?  Answser: None. Thanks anyway.
> 
> BTW, it was the Civil War... not the war for southern independence; not the war against northern aggression....
> 
> wanna go there? we could call it the "war against southern traitors".
> 
> And another word to the wise: NOTHING is a crime unless a law makes it illegal. You can talk about ethics; you can talk about morality; you can even opine about the wonders of philosophy...
> 
> but a war *CRIME* is only a *CRIME* if a law has been written against it.
> 
> And if I sound a bit harsh? It's because I REALLY hate bogus scholarship and revisionist history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws can be applied retroactively.
Click to expand...


in fact they can't.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Unknown_Soldier said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> War crimes were committed by both sides of the conflict as well as by the banditti that ran wild colored in the sides of either the "South" or the "Union."  When a population refuses to surrender, that population in modern society will pay a horrible price.
> 
> It is what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that both sides were equally guilty is utter horseshit.  For one thing, almost every battle was conducted in Confederate territory.  How could Confederate soldiers commit war crimes against Northern citizens if they weren't ever in the North?
> 
> Why should American citizens be under assault from the government in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Southerners didn't consider themselves to be Americans during the Civil War, therefor they weren't attacked by their own government. Well except in the case where the CSA stole their stuff .
Click to expand...


No, they considered themselves Virginians, South Carolinians, and so on and so forth, though I get what you're saying. On the flip side, however, Lincoln did consider them to still be a part of the United States, and therefore must have considered himself as attacking his own citizens.

On a related note, how many times is this thread going to be resurrected?


----------



## paperview

Ah...fond memories.


----------



## Katzndogz

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.


----------



## Peach

slackjawed said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cenantua said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems rather curious that only those "crimes" committed in the South by Union soldiers are remembered when, in fact, there were some just as nasty inflicted by Southerners on Southerners. I suppose the worst part of this is when some of these same Southerners could have been considered neighbors. Union soldiers did not corner the "market" on incidents of horror inflicted on Southern civilians during the Civil War, Confederate soldiers and officials can also be added to the list of perpetrators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you have any incidents in particular you wanted to share with us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andersonville Prison
Click to expand...

Andersonville was atrocious.


----------



## Sallow

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## 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.


----------



## rightwinger

Peach said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you have any incidents in particular you wanted to share with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andersonville Prison
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Andersonville was atrocious.
Click to expand...


Andersonville was the result of Union policies

Up until 1864, both sides exchanged prisoners and there was no need for large prison camps. In 1864, Grant decided he did not want southern soldiers reentering the fight so he refused to exchange

The South was not prepared to hold large numbers of Union soldiers. The Union blockades and Shermans march were starving the south. They had to choose whether they should feed their soldiers, civilians or prisoners and the prisoners lost out

They also didn't understand sanitation and how disease was spread. Add spreading disease to soldiers weak from starvation and you have a disaster


----------



## rightwinger

Katzndogz said:


> 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


----------



## paperview

Katzndogz said:


> 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.


Had the South won, we wouldn't be here today, nor the America you know and love.

The confederacy would have been invaded and conquered easily by foreign forces salivating for the opening that would be theirs.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Katzndogz said:


> 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

Sallow said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Yes, mass murder and torture. How fun.


----------



## Unknown_Soldier

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Katzndogz

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

Unknown_Soldier said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it was WWII that turned the US into an economic super power.
Click to expand...


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

Unknown_Soldier said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it was WWII that turned the US into an economic super power.
Click to expand...


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

rightwinger said:


> Unknown_Soldier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

Iriemon said:


> 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

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Unknown_Soldier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it was neither. It was the industrial revolution.
Click to expand...


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

Katzndogz said:


> 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

whitehall said:


> 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

slackjawed said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Katzndogz said:


> 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

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## The Infidel

Katzndogz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


It was still a crime against humanity.... the Nazis didnt break any of their laws when they committed their atrocities.

But still, I really think we are splitting hairs on the issue though.


----------



## w1994

Katzndogz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


It's interesting that the first law protecting slavery and actually legalizing (the cradle to casket variety) it, came from those great folks in Yankeedum. The ones that brought forth the Pilgrims in 1620. Yes those nice folks of Massachusetts protected a masters right to own slaves in 1641. Sorry but the South did not invent slavery.


----------



## Unkotare

You're not coming across the way you'd probably hoped.


----------



## w1994

Unkotare said:


> You're not coming across the way you'd probably hoped.



What did I hope?


----------



## w1994

slackjawed said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> "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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that it wasn't a tragedy, it wasn't illegal.
> What world events would you suppose would prompt the WORLD to pass laws regarding the treatment of civilians during wartime AND outlaw genocide in 1949?
> 
> If it had been illegal, as it is now, Germans would have been tried for genocide, as they are today. They couldn't try them then because there was no law to charge them with violating.
> That doesn't mean it was right, or that it wasn't a tragedy. It simply wasn't against any existing laws.
Click to expand...


Yes, it was illegal. Haven't you heard of the Nuremberg trials? They started right away in November of 1945. Japan surrendered in September of 1945. The Nuremberg trials started immediately at the end of WWII. It dealt exclusively with the war crimes of the suriving Nazi leaders that had not killed themselves like Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels did. The things they did were illegal, that is why they were all brought to trial. They were setting forth the plans for war crime trials as early as December of the previous year. That being 1944. You must missed the huge PBS special on it a few years back. Its been on the History Channel on cable as well. Read about it on Wikipedia. Those trials went on for a  year.


----------



## w1994

Unkotare said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> During the War for Southern Independence ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the US Civil War?
Click to expand...


Our Civil War did not meet the definition criteria of a Civil War but the term stuck anyway. A Civil War is when two seperate factions fight for total control of the country. The South wanted control of their region of the country, not the whole country. The South was not trying to put Jeff Davis in Lincoln's bed at the White House. Secession is a formal withdrawl from a society, such as a political society. The South just wanted to pull back and handle their own affairs and be left alone. They were not trying to overthrow the government and take it all. They just wanted to get the government off their back. It was not a Civil War as far as the correct usage of the term is concerned but more so for practical reasons I guess.


----------



## w1994

Katzndogz said:


> 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.



