Posted on 02/17/2008 10:45:07 PM PST by Dawnsblood
Presidents Day has taken a deep back seat these days on our holiday calendar to the point that not only do schools go on as scheduled, but so do many state and government offices. This is not surprising in 2008, and many revel in it. Presidents Day now celebrates all presidents, not just our greatest. That being the case, let's "celebrate," or at least recall, the three worst presidents in our country's otherwise proud history.
All 43 had their faults, and though mainstream media sources may not agree with my choices, many who understand history will, as a recurring theme continues. During each of these men's short times in office, they were responsible for deterring progress and negatively affecting the future for America. Thankfully, two of them were followed by two of the greatest commanders in chief of all time.
From the bottom:
Jimmy Carter: (1977-1981)
Few would deny Mr. Carter's place in infamy. I will confine myself to his actual time in office, although Jimmy Carter arguably has actually been as detrimental to freedom, democracy and the American ideal as during his catastrophic tenure.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Greetings, Colonel.
On January 24, 1864, Judge Robert Ould, Confederate Agent of Prisoner Exchange, sent the following letter:
Major General E. A. Hitchcock [US], Agent of Exchange:
Sir -- In view of the the exchange and release of prisoners, I propose that all such on each side shall be attended by a proper number of their own surgeons, who under rules to be established, shall be permitted to take charge of their health and comfort. I also propose that these surgeons shall act as commissaries, with power to receive and distribute such contributions of money, food, clothing and medicines as may be forwarded for the relief of prisoners. I further propose that these surgeons be selected by their own Governments, and that they shall have full liberty at any and all times, through the agents of exchange, to make reports not only of their own acts but also of any matters relating to the Welfare of prisoners.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
Ro. Ould, Agent of Exchange
And the Union reply:
WAR DEPARTMENT, February 24, 1864.
Respectfully returned to the commissioner for exchange.
The Secretary of War declines to entertain Mr. Ould's proposition.
ED. R. S. CANBY,
Brigadier-General
Nice concern on the part of the Union government for their own captured troops.
I found the Ould letter in Point Lookout Prison Camp for Confederates, by Edwin W. Beitzell, copyright 1983. Both the Ould letter and the Union refusal to consider it are in the Official Records, Series II, Volume VI, Part 1, pages 871-872 [Link].
You mentioned lack of interest by Davis in the suffering of Southerners? Perhaps you are referring to the treatment of East Tennesseans by Confederates. Here's an article from the Richmond (VA) Dispatch of December 1, 1864, citing complaints by East Tennessee Unionists. [Link]:
Devastation of East Tennessee ordered by Sherman.
Intelligence has been received here that Sherman has issued an order relative to East Tennessee similar to that issued by Grant to Sheridan in the Valley. He has directed that the country be generally devastated, sparing neither houses, barns, stock, grain, nor anything else. A meeting of Union citizens was held in Knoxville, at which a protest against this barbarism was adopted and forwarded to Sherman. He paid no attention to it.--The Yankees can only carry out this order as far up as Knoxville, as the Confederates hold the country from near there to the Virginia line.
Or, perhaps you are worried about the treatment of East Tennessee Unionists in the early days of the war? Why is it that the East Tennessee Unionists started burning bridges in 1861? That certainly brought down the wrath of Confederates on them. Here is a link to some information about Brownlow and the 1861 bridge burnings. As I remember, Brownlow was a favorite of your ancestors. [Official Records Link, Series II, Volume I, pages 915 ff]].
Little different from Lincoln's record? You've exceeded even yourself. Yes, by all means, let's be fair.
Please name for me the newspapers suspended by the Confederate Government. On the other hand, here is a list of a few papers suspended, circulation supressed, or taken over by the Lincoln administration or destroyed or attacked by Northern mobs. These are just from 1864. Destruction by mobs was common in 1864, but there were official suppressions by the North in this list as well.
