"Breaking News", the South Lost the Civil War. Vanity

self | 9/26/02 | tall_tex

[Non-Sequitur]

Geneva 1863
1.Attacking defensless cities and towns was a crime.
2.Plundring and wantonly destroying civilian property wa a crime.
3.Only necessities may br taken from a civilian population, and they must be paid for

Here in it's entirity is the Geneva Convention of 1864:

Convention signed at Geneva August 22, 1864; Ratifications exchanged at Geneva June 22, 1865; Declaration of accession signed by the President of the United States March 1, 1882; Senate advice and consent to accession March 16, 1882; Accession of the United States accepted by Switzerland June 9, 1882; Entered into force June 22, 1865; for the United States June 9, 1882; Proclaimed by the President of the United States July 26, 1882; Superseded by conventions of July 6, 1906,1 July 27, 1929 and August 12, 1949 as between contracting parties to the later conventions in each instance.

ARTICLE 1
Ambulances and military hospitals shall be acknowledged to be neuter, and, as such, shall be protected and respected by belligerents so long as any sick or wounded may be therein.

Such neutrality shall cease if the ambulances or hospitals should be held by a military force.

ARTICLE 2
Persons employed in hospitals and ambulances, comprising the staff for superintendence, medical service, administration, transport of wounded, as well as chaplains, shall participate in the benefit of neutrality, whilst so employed, and so long as there remain any wounded to bring in or to succor.

ARTICLE 3
The persons designated in the preceding article may, even after occupation by the enemy, continue to fulfil their duties in the hospital or ambulance which they serve, or may withdraw in order to rejoin the corps to which they belong.

Under such circumstances, when these persons shall cease from their functions, they shall be delivered by the occupying army to the outposts of the enemy.

ARTICLE 4
As the equipment of military hospitals remains subject to the laws of war, persons attached to such hospitals cannot, in withdrawing, carry away any articles but such as are their private property.

Under the same circumstances an ambulance shall, on the contrary, retain its equipment.

ARTICLE 5
Inhabitants of the country who may bring help to the wounded shall be respected, and shall remain free. The generals of the belligerent Powers shall make it their care to inform the inhabitants of the appeal addressed to their humanity, and of the neutrality which will be the consequence of it.

Any wounded man entertained and taken care of in a house shall be considered as a protection thereto. Any inhabitant who shall have entertained wounded men in his house shall be exempted from the quartering of troops, as well as from a part of the contributions of war which may be imposed.

ARTICLE 6
Wounded or sick soldiers shall be entertained and taken care of, to whatever nation they may belong.

Commanders-in-chief shall have the power to deliver immediately to the outposts of the enemy soldiers who have been wounded in an engagement, when circumstances permit this to be done, and with the consent of both parties.

Those who are recognized, after their wounds are healed, as incapable of serving, shall be sent back to their country.

The others may also be sent back, on condition of not again bearing arms during the continuance of the war.

Evacuations, together with the persons under whose directions they take place, shall be protected by an absolute neutrality.

ARTICLE 7
A distinctive and uniform flag shall be adopted for hospitals, ambulances and evacuations. It must, on every occasion, be accompanied by the national flag. An arm-badge (brassard) shall also be allowed for individuals neutralized, but the delivery thereof shall be left to military authority.

The flag and the arm-badge shall bear a red cross on a white ground.

ARTICLE 8
The details of execution of the present convention shall be regulated by the commanders-in-chief of belligerent armies, according to the instructions of their respective governments, and in conformity with the general principles laid down in this convention.

ARTICLE 9
The high contracting Powers have agreed to communicate the present convention to those Governments which have not found it convenient to send plenipotentiaries to the International Conference at Geneva, with an invitation to accede thereto; the protocol is for that purpose left open.

ARTICLE 10
The present convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Berne, in four months, or sooner, if possible.

In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed it and have affixed their seals thereto.

Done at Geneva, the twenty-second day of the month of August of the year one thousand eight hundred and Sixty-four.

So show me where attacking defenseless cities and towns was a crime, plundring and wantonly destroying civilian property was a crime and only necessities may br taken from a civilian population, and they must be paid for. I sure can't find it anywhere in the document you claim is in.

Nice try but I won't be reconstructed.

You won't be right, either.

[Bigun]

Sophistry! Pure Sophistry on both your part AND that of Chief Justice Chase!