It wasn't total war at first but it gradually became that way. At first it was a miltary contest between two armies. It was a traditional, standard issue, conventional war, at first. As the war went on, the hatred and bigotry amongst the Northern leaders for Southerners, grew till they just lost all interest and respect for humanity and cast off anything resembling the normal polish, poise, finesse and standards of a sophisticated society. They got tired of the war so they just took it to the unarmed civilians as well, just like when we dropped the two A bombs on Japan that killed hundreds of thousands of non-combatants (unarmed people not enlisted in that countries military, nor having ever engaged in the act of war themselves). When a cat gets tired of playing with a mouse, he finally does the dirty work of snapping it's spine and biting off it's head. If we are going to wage that kind of war, I would much rather it not be on our own people. I agree, we should have fought that kind of war in the Middle East but too many of the Welfare recipients in Washington (they call themselves politicians) are so worried about world opinion, that it will never happen.


----------



## Unkotare

w1994 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not coming across the way you'd probably hoped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did I hope?
Click to expand...




Unless it was to be seen as a whiny little bitch, you missed.


----------



## w1994

Unkotare said:


> w1994 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not coming across the way you'd probably hoped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did I hope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it was to be seen as a whiny little bitch, you missed.
Click to expand...


I wasn't shooting for that, so I certainly missed it.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Katzndogz said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


That was actually a brilliant set of orders too.  The only way to wage a war and ensure you get a long lasting peace afterwards is to wage a war so total, and so destructive, that those left alive are forced to accept they lost.

That's why in WWII the Allies declared they would accept only unconditional surrender.  Negotiated surrender with a foe that refuses to acknowledge they were indeed beaten will only lead to more war.

War is a terrible horrible thing.  And the best way to prevent War is to fight, when forced to, in such a way that everyone literally trembles in fear at the idea of it.  I'll take Sherman's March to the Sea, the fire bombing of Dresden and Hamburg, and the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki any day of the weak over the flat out slow bleeding you see in the Middle East that's been going on for well near a century.


----------



## whitehall

Katzndogz said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Say what? Sherman was "only following orders"? Seems to me I heard that defense back in the 1940's.


----------



## Katzndogz

whitehall said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say what? Sherman was "only following orders"? Seems to me I heard that defense back in the 1940's.
Click to expand...


Is it fair to say something about Sherman (Who was brilliant) and not say anything at all about the president who gave those orders?  Face it, Lincoln was not a very nice man but he was willing to do whateve it took to put down the secession.  Had Lincoln not given those kinds of orders, we would have the CSA on our southern border instead of mexico.


----------



## whitehall

Katzndogz said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say what? Sherman was "only following orders"? Seems to me I heard that defense back in the 1940's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it fair to say something about Sherman (Who was brilliant) and not say anything at all about the president who gave those orders?  Face it, Lincoln was not a very nice man but he was willing to do whateve it took to put down the secession.  Had Lincoln not given those kinds of orders, we would have the CSA on our southern border instead of mexico.
Click to expand...


Lincoln was a hands on president but you can't hold him responsible for the conduct of a maniac general who thought he was God's terrible swift sword and torched an entire city.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

whitehall said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say what? Sherman was "only following orders"? Seems to me I heard that defense back in the 1940's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it fair to say something about Sherman (Who was brilliant) and not say anything at all about the president who gave those orders?  Face it, Lincoln was not a very nice man but he was willing to do whateve it took to put down the secession.  Had Lincoln not given those kinds of orders, we would have the CSA on our southern border instead of mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a hands on president but you can't hold him responsible for the conduct of a maniac general who thought he was God's terrible swift sword and torched an entire city.
Click to expand...


You can when Lincoln later gave the "thanks of the country" to Sherman for his actions.


----------



## Katzndogz

whitehall said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say what? Sherman was "only following orders"? Seems to me I heard that defense back in the 1940's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it fair to say something about Sherman (Who was brilliant) and not say anything at all about the president who gave those orders?  Face it, Lincoln was not a very nice man but he was willing to do whateve it took to put down the secession.  Had Lincoln not given those kinds of orders, we would have the CSA on our southern border instead of mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a hands on president but you can't hold him responsible for the conduct of a maniac general who thought he was God's terrible swift sword and torched an entire city.
Click to expand...


Sherman was told to burn Atlanta.  You may not like it, but the North was told to destroy everything that the South could use whether civilian or military.  

I fully agree with this form of warfare.  If we had used it in the middle east, we wouldn't be there for ten years and counting.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Katzndogz said:


> Is it fair to say something about Sherman (Who was brilliant) and not say anything at all about the president who gave those orders?  Face it, Lincoln was not a very nice man but he was willing to do whateve it took to put down the secession.  Had Lincoln not given those kinds of orders, we would have the CSA on our southern border instead of mexico.



Or worse, an on and off 150 or so years of guerrilla warfare like they've had in other countries in the world.  The South was never going to break free in a straight up military conflict with the North.  The numbers simply were not there.  The Europeans were never going to jump in while the South was a slave holding region and the South was never going to give up Slavery as an institution.  It was part of the declarations of a majority of the Southern States.

Without things like Sherman's March to the Sea there's a chance you'd have had a long term guerrilla warfare conflict open up in a lot of the Deep South, despite Lee's best efforts to prevent that from happening when he surrendered at Appomattox.  I can guarantee you that the effort of fighting that kind of war would have killed FAR FAR more people than Sherman's March to the Sea.  If you doubt that, look at the lengths the US had to go to fight insurgency in the Philippines  or look at the ongoing Middle East conflict.  

Long guerrilla conflicts are always the result of a "Humane" war and they always end up killing more folks and prolonging conflict for generations.  If you have to fight, fight as brutally as possible.  In the long run, you save lives.


----------



## Katzndogz

Dr.Traveler said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it fair to say something about Sherman (Who was brilliant) and not say anything at all about the president who gave those orders?  Face it, Lincoln was not a very nice man but he was willing to do whateve it took to put down the secession.  Had Lincoln not given those kinds of orders, we would have the CSA on our southern border instead of mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or worse, an on and off 150 or so years of guerrilla warfare like they've had in other countries in the world.  The South was never going to break free in a straight up military conflict with the North.  The numbers simply were not there.  The Europeans were never going to jump in while the South was a slave holding region and the South was never going to give up Slavery as an institution.  It was part of the declarations of a majority of the Southern States.
> 
> Without things like Sherman's March to the Sea there's a chance you'd have had a long term guerrilla warfare conflict open up in a lot of the Deep South, despite Lee's best efforts to prevent that from happening when he surrendered at Appomattox.  I can guarantee you that the effort of fighting that kind of war would have killed FAR FAR more people than Sherman's March to the Sea.  If you doubt that, look at the lengths the US had to go to fight insurgency in the Philippines  or look at the ongoing Middle East conflict.
> 
> Long guerrilla conflicts are always the result of a "Humane" war and they always end up killing more folks and prolonging conflict for generations.  If you have to fight, fight as brutally as possible.  In the long run, you save lives.
Click to expand...


