Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Military Justice & Other Oxymorons Abraham Lincoln v the Sioux
The Texas Mercury ^ | March 26, 2002 | Paul Weber

Posted on 03/27/2002 11:05:01 AM PST by Aurelius

When King George the Second (surnamed Bush) announced that some of the soldiers (or is it detainees? or criminals?) captured in the undeclared war in Afghanistan would be tried in military tribunals, a lot of people got twisted out of shape. Military Tribunals, it seems, are not open to the public; the military serves as judge, jury, and hangman; and the accused can be convicted and sentenced to summary execution merely on a "preponderance of the evidence", rather than the usual "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in conventional capital cases. The words "Star Chamber" come immediately to mind. Oh, yes—and the guilty have no right of appeal. Once you’re found guilty, you can step right on out the back door to the waiting hangman.

"Ridiculous!" answered the big-government conservatives. "Military tribunals are very fair. And you don’t have to worry about the trials turning into media circuses like the O. J. Simpson case. We used military tribunals in several wars in the past, and they rendered even-handed justice."

Actually, no. American military tribunals have historically been set up to railroad people quickly to the hangman’s noose. Abraham Lincoln, the first president from the Republican Party (as well as our Empire’s first dictator), set up military tribunals in the Civil War that were allegedly to be used to try people in parts of the country where the conventional court system had broken down as a result of the war. Interestingly, one of the more famous military tribunals was set up in a state that was never threatened by the Southern rebels: Minnesota. The accused were not rebel soldiers, but Sioux Indians who had been causing a ruckus by making unreasonable demands on the Lincoln Administration, such as actually sticking to the terms of a treaty. According to Thomas DiLorenzo, author of a new book titled The Real Lincoln, the Santee Sioux of Minnesota had sold 24 million acres of land to the federal government for $1.4 million in 1851. By 1862, in the middle of the Civil War, the feds had still paid the Sioux nothing, even though thousands of white settlers had moved into the area. Because of a crop failure that year, the Sioux had begun to starve, and without the promised payments from the feds, they had no means of buying provisions.

Okay, I know it’s hard for you public-school-educated Americans to comprehend, but our masters in Washington really do have a sordid history of breaking treaties, particularly with the Indian tribes.

Weary of being stiffed by Washington, the Sioux finally revolted. In response, Lincoln sent a force under the command of General John Pope, a charming fellow whose stated purpose was to "utterly exterminate the Sioux." Of course the "war", such as it was, was no contest—sort of like the American military conquering the mighty nation of Afghanistan—and hundreds of Sioux, including women and children, were taken prisoner.

This is where the fun really began for the Lincoln administration. Remember, Minnesota never even came close to suffering invasion during the Civil War. The system of courts in Minnesota had not been destroyed. Nonetheless, it was very convenient to identify the Sioux as "illegal combatants" in the war. Maybe they didn’t wear uniforms, or something, or maybe they even attacked innocent civilians—something our own military never does, right? Anyhow, this Military Tribunal, according to David Nichols in Lincoln and the Indians, spent all of about 10 minutes on each "trial." The Sioux, many of whom spoke no English, were not allowed to put up much of a defense, even if they had some foggy notion of what was going on.

Over 300 Sioux were found guilty and sentenced to summary execution. The merciful Lincoln Administration, however, got a few signals from Europe that mass execution of hundreds of starving Indians with whom we had broken a treaty might just be a little bit immoral. Because some of those nations were toying with the idea of coming to the aid of the South, Lincoln decided, in a great show of mercy, to execute only 39 of the prisoners. But to mollify the folks in Minnesota, he also paid $2 million in federal funds, along with a promise to eventually kill or remove every last Indian from the state.

Yes, this is the same Lincoln whom official Washington and the public schools at all levels continually laud as one of our greatest presidents. This is the fellow we celebrate with a national holiday.

Another famous case involves the story of Major Henry Wirz, the unfortunate soldier given the unenviable task of overseeing the Andersonville prison in Georgia during the Civil War. First, a bit of background. The American military, which never targets civilians, engaged in what we now call "Total War" on the population of the South. That is, they not only attacked the armies of the Confederacy, but also made war on noncombatants. Throughout the South, the invading Union Army burned crops, shot livestock and left the carcasses to rot, and burned people out of their homes. This, added to the fact that the South had been effectively blockaded for several years, meant the civilian population was reduced to starvation and had no access to medicine.

