Sherman the Pyromaniac

LewRockwell.com ^ | June 21, 2002 | Gail Jarvis

[stand watie]

RETURNED!

for a FREE dixie,sw

[stand watie]

very true! 'ole nate forrest and his forces badly wanted to "head into the mountains and raise hell"! i suspect if he had, dixie would have been free within ten years or less.

for dixie,sw

[stand watie]

blacks,jews,latinos & indians in rebel uniform were ROUTINELY murdered at time of capture, or shortly thereafter, by the damnyankees.

frankly, i'm surprised that the "filth that came down from the north" bothered to send my relatives to Point Lookout for "proper disposition", but they did in at least those 5 cases!

at Point Lookout DEATH Camp the USUAL method of killing prisoners was evidently by DROWNING. persons in the sickened/wounded/half-starved condition of the POWs were EASY for two guards to drown and it was QUIET.

SHOOTING in the back of the head, with a pistol, was likely second in frequency of ways to kill a prisoner, but around a prison camp shots provoked "questions", especially if the shots were heard after dark.

BAYONETING was probably third in frequency of execution methods, but that method was also NOISY!

yesterday afternoon, i talked to a ranger at PL and he said every time it rains or floods that more bones are washed up to be visible on the surface;it is "just routine", according to the staffmember.

it WAS once my guess from comparing entrance/admittance records of POWs, deducting those transferred to another place of confinement,died of "natural causes & wounds" & those POWs released from PL that at least 14,000 POWs were murdered (the War Department called those persons "mysteriously disappearred"---does any reader believe that ANY prison warden would accept "mysteriously disappearred" as a LAWFUL disposition of ANY confined person at any confinement facility?).

based on my recent conversations with the staff of the PLPOWC museum and the rangers/maintaince personnel of the PL State Park & Historical Site, i now believe that number is FAR too low, given the routine nature of "summary execution" of racial/religious & ethnic minority CSA servicemembers, upon arrival or shortly thereafter,at the POW camp.

the ACTUAL number of those MURDERED will, imVho,NEVER be known with any certainty.

for TRUTH & REMEMBERENCE,sw

[stand watie]

i prefer "PALEO-confederate"! nothing "neo" about it in my family, at least.

FREE dixie NOW,sw

[stand watie]

for all his problems (& he had many sadnesses in his life, which affected him greatly), Jeff Davis on his worst day was a 100 times better man than lincoln,the tyrant,bigot,racist & war criminal.

for dixie LIBERTY,sw

[stand watie]

WELL SAID!

for dixie,sw

[Rebelbase]

Go to the bottom line. War is about breaking the enemy's will to fight. Burning civilan homes and crops, yes, by all means if it will end the war and stop the slaughter.

You armchair Generals did'nt live in the time, did'nt bury the bodies, and did'nt see the maimed on a daily basis as did those who had to fight that war. "Civilized" warfare died bewteen 1861-1865. Kill your enemy , burn his houses, crops and farms.

Destroy his will to fight, or end up like we did in Vietnam, "nuetered" by a politcal policy that favored "civilized warfare"--50,000 dead to follow the "rules"...What an idiot concept. And I'm not talking about rape, execute the bastards who do that. Wholesale property destruction to save your and my son's lives? Absolutely.

Johnston and Hooker failed in their orders to stop Sherman. Sherman did what he knew would end the war as quickly as possible.

Damn Hooker and Johnson for failing, not Sherman for winning.

[rustbucket]

"Civilized" warfare died bewteen 1861-1865. Kill your enemy , burn his houses, crops and farms.

Probably so. The following 1863 instructions for US Army behavior in the field seem to have been disobeyed (or else appropriate Federal officers authorized barbarism).

Art. 16. Military necessity does not admit of cruelty -- that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district. It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult.

Art. 22. Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit.

Art. 24. The almost universal rule in remote times was, and continues to be with barbarous armies, that the private individual of the hostile country is destined to suffer every privation of liberty and protection, and every disruption of family ties. Protection was, and still is with uncivilized people, the exception.

Art. 38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the army or of the United States.

If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.

Art. 44. All wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded country, all destruction of property not commanded by the authorized officer, all robbery, all pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force, all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing of such inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense.

%$#@* Federal barbarians.

[Rebelbase]

Re:#127...Hooker=Hood.

[Non-Sequitur]

Well, when if comes to racism I'll grant you the 100 time more racist than Lincoln. When it comes to tyranny I'll grant you he was 100 times the tyrant that Lincoln was. When it comes to war crimes I'll agree that his crimes were 100 times worse than Lincoln's. So in those areas he was 100 times the man Lincoln was. But I myself wouldn't consider that something to be proud of.

[Non-Sequitur]

When did this 'civilized' warfare ever begin? European armies burned, looted, plundered, raped, and pillaged from one end of the continent to another for centuries prior to the Civil War. Spanish, English, and French settlers exterminated Indians by the carload in North America, and did the same throughout Asia. Napoleon's army commanders were noted plunderers. This whole idea that somehow civilians were protected prior to the Civil War is wishful thinking.

[supercat]

3. The South lost and we are all the better for it. Get over it.

The end of slavery in this country would have been an inevitable consequence of the industrial revolution whether or not slavery was legal. Once concentrated sources of power became available, they became much cheaper than slaves which--even after they were bought--had to be fed, clothed, sheltered, and otherwise provided for.

Aside from its acceptance of the already-installed (and already-obsolescent) institution of slavery, what else do you find objectionable about the Confederacy?

[Non-Sequitur]

The end of slavery down south would have required a cheaper alternative for the requirements of plantation agriculture. Cotton farming was a labor intensive process and one which defied automation - the first mechanical cotton-picker was not introduced until the mid 1940's. So absent a cheaper and more convenient source of labor, or a collapse in the profitability of growing cotton, there would have been no incentive for the south to abandon slavery for decades after the war.

[stand watie]

i would guess then that you favor WAR CRIMES?

savagery in war only makes for hatred among the vanquished;that savagery is why we southrons after almost 150 years are still desirous of LIBERTY from the northern oppressors.

FREE the south NOW,sw

[stand watie]

why do you keep repeating this SILLY lie?

the first mechanical cottonpicker was patented in the 1850s-it required a team of 8-12 mules and ONE person to operate the machine. anybody,with the time to look up the patent records, can do so.

the industrial revolution, NOT damnyankee bayonets ended slavery.

for dixie LIBERTY>

[stand watie]

the ONLY reason the mechanical cottonpicker was NOT used in the south after the WBTS was that the filthy,hateful damnyankees had so destroyed the economy that nobody could afford one!

FREE dixie NOW,sw

[Non-Sequitur]

The first successful mechanical cotton picker was not introduced until the mid-1940's. The patent you speak of was for a machine that was totally impractical for the purpose it was supposed to be used for. Southern dependence on slavery was due to southern preference, not due to any sort of northern conspiracy.

[Rebelbase]

War is a crime. Get over it.

[stand watie]

in other words you think 9-11 was OK???? and osama bin laden is a FINE fellow???

for a free dixie,sw

[Rebelbase]

You are *way* off base comparing 9/11 and Osama to Sherman in Ga, 1864. Like I said earlier, blame Hood and Johston for failing, not Sherman for winning.