Absolutely.  Could not agree more.


----------



## Dante

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> 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
Click to expand...


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

Unleash the dogs of war and...

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

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


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and the South was fighting to keep it's _niggars _in chains. That would be a war crime today too.
> 
> Unleash the dogs of war and...
> 
> You sound like Adolph Hitler apologists who claim Hitler was only copying American practices when he sent the Jews to their deaths in camps. You blame Lincoln for targeting civilians?  read history. Ever since the dawn of mankind Armies have slaughtered and pillaged civilian fortresses.
> 
> Lincoln allowed Southerners to live because it was a civil war. He did not order troops to slaughter all civilians and take any survivors in chains, though the last part might have been an appropriate sort of justice indeed.
Click to expand...


Actually the south was fighting to separate from the U.S. government.


----------



## Peach

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Targeting Civilians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the South was fighting to keep it's _niggars _in chains. That would be a war crime today too.
> 
> Unleash the dogs of war and...
> 
> You sound like Adolph Hitler apologists who claim Hitler was only copying American practices when he sent the Jews to their deaths in camps. You blame Lincoln for targeting civilians?  read history. Ever since the dawn of mankind Armies have slaughtered and pillaged civilian fortresses.
> 
> Lincoln allowed Southerners to live because it was a civil war. He did not order troops to slaughter all civilians and take any survivors in chains, though the last part might have been an appropriate sort of justice indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the south was fighting to separate from the U.S. government.
Click to expand...


At least one historian analyzed how brutal slave owners were by how many slaves were within each state as compared to whites; others describe the war as an industrial/rural conflict. Many angles to be debated.


----------



## Dante

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Targeting Civilians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the South was fighting to keep it's _niggars _in chains. That would be a war crime today too.
> 
> Unleash the dogs of war and...
> 
> You sound like Adolph Hitler apologists who claim Hitler was only copying American practices when he sent the Jews to their deaths in camps. You blame Lincoln for targeting civilians?  read history. Ever since the dawn of mankind Armies have slaughtered and pillaged civilian fortresses.
> 
> Lincoln allowed Southerners to live because it was a civil war. He did not order troops to slaughter all civilians and take any survivors in chains, though the last part might have been an appropriate sort of justice indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the south was fighting to separate from the U.S. government.
Click to expand...


and the perpetual union survived that outrageous proposition. 

thank gawd. God Bless the United States of America


----------



## Dante

Peach said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the South was fighting to keep it's _niggars _in chains. That would be a war crime today too.
> 
> Unleash the dogs of war and...
> 
> You sound like Adolph Hitler apologists who claim Hitler was only copying American practices when he sent the Jews to their deaths in camps. You blame Lincoln for targeting civilians?  read history. Ever since the dawn of mankind Armies have slaughtered and pillaged civilian fortresses.
> 
> Lincoln allowed Southerners to live because it was a civil war. He did not order troops to slaughter all civilians and take any survivors in chains, though the last part might have been an appropriate sort of justice indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the south was fighting to separate from the U.S. government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least one historian analyzed how brutal slave owners were by how many slaves were within each state as compared to whites; others describe the war as an industrial/rural conflict. Many angles to be debated.
Click to expand...


angles, but the war was fought over the right of Southerners (from their viewpoint) to keep slavery and the slave trade for economic reasons as well as reasons of culture. 

The war was fought from view of the Northern side to destroy the slave trade and to keep the Union whole. God Bless the United States of America


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the South was fighting to keep it's _niggars _in chains. That would be a war crime today too.
> 
> Unleash the dogs of war and...
> 
> You sound like Adolph Hitler apologists who claim Hitler was only copying American practices when he sent the Jews to their deaths in camps. You blame Lincoln for targeting civilians?  read history. Ever since the dawn of mankind Armies have slaughtered and pillaged civilian fortresses.
> 
> Lincoln allowed Southerners to live because it was a civil war. He did not order troops to slaughter all civilians and take any survivors in chains, though the last part might have been an appropriate sort of justice indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the south was fighting to separate from the U.S. government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and the perpetual union survived that outrageous proposition.
> 
> thank gawd. God Bless the United States of America
Click to expand...


Yeah, I've always thought it was a shame that the perpetual union between the colonies and crown couldn't survive the outrageous proposition of self-government. Damn uppity colonists.

God save the King...


----------



## Douger

Fuck the inbred eurotrash and their personal conflicts.
How about the "Red" man ? murkas Palestinians.
No Gomer. That's why used them thar kwotashin markers. NOT the chewbakky.........


----------



## Dante

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the south was fighting to separate from the U.S. government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the perpetual union survived that outrageous proposition.
> 
> thank gawd. God Bless the United States of America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've always thought it was a shame that the perpetual union between the colonies and crown couldn't survive the outrageous proposition of self-government. Damn uppity colonists.
> 
> God save the King...
Click to expand...


Like I've told a few people, Good thing for the Confederacy Lincoln was a Republican and not a Democrat.


----------



## Peach

Dante said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the south was fighting to separate from the U.S. government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least one historian analyzed how brutal slave owners were by how many slaves were within each state as compared to whites; others describe the war as an industrial/rural conflict. Many angles to be debated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> angles, but the war was fought over the right of Southerners (from their viewpoint) to keep slavery and the slave trade for economic reasons as well as reasons of culture.
> 
> The war was fought from view of the Northern side to destroy the slave trade and to keep the Union whole. God Bless the United States of America
Click to expand...


And one historian's viewpoint that the greater the number of slaves within an area, the more brutal the slave owners were is debatable also.  (I never bought the symbolic killing of Washington, Adams, et. al.)


----------



## Katzndogz

The prohibition against slavery was added as a reason, the civil war was fought over the economy.  Lincoln wanted to punish the South so he took away the means of maintaining industry.  If it was today, and obama was warring against the people he would prohibit the use of harvesters, plows and combines.

Oh yes, he did, when the EPA identified dust as a pollutant.


----------



## Dante

Katzndogz said:


> The prohibition against slavery was added as a reason, the civil war was fought over the economy.  Lincoln wanted to punish the South so he took away the means of maintaining industry.  If it was today, and obama was warring against the people he would prohibit the use of harvesters, plows and combines.
> 
> Oh yes, he did, when the EPA identified dust as a pollutant.



Do you often have things backwards?