Democrat, Gallatin County, Illinois
Picket Guard, Chester, Illinois
Volksblatt, Belleville, Illinois
Democrat, Laporte, Indiana
Herald, Franklin County, Indiana
Constitution and Union, Fairfield, Iowa
True Presbyterian, Louisville, Kentucky
Courier, New Orleans, Louisiana
Journal, Belfast, Maine
Transcript, Baltimore, Maryland
Democrat, Cambridge, Maryland
Bulletin, Baltimore, Maryland
Loyalist, Baltimore, Maryland
Union, Louisiana, Missouri
Metropolitan Record, New York
Eagle, Lancaster, Ohio
Mahoning Sentinel, Youngstown, Ohio
Crisis, Columbus, Ohio
Statesman, Columbus, Ohio
Democrat, Wauscon, Ohio
Dayton Empire, Dayton, Ohio
Democrat, Greenville, Darke County, Ohio
Democrat, Sunbury, Pennsylvania
Crawford Democrat, Meadville, Pennsylvania
Northumberland Democrat, Pennsylvania
Advertiser, Lebanon, Pennsylvania
Freeman’s Journal, Nashville, Tennessee
News, Memphis, Tennessee
Register, Wheeling, Virginia
Can you be a little more specific? Which were suspended or suppressed by government action as opposed to suppressed or attacked because people didn't like their editorial content. If you can provide a source I'd appreciate it as well.
There was concern, and justifiable concern, too. Throughout the rebellion, the Davis government showed a lack of interest in following generally accepted practices regarding prisoners. On July 31, 1862, Davis declared that if John Pope or certain of his subordinates were captured that they would not be treated as prisoners of war but common felons. Now you will note that Davis issued this sentence, there was no trial or legal proceedings. Davis had no use for courts, as history has shown. Not being content with that order, on August 21st the Davis government declared that if General David Hunter and certain of his officers were to be captured then they would be held for execution. Again, a summary order on the part of the confederate government and not the result of any judicial proceedings or any trial. Captured, then executed, that was to be their fate. That same year, Davis celebrated Christmas by issuing a similar order for General Butler and his officers. It should be noted that the capital offense that these officers were 'guilty' of was recruiting former slaves as Union soldiers.
At the same time, Davis issued his order that white officers commanding black regiments were also to be hanged. No trial, the punishment was already decided on. The black soldiers under their command were to be returned to slavery. So given these public orders on the part of Davis and his government that they felt that they were not bound to treat prisoners of war as prisoners of war, why should the U.S. have taken any offers of exchange on the part of such a bunch as serious?
Sir -- In view of the the exchange and release of prisoners, I propose that all such on each side shall be attended by a proper number of their own surgeons, who under rules to be established, shall be permitted to take charge of their health and comfort. I also propose that these surgeons shall act as commissaries, with power to receive and distribute such contributions of money, food, clothing and medicines as may be forwarded for the relief of prisoners. I further propose that these surgeons be selected by their own Governments, and that they shall have full liberty at any and all times, through the agents of exchange, to make reports not only of their own acts but also of any matters relating to the Welfare of prisoners.
The prisoners in places like Andersonville died of malnutrition and exposure and lack of sanitary water. What were the Union commissioners supposed to do, bring houses and food with them as well? The mistreatment of Union prisoners by the South was deliberate. As deliberate in every way as Union mistreatment of confederate prisoners was. Both sides could have provided decent shelter but did not. Both sides could have provided sufficient food but did not. Both sides could have provided sanitary conditions but did not. The difference between us on this point, Rusty ol' man, is that I admit it while you persist on blaming everything on Lincoln. I state for the record that the Union treatment of prisoners was despicable and those responsible for it should have been tried. You blame everything on Lincoln. Lincoln is your boogie man, the cause of all the South's problems. Such is the great Southern Whine, vintage 2008.
I've given you names. I found them on the web and in hard copy print. Do your own homework.