During the early years of the war, the opposing sides negotiated the exchange of prisoners, but as the war dragged on, the North realized that—surprise!— the Union soldiers they were taking back were starving and disease-ridden, a fact that just might have been related to their own blockade and their own policy of Total War. The Union generals, not wanting to "exchange skeletons for healthy men", decided to cease all prisoner exchanges, fully knowing that the South would be put in the impossible position of rationing what little food was available, while at the same time being morally responsible for feeding their prisoners of war. Attorney Louis Schade, in a letter defending Major Wirz, pointed out that the South advised the North that they were unable to feed their prisoners, offering to simply let the North take back their prisoners without any compensating exchange, on humanitarian grounds. The offer was made in August, 1864, but the North did not send transportation to pick up the prisoners until December. It was during that period of time that most of the deaths at Andersonville occurred.

Almost 22,000 Northerners died in Southern camps during the war, compared to the 26,000 Southerners who died in Northern camps, despite the fact that the North did not suffer any blockade or Total War tactics, as had the South. From this, we can gather that Southern troops were not treated very kindly in Northern prisons, but the victors in war get to write the history, so the story of mistreatment in Northern prison camps has been largely swept under the rug.

The North, however, needed a scapegoat and a show trial, so Major Wirz faced a military tribunal. Wirz was made to stand trial despite the fact he had been wounded during surrender. He was so weak that he was unable to sit upright during his trial; he had to recline on a sofa in the courtroom. He was denied the right to speak in his own defense. Wirz, ironically, was accused of "murder in violation of the laws and customs of war." Well, General Sherman never did anything like that, did he? A dozen "witnesses" were produced, all accusing Wirz of personally beating 13 prisoners to death. There were several problems with the testimony, however, the most conspicuous being the fact that none of the alleged "witnesses" could recall the names of any of the victims! This lapse of memory seems to have occurred despite the fact that several of the alleged victims lived for five or six days after the beatings. Isn’t it unusual that, among the thousands of prisoners at Andersonville, not one witness could be produced who could recall the name of a single victim? Against those 15 "witnesses," the defense was allowed to produce 145 witnesses who all swore Wirz never murdered any Union soldiers. Despite the preponderance of evidence indicating Wirz never killed anyone, the Union general in charge of the proceedings (gee--you don’t suppose a commander of the opposition forces would be a little, you know, biased, would you?) found Wirz guilty and ordered him hanged.

It gets better, though. On the night before the scheduled execution, several federal officers approached Schade with an offer of clemency for Wirz if he would simply testify that Jefferson Davis himself had a hand in the "murder" of the unnamed prisoners. Such a claim would be, of course, absurd. Jefferson Davis was never anywhere near Andersonville, but the Union, unable to try Davis for treason, was trolling for a more mundane charge, like murder. Wirz, in one of those strange, darkly heroic moments of history, refused to go along with the perjury, saying he could not accuse an innocent man even to save his own life. Two hours later, he mounted the gallows and was hanged.

On the matter of suborning perjury, our masters in Washington evidently get a free pass every time. Bill Clinton was actually a small-time amateur at this tactic, having used it to wriggle out of his nasty little incident with Monica and the legendary cigar. His Republican predecessors, however, tried and failed to suborn perjury in order to implicate someone in alleged murders in which neither the bodies nor the names of the victims were ever produced. Jefferson Davis actually wanted to be put on trial for treason, confident he could prove that individual states had every right to secede from the union. The Feds, reviewing the mountains of evidence in the writings of the Founding Fathers indicating the states did indeed have just such a right, never brought Davis to trial.

These are just two examples from our illustrious history of military tribunals. I’m sure that, with a little research, one could come up with many more examples to demonstrate that military tribunals are set up with the specific purpose of arriving at the "right" predetermined verdict.


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: dixielist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-141 next last

1 posted on 03/27/2002 11:05:01 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Over 300 Sioux were found guilty and sentenced to summary execution. The merciful Lincoln Administration, however, got a few signals from Europe that mass execution of hundreds of starving Indians with whom we had broken a treaty might just be a little bit immoral. Because some of those nations were toying with the idea of coming to the aid of the South, Lincoln decided, in a great show of mercy, to execute only 39 of the prisoners.