----------



## Katzndogz

Dante said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prohibition against slavery was added as a reason, the civil war was fought over the economy.  Lincoln wanted to punish the South so he took away the means of maintaining industry.  If it was today, and obama was warring against the people he would prohibit the use of harvesters, plows and combines.
> 
> Oh yes, he did, when the EPA identified dust as a pollutant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you often have things backwards?
Click to expand...


Do you only accept leftist history revision?


----------



## Unkotare

The causes of the American Civil War were many and complex, but to deny the centrality of slavery to the conflict is to be ignorant of American history on a large scale.


----------



## Katzndogz

Is it your position that the South was willing to accept the crushing economic pressure that the mills in the North were placing on the cotton plantations of the South and it was only the issue of slavery that put the states over the edge?   The Emancipation Proclaimation came during the third year of the Civil War.  Meaning that Lincoln was willing to accept slavery in slave owning states prior to that?   New states coming in had to come in as free states, but that left intact slave owning states until the North needed the issue.

The issues that started the Civil War were not the same issues at its end.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Katzndogz said:


> Is it your position that the South was willing to accept the crushing economic pressure that the mills in the North were placing on the cotton plantations of the South and it was only the issue of slavery that put the states over the edge?   The Emancipation Proclaimation came during the third year of the Civil War.  Meaning that Lincoln was willing to accept slavery in slave owning states prior to that?   New states coming in had to come in as free states, but that left intact slave owning states until the North needed the issue.
> 
> The issues that started the Civil War were not the same issues at its end.



Not to mention how the Emancipation Proclamation allowed 5 Union states to keep slavery, along with any Confederate territories under Union occupation like New Orleans.


----------



## Katzndogz

The states rights that were the basis of the Civil War, wasn't the right of states to keep slavery legal, it was the right of the states to seceed!   At one point to avoid secession, Lincoln offered the south the right to be permanent slave owning states.  It didn't work.

Slave owning was on its way out everywhere in the world.   Most countries in Europe had already done away with slavery as not being cost effective.   The Industrial Revolution was going to kill slavery no matter what.  

Interestingly enough, it took all this time and liberals, to bring slavery back as an issue and call it illegal immigrant rights.   The same US govermment that fought (eventually) against slavery now fights FOR the mexican cartels ability to engage in  human trafficking.


----------



## Unkotare

Katzndogz said:


> Is it your position that the South was willing to accept the crushing economic pressure that the mills in the North were placing on the cotton plantations of the South and it was only the issue of slavery that put the states over the edge?   The Emancipation Proclaimation came during the third year of the Civil War.  Meaning that Lincoln was willing to accept slavery in slave owning states prior to that?   New states coming in had to come in as free states, but that left intact slave owning states until the North needed the issue.
> 
> The issues that started the Civil War were not the same issues at its end.





You need to go back and study US History again.


----------



## Dante

Katzndogz said:


> The states rights that were the basis of the Civil War, wasn't the right of states to keep slavery legal, it was the right of the states to seceed!   At one point to avoid secession, Lincoln offered the south the right to be permanent slave owning states.  It didn't work.
> 
> Slave owning was on its way out everywhere in the world.   Most countries in Europe had already done away with slavery as not being cost effective.   The Industrial Revolution was going to kill slavery no matter what.
> 
> Interestingly enough, it took all this time and liberals, to bring slavery back as an issue and call it illegal immigrant rights.   The same US govermment that fought (eventually) against slavery now fights FOR the mexican cartels ability to engage in  human trafficking.



revisionism


----------



## Unkotare

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your position that the South was willing to accept the crushing economic pressure that the mills in the North were placing on the cotton plantations of the South and it was only the issue of slavery that put the states over the edge?   The Emancipation Proclaimation came during the third year of the Civil War.  Meaning that Lincoln was willing to accept slavery in slave owning states prior to that?   New states coming in had to come in as free states, but that left intact slave owning states until the North needed the issue.
> 
> The issues that started the Civil War were not the same issues at its end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention how the Emancipation Proclamation allowed 5 Union states to keep slavery, along with any Confederate territories under Union occupation like New Orleans.
Click to expand...



The EP did not "allow" those states to "keep slavery," Lincoln had no authority to simply declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere but in those states in open rebellion. That's why we needed the 13th Amendment.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Unkotare said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your position that the South was willing to accept the crushing economic pressure that the mills in the North were placing on the cotton plantations of the South and it was only the issue of slavery that put the states over the edge?   The Emancipation Proclaimation came during the third year of the Civil War.  Meaning that Lincoln was willing to accept slavery in slave owning states prior to that?   New states coming in had to come in as free states, but that left intact slave owning states until the North needed the issue.
> 
> The issues that started the Civil War were not the same issues at its end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention how the Emancipation Proclamation allowed 5 Union states to keep slavery, along with any Confederate territories under Union occupation like New Orleans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The EP did not "allow" those states to "keep slavery," Lincoln had no authority to simply declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere but in those states in open rebellion. That's why we needed the 13th Amendment.
Click to expand...


Umm... He had no authority to declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere period. Not to mention any of the other things he did not have the authority to do that he did regardless, such as suspending habeas corpus. If you think that's what stopped him from abolishing slavery in the border states then you're delusional. The Emancipation Proclamation was no grand crusade against slavery, nor was the Civil War in general, it was merely a war measure designed to hurt the Confederacy. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Unkotare

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention how the Emancipation Proclamation allowed 5 Union states to keep slavery, along with any Confederate territories under Union occupation like New Orleans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The EP did not "allow" those states to "keep slavery," Lincoln had no authority to simply declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere but in those states in open rebellion. That's why we needed the 13th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm... He had no authority to declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere period..
Click to expand...



Yes he did. He was Commander-in-Chief during a time of war.


----------



## Dante

Katzndogz said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prohibition against slavery was added as a reason, the civil war was fought over the economy.  Lincoln wanted to punish the South so he took away the means of maintaining industry.  If it was today, and obama was warring against the people he would prohibit the use of harvesters, plows and combines.
> 
> Oh yes, he did, when the EPA identified dust as a pollutant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you often have things backwards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you only accept leftist history revision?
Click to expand...


not leftist. sorry


----------



## Dante

Unkotare said:


> The causes of the American Civil War were many and complex, but to deny the centrality of slavery to the conflict is to be ignorant of American history on a large scale.



thank you


----------



## Unkotare

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention how the Emancipation Proclamation allowed 5 Union states to keep slavery, along with any Confederate territories under Union occupation like New Orleans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The EP did not "allow" those states to "keep slavery," Lincoln had no authority to simply declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere but in those states in open rebellion. That's why we needed the 13th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm... He had no authority to declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere period. Not to mention any of the other things he did not have the authority to do that he did regardless, such as suspending habeas corpus. If you think that's what stopped him from abolishing slavery in the border states then you're delusional. The Emancipation Proclamation was no grand crusade against slavery, nor was the Civil War in general, it was merely a war measure designed to hurt the Confederacy. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...