Where is your list of papers suppressed by the Confederacy?
You must be referring to Pope's harsh treatment of Southern civilians: [Link, see bottom of page]. Some have called Pope's actions the initiation of total war against the South later practiced by Sherman, Hunter and others [Link 2].
The Lieber Code for conduct by US Armies signed by Lincoln allowed for retaliation against barbarities. Why shouldn't Davis have the right to prevent barbarities against Southern civilians by threatening retaliation against Pope and his officers. From the Lieber Code:
27. The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation than can the law of nations, of which it is a branch. Yet civilized nations acknowledge retaliation as the sternest feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage.
28. Retaliation will therefore never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and moreover cautiously and unavoidably--that is to say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution.
By retaliating against innocent civilians for the actions of guerillas, Pope brought about Davis' action against him.
I have to postpone our conversation now for a few days. I apologize. I'll get back to this later.
The Dems could have run anyone in 1976 and won - and proved it.
BJ Clinton could be considered more a disappointment than an outright failure except for the treasonous selling of secrets to the ChiComs for $$ - that puts him above (below, really) LBJ on the list.
Meanwhile, the three best Dem Presidents are easy to list: Polk, Cleveland and Truman.
No, I'm talking about Davis's condemning Union officers to death without trial. I'm talking about his contempt for the judiciary. I thought I was being very clear.
If Davis thought Pope or Hunter or Butler or any other Union officer was violating the rules of war then the legal solution would be a war crimes trial if captured. Davis didn't bother with that. Like Fury and the mouse, Davis said that he was judge, he was jury. He tried the whole cause and condemned them to death. But on the other hand, Lewis Carroll's "Wonderland" is an appropriate symbol for Jeff Davis's confederacy.
You have no idea, do you? Figures.
Where is your list of papers suppressed by the Confederacy?
Well let's see. There was the Richmond Whig. There was the Greensboro Alabama Beacon. There was the Athena Union Banner. There was the Galveston Union and the Galveston Civilian and Gazette. There was the San Antonio Alamo Express. The Richmond Examiner. The Knoxville Whig. Brayton Harris wrote an entire book on the subject, "Blue & Gray in Black & White: Newspapers in the Civil War".
You have to remember that there were only about 80 newspapers in the entire confederacy prior to the start of the rebellion, and Union advances wound up shutting down newspapers in cities like Norfolk and Memphis and New Orleans as their staffs headed for the hills.
Clinton and Carter are the top two...the other retards are not even close as far as undermining this nation.
Andrew Johnson was a slave-holding Democrat. He was a racist who wanted to restore the Democrat South as it was. He was against giving blacks the right to vote and fought the 14th amendment. He was impeached by Republicans for intentionally violating the duly enacted law of the land. He avoided conviction by one vote.
He was not an honorable man.
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/lyon/tdocws.htm
After a great deal of reading and researching period documents I tend to believe him more that what we were taught in skool.
You have no idea, do you? Figures.
You really must work on your Internet searching skills. All of the papers I cited that were suppressed/mobbed,etc., in 1864 by the Feds or Union hooligans are listed on the web in one source. Maybe that hint will be sufficient. I also went to the library and found the hard copy of that source and confirmed what it said.
Let's examine the examples of Southern newspaper suppression you got from Blue and Gray in Black and White.
Richmond Whig. Antisecession editor forced out of his job the day after Sumter's surrender. By whom, the proprietor wishing for his paper to be profitable?
B&G in B&W says General Winder arrested the Whig editor in March 1862. B&G in B&W didn't mention the reason -- the Whig had published information about arms and ammunition arriving in Richmond from Europe. This was counter to war time restrictions on publishing such information and the police pointed this out to Winder. By the way, before this incident, Winder had earlier named a colonel as his provost marshal and was not provost marshal himself then as B&G in B&W says. I'm not sure the editor was actually arrested. Next.