President Lincoln can speak for himself:

"...I received a long telegraphic dispatch from Major General Pope, at St. Paul, Minnesota, simply announcing the names of the persons sentenced to be hanged. I immediately telegraphed to have transcripts of the records in all the cases forwarded to me, which transcripts, however did not reach me until two or three days before the present meeting of Congress. Meantime I received, through telgraphic dispatches and otherwise, appeals in behalf of the condemned, appeals for their execution, and expressions of opinion as to proper policy in regard to them, and to the Indians generally in that vicinity, none of which, as I understand, falls within the scope of your inquiry.

After the arrival of the transcripts of records, but before I had sufficient opportunity to examine them, I received a joint letter from one of the senators and two of the representatives from Minnesota, which contains some statements of fact not found in the records of the trials...

Anxious to not act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak on the one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I caused a careful examination of the records of trials to be made, in view of first ordering the execution of such as had been proved guilty of violating females. Contrary to my expectations, only two of this class were found. I then directed a further examination of all who were proven to have particpated in massacres, as distinquished from participation in battles. This class numbered forty, and included the two convicted of female violation. One of the number is strongly recomended by the commission which tried them, for comutation to ten years' imprisonment. I have ordered the other thirty-nine to be executed on Friday, the 19th. instant."

A. Lincoln

If you read the Kunhardt's picture biography you'll see a photo of a note in Lincoln's own hand where he wrote out the names of Indians codemned to death in the Minnesota uprisings--not out of cruelty, but to prevent the wrong men from being hanged.

Walt

2 posted on 03/27/2002 11:20:11 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Fascinating. No mention at all of the fact that these poor innocent Sioux had tortured and slaughtered more than 600 white men, women and children.

Given the circumstances, the government response was quite mild.

3 posted on 03/27/2002 11:20:56 AM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
The merciful Lincoln Administration, however, got a few signals from Europe that mass execution of hundreds of starving Indians with whom we had broken a treaty might just be a little bit immoral.

Can you docuent these "signals"?

Thanks.

Walt

4 posted on 03/27/2002 11:21:14 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Life sucks when you're the defeated.
5 posted on 03/27/2002 11:22:04 AM PST by TADSLOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
BLEGH! *pukes*
6 posted on 03/27/2002 11:23:09 AM PST by Shuhite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Which of course doesn't really address any of the points the author was trying to make.
7 posted on 03/27/2002 11:24:03 AM PST by Lee'sGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Which of course doesn't really address any of the points the author was trying to make.

The author suggests that Lincoln reduced the number of indians comdemned from 303 to 39 because of "signals" from Europe. Lincoln mentions no such signals or influences in his letter to the Congress.

Do you think those "signals" will be documented in this thread?

I suggest that Lincoln pardoned these indians because he was a man of justice and mercy, which is how he is rightly remembered.

Walt

8 posted on 03/27/2002 11:28:04 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Good points.
9 posted on 03/27/2002 11:31:19 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Interesting info about Andersonville. All I knew about that place was what I saw in the movie of the same name, of course they implied the prisoners were deliberately starved. Now I know there's at least a reasonable chance it wasn't so.
10 posted on 03/27/2002 11:33:31 AM PST by Mr. Blond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rdf
ping
11 posted on 03/27/2002 11:33:39 AM PST by outlawcam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Heh, WhiskeyPapa, as kindhearted a person as I would like to believe myself to be, I can't help wishing that just once in your life you would experience "Lincolnian Mercy". I would even be willing to pay your medical expenses (assuming you survived) if I could just be a witness.
12 posted on 03/27/2002 11:34:44 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
The author also does not address the fact that one reason prisoner exchanges broke down was because the South refused to treat captured blacks as soldiers and threatened to re-enslave them and hang their white officers.
13 posted on 03/27/2002 11:38:46 AM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
This revisionist view of the Minnesota Sioux uprising in 1862 misses many facts. It was a renegade band of Sioux (more properly Lakota) warriors that attacked the town of New Ulm Minnesota and surrounding farms and settlements as far away as northwestern Iowa. Lincoln personaly commuted the vast majority of those condemmed to hang, though 39 were executed in Mankato, MN near the site of the current library.

The bodies of those executed were supposedly dug up by several physicians from Rochester, MN including a Dr. Mayo and used for anatomical study.

14 posted on 03/27/2002 11:38:54 AM PST by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
No. The writer was trying to make a case that military tribunals are wrong-headed and/or misguided. Your comments and Lincoln's actions toward the Indians have nothing to do with the fact that Lincoln allowed (ordered?) the tribunal in the first place. There may be good reason for such action, but it ain't anywhere on this thread.
15 posted on 03/27/2002 11:40:05 AM PST by Lee'sGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blond
Interesting info about Andersonville. All I knew about that place was what I saw in the movie of the same name, of course they implied the prisoners were deliberately starved. Now I know there's at least a reasonable chance it wasn't so.