You seem to be quite ignorant about the history of that time.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Unkotare said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EP did not "allow" those states to "keep slavery," Lincoln had no authority to simply declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere but in those states in open rebellion. That's why we needed the 13th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... He had no authority to declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere period..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he did. He was Commander-in-Chief during a time of war.
Click to expand...


Which puts him in charge of the U.S. armed forces during said time of war. It doesn't mean he can simply do whatever he wants.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Unkotare said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EP did not "allow" those states to "keep slavery," Lincoln had no authority to simply declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere but in those states in open rebellion. That's why we needed the 13th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... He had no authority to declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere period. Not to mention any of the other things he did not have the authority to do that he did regardless, such as suspending habeas corpus. If you think that's what stopped him from abolishing slavery in the border states then you're delusional. The Emancipation Proclamation was no grand crusade against slavery, nor was the Civil War in general, it was merely a war measure designed to hurt the Confederacy. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be quite ignorant about the history of that time.
Click to expand...


It's funny you should mention that, because I was thinking something rather similar of you.


----------



## Dante

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... He had no authority to declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere period..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he did. He was Commander-in-Chief during a time of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which puts him in charge of the U.S. armed forces during said time of war. It doesn't mean he can simply do whatever he wants.
Click to expand...


kevin is correct


----------



## whitehall

What Sgt Bales did to Afghans is nothing compared to what the union army did to Southern civilians. In a just world General Grant would have been indicted for war crimes.


----------



## Publius1787

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> 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
Click to expand...


If youre asking which side had moral justification on their side, it was the south. If youre pointing out war crimes to make the case, you neednt be.


----------



## whitehall

Publius1787 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If youre asking which side had moral justification on their side, it was the south. If youre pointing out war crimes to make the case, you neednt be.
Click to expand...


What does having "moral justification" mean in an argument about war crimes? Is it alleged that the South had "moral justification" to commit crimes? I don't understand the intent of the post.


----------



## Publius1787

whitehall said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Targeting Civilians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you&#8217;re asking which side had moral justification on their side, it was the south. If you&#8217;re pointing out war crimes to make the case, you needn&#8217;t be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does having "moral justification" mean in an argument about war crimes? Is it alleged that the South had "moral justification" to commit crimes? I don't understand the intent of the post.
Click to expand...


Instead of debating the claim on its false merits I debated it from the reason the claim was made. When most people complain about war crimes they do so to deaminize the other side; Often outside the more relevant argument; As to cause distraction to make up for their lack of ability to debate the real issue. I just made a claim about the real issue.


----------



## Dante

Publius1787 said:


> If you&#8217;re asking which side had moral justification on their side, it was the south. If you&#8217;re pointing out war crimes to make the case, you needn&#8217;t be.



yeah, the Roman Catholic Bishop in SC, Bishop Lynch, argued that ending slavery would be immoral because blacks would be thrown into the free market place where they would die a slow death.

Bishop Lynch (cute name for a Southern White Man, eh?), was the Confederacy's Point Man in Europe. HE waited a few years to get his pardon before coming back to the evil United States of America


----------



## Dante

Publius1787 said:


> Instead of debating...



I bet you don't know jack shit about Bishop Lynch and others who were big in the Confederacy


----------



## Publius1787

Dante said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you&#8217;re asking which side had moral justification on their side, it was the south. If you&#8217;re pointing out war crimes to make the case, you needn&#8217;t be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, the Roman Catholic Bishop in SC, Bishop Lynch, argued that ending slavery would be immoral because blacks would be thrown into the free market place where they would die a slow death
Click to expand...


At what point was the North&#8217;s stated goal to abolish slavery or fight a war specifically to end it? I must have missed that in my history books. I suppose my BA in history doesn&#8217;t count anymore because I was never taught that. Oh, you were just throwing out a red herring or engage in in a Biased Sample Fallacy? If that is the case then carry on. I wont bother you.


----------



## Dante

Publius1787 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If youre asking which side had moral justification on their side, it was the south. If youre pointing out war crimes to make the case, you neednt be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, the Roman Catholic Bishop in SC, Bishop Lynch, argued that ending slavery would be immoral because blacks would be thrown into the free market place where they would die a slow death
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *At what point was the Norths stated goal to abolish slavery or fight a war specifically to end it?* I must have missed that in my history books. I suppose my BA in history doesnt count anymore because I was never taught that. Oh, you were just throwing out a red herring or engage in in a Biased Sample Fallacy? If that is the case then carry on. I wont bother you.
Click to expand...

At what point was the Norths stated goal to abolish slavery or fight a war specifically to end it? 

The North's stated goal was to keep the nation intact.

The point in time where the Souths stated goal was to secede, because the North would not allow the South, with it's demands concerning slavery, to throw out the baby with the bathwater, is where the Rubicon was crossed. That point unleashed the dogs of war, and the South has been trying to rewrite history ever since.


----------



## Unkotare

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... He had no authority to declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere period..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he did. He was Commander-in-Chief during a time of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which puts him in charge of the U.S. armed forces during said time of war. It doesn't mean he can simply do whatever he wants.
Click to expand...


As commander of the Union forces he could declare policy against those areas in open rebellion and therefore considered enemy territory. Open a book once in a while.


----------



## Unkotare

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... He had no authority to declare the abolishment of slavery anywhere period. Not to mention any of the other things he did not have the authority to do that he did regardless, such as suspending habeas corpus. If you think that's what stopped him from abolishing slavery in the border states then you're delusional. The Emancipation Proclamation was no grand crusade against slavery, nor was the Civil War in general, it was merely a war measure designed to hurt the Confederacy. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be quite ignorant about the history of that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny you should mention that, because I was thinking something rather similar of you.
Click to expand...



The difference is you don't know what you are talking about and I do.


----------



## Unkotare

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he did. He was Commander-in-Chief during a time of war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which puts him in charge of the U.S. armed forces during said time of war. It doesn't mean he can simply do whatever he wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> kevin is correct
Click to expand...



It was a war measure legitimized by his war powers as President. Hence, its limited scope and its legality.


----------



## whitehall

Dante said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of debating...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you don't know jack shit about Bishop Lynch and others who were big in the Confederacy
Click to expand...