Greensboro Alabama Beacon. The proprietor sold this paper to someone else. That counts as suppression? Did the paper actually cease publication?
Athena Union Banner. The owner (I guess it is the owner) "simply quit." Was force used against him? Was he arrested?
Galveston Union. Trashed by a mob months before the war. Do such early occassions count?
Galveston Civilian and Gazette. Simply didn't say anything about the other Galveston paper being mobbed. That counts? By George, I can add some papers like the New York Times, The New York Herald, and the Philadelphia Public Ledger to my list of suppressed papers because by 1864 they did not report on several of the suppressed/mobbed Northern papers.
San Antonio Alamo Express. Mobbed. I've mentioned this hit in a post before.
Richmond Examiner. Threatened by General Winder says B&G in B&W. My source says the police threatened the Examiner, but it is possible Winder did too. General Grant did arrest the editor of the Richmond Examiner in June 1865.
You have to remember that there were only about 80 newspapers in the entire confederacy prior to the start of the rebellion
Hmmm. B&G in B&W also says on the same page that mentions the 80 papers: "Some papers went out of business because there was not enough business -- perhaps forty papers in Virginia and fifty in Texas closed during the first year of the war." OK, which is it? 80 papers in the entire Confederacy or 90 closed papers in Texas and Virginia plus unclosed papers in Texas and Virginia plus untold papers in the other nine Confederate States?
Union advances wound up shutting down newspapers in cities like Norfolk and Memphis and New Orleans as their staffs headed for the hills.
Yeah, they did shut down newspapers in such cities, but the staffs didn't always head for the hills. Sometimes the Union just replaced the editors with Union soldiers. Great objective news source. Or, as my source for 1864 suppressed newspapers mentioned (but I had left out in my earlier post), all Democratic papers were excluded by the Union commander from the state of Kentucky. Gee, I wonder how many Democratic papers there were in the North. I guess they were all excluded from Kentucky.
Heading to bed. Have to get up early to return to the hospital.
Clinton
Carter
LBJ
Come, come, come, Rustbucket. You gave no reasons for the alleged suppression of the newspapers you mentioned. We have no idea if editors were forced out, arrested, threatened by mobs or what. If papers were sold because of public threats against the policy then doesn’t that count as suppression under your definition? If mobs burn out papers, like it did with the San Antonio paper, then isn’t that Davis’ fault? You blame similar actions on Lincoln.
Apparently you've thrown up your hands at a Google search and can't find my source. Stop using your pro-Lincoln search engine.
My source is The American Annual Cyclopedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1864, pages 393 and 394. It was published in 1866. The newspapers are listed in their Freedom of the Press section along with whether the papers were mobbed, suppressed, threatened, etc.
On the web this book is one of the Google books where they show some of the content. Google used to show both pages of the newspaper list -- they did when I found it. They now only show page 393, but not page 394.
I'll let you look at the causes of the various newspaper problems on page 393 in the link above. Here are the causes listed on page 394:
Union, Louisiana, Mo., Destroyed March 6, 1864.
St. Mary’s Gazette, Leonardtown, Ind., warned April 12, 1862. (rb note: I didn't include this one in my posted list because of date and possible location errors. The date must be 1864. Also, there was a St. Mary’s Gazette, Leonardtown, MD that started publication in 1863 -- I suspect that this was the warned paper.)
Picayune, New Orleans. (rb note: Appleton's didn't list what happened here in 1864. The Picayune had trouble more than once. In 1862 their publication was discontinued by good old Union General "Beast" Butler because of criticism of army officers. The Picayune's office, presses, books, and papers were "sequestered" by the army on the 1862 occasion. I don't know how long this continued, but the publishers and editors had to swear allegiance per "Beast" in the Official Records.)
Courier, New Orleans, suppressed May 23, 1864, and editors banished for republishing the bogus proclamation received via Cairo. The order was never revoked.