The "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" (That is the TITLE of the document for pity’s sake) repeats the exhortation of perpetuity five times in the body of the document as well as in it’s title but that was dropped entirely by the new Constitution. Are you and Chief Justice Chase seriously trying to convince anyone that the framers, who were entirely familiar with and imported, word for word, entire clauses from the Articles into the Constitution left out the references to "perpetual" by accident?

[Non-Sequitur]

Let me guess, you disagree with the Chief Justice's interpretation of the Constitution. Well, there isn't a lot that I can do about that. There have been Supreme Court decisions that I've disagreed with, too. But in the end your approval or disapproval doesn't mean spit. Unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states is a violation of the Constitution, and it will remain so until the Constitution is amended or a future court overturns Texas v. White.

[Bigun]

But in the end your approval or disapproval doesn't mean spit.

Now THERE is a point upon which we can agree! Doesn't alter the TRUTH one iota however!

Unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states is a violation of the Constitution, and it will remain so until the Constitution is amended or a future court overturns Texas v. White.

Bull Sh*t!

Firstly there were NO unilateral secessions! EVERYONE of them was done by acts of the legislatures of the states concerned and there would have been MORE of them except for the UNILATERAL actions of King Abraham and his minions preventing those duly constituted bodies from acting!

Fact is that the ENTIRE history of this nation is based on the self evident right of secession and you well KNOW that!

[MP5SD]

I'm not going muddy the waters with boatloads of unrelated material.

From the beginning of warfare to the advent of contemporary humanitarian law, over 500 cartels, codes of conduct, covenants and other texts designed to regulate hostilities have been recorded.

They include the Lieber Code, which came into force in April 1863 and is important in that it marked the first attempt to codify the existing laws and customs of war. Unlike the first Geneva Convention (adopted a year later), however, the Code did not have the status of a treaty as it was intended solely for Union soldiers fighting in the American Civil War.

Lieber, Francis (professor at Colombia College (New York); at the request of Abraham Lincoln, drew up a series of instructions for Union soldiers during the American Civil War

In 1863 there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that sought to codify international law with regard to the conduct of war. What the convention sought to do was to take the principles of "civilized" warfare that had evolved over the previous century, and declare them to be a part of international law that should be obeyed by all civilized societies. Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army. On April 24, 1863, the Lincoln administration seemed to adopt the precepts of international law as expressed by the Geneva Convention, Vattel, and Halleck, when it issued General Order No. 100, known as the "Lieber Code."

http://www.ptialaska.net/~swampy/powers/mart_law.html#sec2

1864 Sherman would announce that "to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy." In 1862 Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the war would be "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people" of the South. His loving and gentle wife wrote back that her wish was for "a war of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing."

Just because you say it "isnt" a war crime dosen't make it so. You can pretend that Grant,Sheridan, and Sherman didn't commit war crimes and d*$k dance around it all you want. BTW-Well chosen screen name.

[Corin Stormhands]

As I said, attitudes toward blacks in the North were not good, but they were much better.

Only because they hadn't had an invading army burn their homes, rape their women and eat their livestock. Certainly not because they were more virtuous.

Since the majority of the ex-slave population was naturally in the South, the North simply lacked the opportunity to do more harm.

[Corin Stormhands]

Historically, the entire world agreed with me.

Yeah, so? The entire world is saying we need UN approval to go after Saddam as well...

[Non-Sequitur]

Doesn't alter the TRUTH one iota however!

The TRUTH is in the eye of the beholder. What you see as truth I see as falsehood.

Firstly there were NO unilateral secessions! EVERYONE of them was done by acts of the legislatures of the states concerned and there would have been MORE of them except for the UNILATERAL actions of King Abraham and his minions preventing those duly constituted bodies from acting!

Crap. Were the actions taken with the consultation of all the parties affected by the decision? No. Y'all walked out without any input from the rest of the country, walking away from the national debt, treaty obligations, and taking with you a considerable amount of federal property.

Fact is that the ENTIRE history of this nation is based on the self evident right of secession and you well KNOW that!

Do I?

[Non-Sequitur]

I'm not going muddy the waters with boatloads of unrelated material.

Huh? You claim that the Geneva Convention of 1864 contained all sorts of clauses preventing attacking cities, protecting property, and all the rest. I print the entire convention showing you're completely wrong and that becomesm 'boatloads of unrelated material'? You lied, there is nothing unrelated in that.