"Jack shit and big in the confederacy"? Does dante want to make a serious historical observation or play a videop game?


----------



## Dante

whitehall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of debating...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you don't know jack shit about Bishop Lynch and others who were big in the Confederacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Jack shit and big in the confederacy"? Does dante want to make a serious historical observation or play a videop game?
Click to expand...


another dope who doesn't know.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Publius1787 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If youre asking which side had moral justification on their side, it was the south. If youre pointing out war crimes to make the case, you neednt be.
Click to expand...


If only I had known..


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Unkotare said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he did. He was Commander-in-Chief during a time of war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which puts him in charge of the U.S. armed forces during said time of war. It doesn't mean he can simply do whatever he wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As commander of the Union forces he could declare policy against those areas in open rebellion and therefore considered enemy territory. Open a book once in a while.
Click to expand...


Where is that in the Constitution?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Unkotare said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be quite ignorant about the history of that time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny you should mention that, because I was thinking something rather similar of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is you don't know what you are talking about and I do.
Click to expand...


It's funny you should mention that...


----------



## Peach

Dante said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you don't know jack shit about Bishop Lynch and others who were big in the Confederacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jack shit and big in the confederacy"? Does dante want to make a serious historical observation or play a videop game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> another dope who doesn't know.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Dante said:


> At what point was the Norths stated goal to abolish slavery or fight a war specifically to end it?
> 
> The North's stated goal was to keep the nation intact.
> 
> The point in time where the Souths stated goal was to secede, because the North would not allow the South, with it's demands concerning slavery, to throw out the baby with the bathwater, is where the Rubicon was crossed. That point unleashed the dogs of war, and the South has been trying to rewrite history ever since.


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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Publius1787

Dante said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, the Roman Catholic Bishop in SC, Bishop Lynch, argued that ending slavery would be immoral because blacks would be thrown into the free market place where they would die a slow death
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *At what point was the North&#8217;s stated goal to abolish slavery or fight a war specifically to end it?* I must have missed that in my history books. I suppose my BA in history doesn&#8217;t count anymore because I was never taught that. Oh, you were just throwing out a red herring or engage in in a Biased Sample Fallacy? If that is the case then carry on. I wont bother you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At what point was the North&#8217;s stated goal to abolish slavery or fight a war specifically to end it?
> 
> The North's stated goal was to keep the nation intact.
> 
> The point in time where the South&#8217;s stated goal was to secede, because the North would not allow the South, with it's demands concerning slavery, to throw out the baby with the bathwater, is where the Rubicon was crossed. That point unleashed the dogs of war, and the South has been trying to rewrite history ever since.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Dante

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

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

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



Dr.Traveler said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> At what point was the Norths stated goal to abolish slavery or fight a war specifically to end it?
> 
> The North's stated goal was to keep the nation intact.
> 
> The point in time where the Souths stated goal was to secede, because the North would not allow the South, with it's demands concerning slavery, to throw out the baby with the bathwater, is where the Rubicon was crossed. That point unleashed the dogs of war, and the South has been trying to rewrite history ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's fair to debate whether slavery was a central cause of the Civil War.  But I think it's impossible to deny it was A cause of the war.
> 
> My standard challenge to folks that would deny slavery as one of the causes is to ask them to look up the Declaration of Secession for the Confederate states and take a drink every time the word Slave, Slavery, or Negro is used.  If they're still alive tomorrow I'll stop by the ICU with flowers to speed their recovery from Alcohol poisoning.
> 
> The irony is that slavery ultimately did doom the South to failure.  There were only two win conditions for the South:
> 
> 1.  Inflict heavy early losses on the North and hope public support for the war collapses.
> 2.  European intervention.
> 
> Slavery was a huge propaganda issue in Northern newspapers ensuring public support for the war despite the fact the South was inflicting incredible losses on the North.  Slavery also ensured that Europe, which had abolished the slave trade on the ocean using military force, would never enter the war.
> 
> There was never an option 3 for the South because in the long run the North would always win.  The numbers (population, manufacturing, GDP, rail lines) were all on the North's side.
Click to expand...


----------



## Toro

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



> the radicals on the Southern side stood for a free, independent, Southern republic. A republic that would be founded on slavery, with slavery as its cornerstone, as Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, famously said in a speech known as "The Cornerstone Speech."
> 
> He explicitly repudiated Thomas Jefferson's doctrine that all men are created equal, and he said: We in our new republic have a new dogma, that we are a republic whose cornerstone is slavery. ...
> 
> GROSS: So both sides, for the extremes of both sides, it was about slavery. And yet, there are still arguments about what was the Civil War really about. And some people say: Oh, it wasn't really about slavery. Why are we still arguing about what the Civil War was about?
> 
> GOODHEART: Well, you know, when you go back, and you look at the actual documents and debates from the time, of course, many people have said since then that it was about states' rights. But really the only significant state right that people were arguing about in 1860 was the right to own what was known as slave property - property and slaves - unimpeded and to be able to travel with that property anywhere that you wanted to, to be able to spread slavery across the United States.
> 
> So it's clear that this was really about slavery in almost every significant way. But, you know, we've sort of pushed that to the side because, of course, we want to believe that our country is a country that's always stood for freedom. And I think it can be difficult for Americans to accept.
> 
> Certainly it's difficult for Southern Americans to accept that their ancestors fought a war on behalf of slavery. And I think that Northerners really, for the cause of national reconciliation, decided to push that aside, decided to accept Southerners' denials or demurrals.
> 
> GROSS: You know, it's - in terms of how we're still talking about what was the war really about, in 2010, the governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, made a statement about Confederate History Month. And he didn't mention slavery in it. He praised those who fought for their homes and communities and commonwealth, but there was no mention of slavery. And he got a lot of criticism for that.
> 
> And Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said that the Civil War was about slavery, and that remark was considered, like, very important, a very important admission.



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


----------



## Unkotare

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which puts him in charge of the U.S. armed forces during said time of war. It doesn't mean he can simply do whatever he wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As commander of the Union forces he could declare policy against those areas in open rebellion and therefore considered enemy territory. Open a book once in a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is that in the Constitution?
Click to expand...