Metropolitan Record, New York, circulation forbidden at the West, March 25, 1864.
Transcript, Baltimore, Md., suppressed May 18, 1864, for publishing a dispatch saying the loss of the Army of the Potomac was not less than seventy thousand, and crediting it to the Associated Press.
Democrat, Cambridge, Md., suppressed September 9, 1864.
Metropolitan Record. (rb note: This paper appeared twice in the Appleton's list. Possibly an error or maybe it got dumped on twice in 1864. I only included it once in my posted list.)
Freeman’s Journal, burned at Nashville, September 12, 1864.
Democrat, Gallatin County, Ill., editors seized and imprisoned August 19, 1864.
Crisis, Columbus, O., editor seized and imprisoned May 10, 1864. (rb note: This paper was also listed on page 393 for a different suppression, I only included the paper once in my list.)
Register, Wheeling, Va., editors seized, paper suppressed July 20, 1864. (rb note: Apparently the name West Virginia hadn't taken root at this point.)
Journal, Belfast, Me., editor seized August 1864.
News, Memphis, Tenn., suppressed July 1864.
Bulletin, Baltimore, Md., suppressed July, 1864.
Gazette, Parkersburg, Va., editor seized by General Hunter, July 27, 1864. (rb note: I left this one out. Hunter destroyed 1,000 homes/farms in Virginia -- I figured that he had enough blemish on his record.)
Kentucky, June, 1864, all Democratic papers excluded the State.
All Democratic newspapers excluded from Memphis (except the Missouri Republican) September 16, 1864. (rb note: I left this restriction out of my list.)
On Sept 30th, the "Loyalist" at Baltimore was discontinued by order of General Wallace, and on November 29th, the "True Presbyterian" at Louisville, by order of Gen. Burbridge.
The annual Appleton Cyclopedia volumes were each perhaps three inches thick. They are filled with lots of facts about the war and various statistics. I checked out the volumes for 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, and 1865 from a library. I now have copies of the Freedom of the Press sections of each volume.
I confess I can't honestly say I tried that hard.
The North stopped prisoner exchange. The North -- that part of the old union that was headed by Lincoln. This resulted in the need for both sides to house large numbers of prisoners. Prisons became overcrowded; disease easily spread; conditions became bad for prisoners on both sides. Some guards were cruel; some were kind -- on both sides.
From northerner Walt Whitman in the New York Times, Dec 1864:
In my opinion, the Secretary has taken and obstinately held a position of cold-blooded policy, (that is, he thinks it policy) in this matter, more cruel than anything done by the secessionists. ... In my opinion, the anguish and death of these ten to fifteen thousand American young men, with all the added and incalculable sorrow, long drawn out, amid families at home, rests mainly on the heads of members of our own Government...
And then there was "Beast" Butler, Federal Commissioner or Agent of Exchange, admitting his part in the affair.
In case the Confederate authorities should yield to the argument...and formally notify me that their slaves captured in our uniform would be exchanged as other soldiers were, and that they were ready to return to us all our prisoners at Andersonville and elsewhere in exchange for theirs, I had determined, with the consent of the lieutenant-general [Grant], as a last resort, in order to prevent exchange, to demand that the outlawry against me should be formally reversed and apologized for before I would further negotiate the exchange of prisoners.
It may be remarked here that the rebels were willing enough to exchange prisoners at this time, man for man, were we to permit it to be done.
As I remember, Confederate Agent of Exchange,Judge Robert Ould offered to release 10,000 to 15,000 Union prisoners, thousands of them well and able and not sick, primarily from Andersonville in the summer of 1864 with no requirement for the release of any Confederate prisoners by the North. The North eventually agreed, and the release finally took place in Savannah in late November 1864. Ould's offer, like his offer to buy medicines for Union prisoners was made before the large number of deaths at Andersonville.
So yes, I primarily blame Lincoln for the fate of prisoners on both sides.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.