From the beginning of warfare to the advent of contemporary humanitarian law, over 500 cartels, codes of conduct, covenants and other texts designed to regulate hostilities have been recorded.

And how many of those existed prior to 1861? Name a few.

1864 Sherman would announce that "to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy."

Sherman also said, "War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. And I say let us give them all they want; not a word of argument, not a sign of let up, no cave-in until we are whipped - or they are." Sherman's tactics, while harsh, were effective and ended the war sooner. Sherman's tactics weren't a lot different than those practiced by Lee when he was in the North. If they were war criminals, then they were all war criminals together.

[Non-Sequitur]

And if the United Nations passed a resolution saying that the confederacy did exist then I suppose your opinion of them would change in a hurry?

An independent state called the confederate states of america never existed, except in the minds of the leaders of the southern rebellion and their minions. You can believe that or not, as you will. As I pointed out to someone else you can go around calling yourself Grand High King of the Universe, too, but unless someone starts calling you "Your Majesty" then you're just another nutcase.

[Bigun]

The TRUTH is in the eye of the beholder. What you see as truth I see as falsehood.

Nope! Truth is truth whether or not some ever choose to recognize it as such!

[Non-Sequitur]

Nope! Truth is truth whether or not some ever choose to recognize it as such!

Not hardly. The truth is that it is a sunny Sunday morning where I'm at. That truth may not hold true where you are, it could be raining. Your truth holds that there was once a soverign country called the confederate states of america. My truth holds that no such animal ever existed.

[TexConfederate1861]

States Rights.....plain and simple.
Slavery was just ONE of the issues, and mainly concerned the wealthy planters, etc.

[Non-Sequitur]

Take away slavery and what other state's rights were at issue?

[MP5SD]

It pointless to argue with someone who advocates ethnic cleansing as a legitimate means of warefare. These people were Americans.

You refuse to address the POINT. I take it your point is anything is "Right" if its not prohibited by law?

[Non-Sequitur]

It pointless to argue with someone who advocates ethnic cleansing as a legitimate means of warefare.

Not only are you putting words in my mouth, you're resorting to stupid words. What ethnic cleansing are you talking about? Sherman lived off the land, burned railroads and other property used to support the rebellion or belonging to those who supported the rebellion. Same thing Lee did in Pennsylvania in 1863.

[Non-Sequitur]

You refuse to address the POINT. I take it your point is anything is "Right" if its not prohibited by law?

My point is that war is hard, and civilians bear the brunt. Civil wars are harder and if the southern civilians suffered, well, then that's the way it goes. They had no problem with it when it happened to others.

[TexConfederate1861]

Let's see, Federal selective enforcement of laws, tariffs unjustly imposed, Northern states interfering with the rights of other states.....

But then again Nonny ole boy, I have debated this issue with you several times.....don't care to waste my time again.

Bye.....

[TexConfederate1861]

If you will read the ORDINANCE of secession, not the Declaration, (which was written by slave-owners at the secession convention), you will see a difference.....


An Ordinance:
To dissolve the union between the State of Texas and the other States, united under the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
Adopted in Convention, at Austin City, the first day of February, A.D. 1861.


Whereas,
the Federal Government has failed to accomplish the purposes of the compact of union between these States, in giving protection either to the persons of our people upon an exposed frontier, or to the property of our citizens; and, whereas, the action of the Northern States of the Union is violative of the compact between the States and the guarantees of the Constitution; and whereas the recent developments in Federal affairs, make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and prosperity of the people of Texas and her Sister slaveholding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression:


Therefore,
Section 1
We, the People of the State of Texas, by Delegates in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, that the Ordinance adopted by our Convention of Delegates, on the Fourth day of July, A.D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into Union with other States and became a party to the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America" be, and is hereby repealed and annulled; That all the powers, which by said compact were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government, are revoked and resumed; That Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate Sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States, or the Government thereof.


Section 2
This ordinance shall be submitted to the people of Texas for ratification or rejection by the qualified voters thereof, on the 23rd day of February 1861, and unless rejected by a majority of the votes cast, shall take effect and be in force on and after the 2nd day of March, A.D. 1861. Provided, that in the Representative District of El Paso, said election may be held on the 19th day of February, A.D. 1861.

Adopted in Convention, at Austin City, the first day of February, A.D. 1861.

[TexConfederate1861]

And I thought UT was liberal...geez....