Article II, Section 2


----------



## Dante

Publius1787 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *At what point was the North&#8217;s stated goal to abolish slavery or fight a war specifically to end it?* I must have missed that in my history books. I suppose my BA in history doesn&#8217;t count anymore because I was never taught that. Oh, you were just throwing out a red herring or engage in in a Biased Sample Fallacy? If that is the case then carry on. I wont bother you.
> 
> 
> 
> At what point was the North&#8217;s stated goal to abolish slavery or fight a war specifically to end it?
> 
> The North's stated goal was to keep the nation intact.
> 
> The point in time where the South&#8217;s stated goal was to secede, because the North would not allow the South, with it's demands concerning slavery, to throw out the baby with the bathwater, is where the Rubicon was crossed. That point unleashed the dogs of war, and the South has been trying to rewrite history ever since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your slavery comment in your earlyer[_sic_] statement is now moot. Thanks for pointing that out.
Click to expand...


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

but, moving along...

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


----------



## Dante

Toro said:


> I don't know much about this subject but I was listening to a podcast about the Civil War today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the radicals on the Southern side stood for a free, independent, Southern republic. A republic that would be founded on slavery, with slavery as its cornerstone, as Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, famously said in a speech known as "The Cornerstone Speech."
> 
> He explicitly repudiated Thomas Jefferson's doctrine that all men are created equal, and he said: We in our new republic have a new dogma, that we are a republic whose cornerstone is slavery. ...
> 
> *GROSS: *So both sides, for the extremes of both sides, it was about slavery. And yet, there are still arguments about what was the Civil War really about. And some people say: Oh, it wasn't really about slavery. Why are we still arguing about what the Civil War was about?
> 
> *GOODHEART:* Well, you know, when you go back, and _you look at the actual documents and debates from the time,_ of course, many people have said since then that it was about states' rights. But really _the only significant state right that people were arguing about in 1860 was the right to own what was known as slave property - property and slaves - unimpeded and to be able to travel with that property anywhere that you wanted to, to be able to spread slavery across the United States._
> 
> So it's clear that this was really about slavery in almost every significant way. But, you know, we've sort of pushed that to the side because, of course, we want to believe that our country is a country that's always stood for freedom. And I think it can be difficult for Americans to accept.
> 
> _Certainly it's difficult for Southern Americans to accept that their ancestors fought a war on behalf of slavery. _And I think that Northerners really, for the cause of national reconciliation, decided to push that aside, decided to accept Southerners' denials or demurrals.
> 
> *GROSS: *You know, it's - in terms of how we're still talking about what was the war really about, in 2010, the governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, made a statement about Confederate History Month. And he didn't mention slavery in it. He praised those who fought for their homes and communities and commonwealth, but there was no mention of slavery. And he got a lot of criticism for that.
> 
> And Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said that the Civil War was about slavery, and that remark was considered, like, very important, a very important admission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> '1861': A Social History Of The Civil War : NPR
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Unkotare said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> As commander of the Union forces he could declare policy against those areas in open rebellion and therefore considered enemy territory. Open a book once in a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Article II, Section 2
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Dante

Ordinances of Secession


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Toro said:


> I don't know much about this subject but I was listening to a podcast about the Civil War today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the radicals on the Southern side stood for a free, independent, Southern republic. A republic that would be founded on slavery, with slavery as its cornerstone, as Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, famously said in a speech known as "The Cornerstone Speech."
> 
> He explicitly repudiated Thomas Jefferson's doctrine that all men are created equal, and he said: We in our new republic have a new dogma, that we are a republic whose cornerstone is slavery. ...
> 
> GROSS: So both sides, for the extremes of both sides, it was about slavery. And yet, there are still arguments about what was the Civil War really about. And some people say: Oh, it wasn't really about slavery. Why are we still arguing about what the Civil War was about?
> 
> GOODHEART: Well, you know, when you go back, and you look at the actual documents and debates from the time, of course, many people have said since then that it was about states' rights. But really the only significant state right that people were arguing about in 1860 was the right to own what was known as slave property - property and slaves - unimpeded and to be able to travel with that property anywhere that you wanted to, to be able to spread slavery across the United States.
> 
> So it's clear that this was really about slavery in almost every significant way. But, you know, we've sort of pushed that to the side because, of course, we want to believe that our country is a country that's always stood for freedom. And I think it can be difficult for Americans to accept.
> 
> Certainly it's difficult for Southern Americans to accept that their ancestors fought a war on behalf of slavery. And I think that Northerners really, for the cause of national reconciliation, decided to push that aside, decided to accept Southerners' denials or demurrals.
> 
> GROSS: You know, it's - in terms of how we're still talking about what was the war really about, in 2010, the governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, made a statement about Confederate History Month. And he didn't mention slavery in it. He praised those who fought for their homes and communities and commonwealth, but there was no mention of slavery. And he got a lot of criticism for that.
> 
> And Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said that the Civil War was about slavery, and that remark was considered, like, very important, a very important admission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> '1861': A Social History Of The Civil War : NPR
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Unkotare

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that in the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article II, Section 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you quote the exact language that says that the Commander-in-Chief can, in your words, "declare policy against those areas in open rebellion?"
Click to expand...



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


----------



## Dante

Kevin_Kennedy said:


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



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


----------



## Toro

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know much about this subject but I was listening to a podcast about the Civil War today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the radicals on the Southern side stood for a free, independent, Southern republic. A republic that would be founded on slavery, with slavery as its cornerstone, as Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, famously said in a speech known as "The Cornerstone Speech."
> 
> He explicitly repudiated Thomas Jefferson's doctrine that all men are created equal, and he said: We in our new republic have a new dogma, that we are a republic whose cornerstone is slavery. ...
> 
> GROSS: So both sides, for the extremes of both sides, it was about slavery. And yet, there are still arguments about what was the Civil War really about. And some people say: Oh, it wasn't really about slavery. Why are we still arguing about what the Civil War was about?
> 
> GOODHEART: Well, you know, when you go back, and you look at the actual documents and debates from the time, of course, many people have said since then that it was about states' rights. But really the only significant state right that people were arguing about in 1860 was the right to own what was known as slave property - property and slaves - unimpeded and to be able to travel with that property anywhere that you wanted to, to be able to spread slavery across the United States.
> 
> So it's clear that this was really about slavery in almost every significant way. But, you know, we've sort of pushed that to the side because, of course, we want to believe that our country is a country that's always stood for freedom. And I think it can be difficult for Americans to accept.
> 
> Certainly it's difficult for Southern Americans to accept that their ancestors fought a war on behalf of slavery. And I think that Northerners really, for the cause of national reconciliation, decided to push that aside, decided to accept Southerners' denials or demurrals.
> 
> GROSS: You know, it's - in terms of how we're still talking about what was the war really about, in 2010, the governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, made a statement about Confederate History Month. And he didn't mention slavery in it. He praised those who fought for their homes and communities and commonwealth, but there was no mention of slavery. And he got a lot of criticism for that.
> 
> And Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said that the Civil War was about slavery, and that remark was considered, like, very important, a very important admission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> '1861': A Social History Of The Civil War : NPR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say the debate about tariffs was most certainly a significant issue that people were arguing about at the time.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## editec

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

The premise of this thread is a lie

Civilians were not targeted.