In 1864 Georgia was such a cornucopia of food Sherman's men couldn't begin to carry it off, let alone eat it. Union prisoners at Andersonville -were- deliberately mistreated.

Walt

16 posted on 03/27/2002 11:41:55 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
No. The writer was trying to make a case that military tribunals are wrong-headed and/or misguided.

The author was trying to besmirch President Lincoln's memory by suggesting that he only reduced to 39 from 303 the number of condemned indians due to "signals" from Europe.

I want to see those signals shown in this thread. But I won't hold my breath.

Walt

17 posted on 03/27/2002 11:44:57 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"In 1864 Georgia was such a cornucopia of food Sherman's men couldn't begin to carry it off, let alone eat it. "

OK, to use your tactic, can you document this "cornucopia?"

18 posted on 03/27/2002 11:45:56 AM PST by Lee'sGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
No tellin what people will do when there land is stolen under the guise of a treaty which was not honored. Those damn Souix, why didn't they go back where they came from!
19 posted on 03/27/2002 11:47:51 AM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"I want to see those signals shown in this thread. But I won't hold my breath."

Neither will I, because I could care less about that aspect of it. It is interesting that you, as usual, ignore those more relevant parts of the discussion which you cannot address and continuously keep going back to the parts that (you believe) can be refuted.

20 posted on 03/27/2002 11:48:36 AM PST by Lee'sGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
The author also does not address the fact that one reason prisoner exchanges broke down was because the South refused to treat captured blacks as soldiers and threatened to re-enslave them and hang their white officers.

Sorta gives the lie to there being any number of black southern troops doesn't it? Why condemn in the north what you are doing in the south.

Logic or fairness doesn't figue in to the ranting of the pseudo-confeds.

Walt

21 posted on 03/27/2002 11:48:51 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blond
I"Interesting info about Andersonville. All I knew about that place was what I saw in the movie of the same name, of course they implied the prisoners were deliberately starved. Now I know there's at least a reasonable chance it wasn't so."

You are quite right. Let's read on.

"During the early years of the war, the opposing sides negotiated the exchange of prisoners, but as the war dragged on, the North realized that—surprise!— the Union soldiers they were taking back were starving and disease-ridden, a fact that just might have been related to their own blockade and their own policy of Total War. The Union generals, not wanting to "exchange skeletons for healthy men", decided to cease all prisoner exchanges, fully knowing that the South would be put in the impossible position of rationing what little food was available, while at the same time being morally responsible for feeding their prisoners of war. Attorney Louis Schade, in a letter defending Major Wirz, pointed out that the South advised the North that they were unable to feed their prisoners, offering to simply let the North take back their prisoners without any compensating exchange, on humanitarian grounds. The offer was made in August, 1864, but the North did not send transportation to pick up the prisoners until December. It was during that period of time that most of the deaths at Andersonville occurred."

Much more importantly, the Federal Government realized that their cannon fodder potential far outnumbered that of the South. So, why just not let those men who had (misguidedly) fought loyally for the Union rot down there in those awful prisons. They had plenty more suckers with whom to replace them.

22 posted on 03/27/2002 11:49:36 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
"I want to see those signals shown in this thread. But I won't hold my breath."

Neither will I, because I could care less about that aspect of it. It is interesting that you, as usual, ignore those more relevant parts of the discussion which you cannot address and continuously keep going back to the parts that (you believe) can be refuted.

The author made a statement I find very hard to credit. If he cannot document that statement, the rest of his article would be suspect as well, don't you agree? Would General Lee let something like that slide?

Lincoln pardoned those indians because he was a man of justice and mercy, not because of any "signals" from Europe.

Walt

23 posted on 03/27/2002 11:51:16 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TwoBit; WhowasGustavusFox; winin2000; aomagrat; sheltonmac; billbears; bluecollarman...
Bump for reinforcements!
24 posted on 03/27/2002 11:53:09 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
I don't know Walt, perhaps we should look to Henry Clay who lincoln eulogized. He admittedly took most of his actions from Clay, in thought and deed. Should I start posting Clay's thoughts on the Indians? I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find lincoln's thoughts on Indians were quite in step with Sen. Clay. I would say they're not even half as nice as what the 16th President thought of blacks. But of course back to the article

From this, we can gather that Southern troops were not treated very kindly in Northern prisons, but the victors in war get to write the history, so the story of mistreatment in Northern prison camps has been largely swept under the rug.