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


----------



## Publius1787

Dante said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and the South was fighting to keep it's _niggars _in chains. That would be a war crime today too.
> 
> Unleash the dogs of war and...
> 
> You sound like Adolph Hitler apologists who claim Hitler was only copying American practices when he sent the Jews to their deaths in camps. You blame Lincoln for targeting civilians?  read history. Ever since the dawn of mankind Armies have slaughtered and pillaged civilian fortresses.
> 
> Lincoln allowed Southerners to live because it was a civil war. He did not order troops to slaughter all civilians and take any survivors in chains, though the last part might have been an appropriate sort of justice indeed.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Unkotare said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article II, Section 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you quote the exact language that says that the Commander-in-Chief can, in your words, "declare policy against those areas in open rebellion?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's talk again after (if) you graduate from high school.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Unkotare

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you quote the exact language that says that the Commander-in-Chief can, in your words, "declare policy against those areas in open rebellion?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's talk again after (if) you graduate from high school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'm currently a senior in college, so how about answering the question?
Click to expand...



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


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Toro said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know much about this subject but I was listening to a podcast about the Civil War today.
> 
> 
> 
> '1861': A Social History Of The Civil War : NPR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say the debate about tariffs was most certainly a significant issue that people were arguing about at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took a class in economic history of North America in college, and my professor said that tariffs were a big reason for the Civil War.  That was the first time I'd ever heard of another issue other than slavery being a cause of the war.  The university was in Canada and the professor was Canadian, so he didn't have any horse in this race, but I always thought he was exaggerating somewhat.  The economic impact of abolition to Southern whites was far, far greater than tariffs.
> 
> He was an interesting guy.  He taught that slavery stunted the economic development of the South.  It discouraged the formation of large cities, where there are economies of scale which allows innovation to be commercialized, as well as large pools of capital, which is how innovation is funded.  Slavery instead encouraged the agrarian economy and the maintenance of the county seat as the primary center for commerce, which discouraged manufacturing.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

editec said:


> More CSA nonsense from our resident haters of the United State of America
> 
> The premise of this thread is a lie
> 
> Civilians were not targeted.
> 
> Had they been targeted for total war he Northern troops would have killed every citizen of the CSA.



Tell that to Atlanta.

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

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


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Unkotare said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's talk again after (if) you graduate from high school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm currently a senior in college, so how about answering the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! I knew it! You are a little school boy talking out your ass. STFU and hit the books kid. You might learn something after all.
Click to expand...


Apparently you didn't know it, because you said I was in high school which was incorrect. It's funny that you have to try to dismiss this "little school boy" rather than being able to make a real argument against what I've said.


----------



## Unkotare

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm currently a senior in college, so how about answering the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! I knew it! You are a little school boy talking out your ass. STFU and hit the books kid. You might learn something after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you didn't know it, because you said I was in high school which was incorrect.
Click to expand...



Nowadays it's about the same, as evidenced by your glaring ignorance. Go do your homework, kid.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Unkotare said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! I knew it! You are a little school boy talking out your ass. STFU and hit the books kid. You might learn something after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you didn't know it, because you said I was in high school which was incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nowadays it's about the same, as evidenced by your glaring ignorance. Go do your homework, kid.
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

Hitting the weed already, kid? A little early in the day, but I guess it doesn't matter for you. It's not like you were likely to learn anything anyway.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Toro said:


> I took a class in economic history of North America in college, and my professor said that tariffs were a big reason for the Civil War.  That was the first time I'd ever heard of another issue other than slavery being a cause of the war.



There were a lot of issues in play prior to the Civil War.  The South had been threatening secession for a while over a variety of issues and the New England States nearly acted upon secession during the War of 1812.  The South had threatened secession during the Amistad case and basically every other time that slavery as an issue came up.  There was a mini civil war in Kansas over the Slave versus Free issue.  There was open fighting on the floor of Congress over the slavery issue.

The easiest sum up for the Civil War is that the Northern and Southern states were just too different by any measure to co-exist in peace forever.  The North was Industrial, the South was Agricultural.  The North had a great deal of Class Mobility, the South had almost none.  The North was Free, the South was Slave holding, etc.

Even if you toss out the slavery issue, which was definitely one of the central causes, there were a whole long list of other cultural, economic, and political issues that would have led to war.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Publius1787 said:


> If you&#8217;re asking which side had moral justification on their side, it was the south. If you&#8217;re pointing out war crimes to make the case, you needn&#8217;t be.



I've always believed that legally, secession was a viable route for any State that wanted to take that route.  The New England states must have considered that a legitimate avenue of relief as they'd planned to secede near the end of the war of 1812.

Unfortunately while legally they had that option, morally they were undercut by their status as a slave holding Nation.  Ultimately neither the North nor Europe would ever recognize their right to exist under such conditions.  And without European support or the ability to negotiate an exit from the Union, they would be forced to prove their right to exist via force, a test they were ultimately doomed to fail. 

It sounds heartless to say it, but ultimately your right to exist as a soverign nation comes down to your ability to defend yourself using military force or diplomacy.  It's the reason the Indian nations are largely irrelevant, the reason Utah failed to break free and the reason the South failed.  Until a group of states proves able to negotiate their release from the Union or have the military strength to fight free, we are all bound to the Federal Government.


----------



## Dante

Publius1787 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Targeting Civilians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the South was fighting to keep it's _niggars _in chains. That would be a war crime today too.
> 
> Unleash the dogs of war and...
> 
> You sound like Adolph Hitler apologists who claim Hitler was only copying American practices when he sent the Jews to their deaths in camps. You blame Lincoln for targeting civilians?  read history. Ever since the dawn of mankind Armies have slaughtered and pillaged civilian fortresses.
> 
> Lincoln allowed Southerners to live because it was a civil war. He did not order troops to slaughter all civilians and take any survivors in chains, though the last part might have been an appropriate sort of justice indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were true then no one would have seceded after the passage of the Corwin Amendment.
Click to expand...


The thirteenth amendment?  How many states had seceded before Lincoln sent a letter about it to all the states for their consideration? Amending the Constitution has always been a long process with no guarantee of passage. 

You are being purposefully disingenuous. You well know the slavery issue heated up over the laws and proposed laws governing expansion of slavery into news territories and states.


----------