Well now, what do you know. Another tidbit of truth. Of course you're going to bring up Andersonville(I think that's the only thing you yankees accept about POWs in the War), but Mcpherson's lies aren't going to cut it because he's a lincoln shill

25 posted on 03/27/2002 11:55:28 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: breakem
No excuses for the failure of the government to honor its obligations to the Sioux.

However, a cursory look at the situation would indicate that the US government had other things on its mind at the moment, like a life and death struggle for survival.

Nevertheless, the payment which would have allowed the Sioux to purchase food was on its way and would have arrived within days if fighting had not broken out.

Whenever somebody breaks their word to me, the first thing I do is start slaughtering their women and children. Why are there always people who will defend the actions of murderous barbarians? In what way are those Sioux who murdered unarmed civilians, including women and children, any better than the Muslim terrorists of today?

26 posted on 03/27/2002 11:55:49 AM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost; WhiskeyPapa
"In 1864 Georgia was such a cornucopia of food Sherman's men couldn't begin to carry it off, let alone eat it. "

"OK, to use your tactic, can you document this 'cornucopia'?"

It is absolute bullshit and Wlat the Inhaler knows it. Everyone was starving at that time in the South. The responsibility for the deaths of those men in Andersonville rests solely with Lincoln and his accomplices in the destruction of our founders heritage.

27 posted on 03/27/2002 11:59:14 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
"In 1864 Georgia was such a cornucopia of food Sherman's men couldn't begin to carry it off, let alone eat it. "

OK, to use your tactic, can you document this "cornucopia?"

Here's a quick taste:

"On another part of the line of invasion the Federal Twentieth corps, opposed only by desultory skirmishing of small Confederate bands, had made a path of destruction through Madison and Eatonton. Geary's division destroyed the fine railroad bridge over the Oconee, and the mill and ferryboats near Buckhead. On the 19th he also destroyed about 500 bales of cotton and 50,000 bushels of corn, mostly on the plantation of Col. Lee Jordan. This corps entered Milledgeville on the 20th, and Davis' corps, accompanied by Sherman, arrived next day.

....Howard at this date reported that he had destroyed the Ocmulgee cotton mills, and had supplied his army from the country, which he found full of provisions and forage.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/shermangeorgia.htm

Walt

28 posted on 03/27/2002 12:05:24 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: billbears
I don't know Walt, perhaps we should look to Henry Clay who lincoln eulogized.

We don't need to look to Henry Clay for signals from Europe that might have influenced Lincoln's actions regarding the pardoning of these indians.

Walt

29 posted on 03/27/2002 12:08:20 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
The souix were in a defensive posture. Land taken, another people moving in in droves, lied to by their leaders. What part of their position is the same as terrorists?

I can't be inside the mind of the Souix at that time and neither can anyone else. But to say they didn't fight fair or killed these people who moved in on them does not equate to terrorism to me. You can't do this to people and then claim they don't fight fair. When you aggrieve others in this manner you must be prepared for their response. I don't remember the souix signing on to the european codes of warfare.

30 posted on 03/27/2002 12:10:49 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Lincoln decided, in a great show of mercy, to execute only 39 of the prisoners. But to mollify the folks in Minnesota, he also paid $2 million in federal funds, along with a promise to eventually kill or remove every last Indian from the state.

No, but we need to look to Clay to possibly get an idea where his attitude came from that Indians were nothing but savages to kill or remove from the state. Probably part of his 'free-soiler' campaign. You know, not just free of slavery but free of black people (and apparently Indians) as well.

Also where in the heck he came up with the idea to doling out money to the states like this for 'internal improvements'. What? Chase printed up too much at the Treasury and he thought he would spread it around? Here, I'll give you 2 mil (heck I've already pulled that much from the Treasury for my own use with my little jaunt down South without approval from Congress) and I promise to come back and get rid of those Indians too!! That's a campaign promise for you.

31 posted on 03/27/2002 12:18:34 PM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: billbears
No, but we need to look to Clay to possibly get an idea where his attitude came from that Indians were nothing but savages to kill or remove from the state.

Can you show in the record that President Lincoln held that attitude?

Walt

32 posted on 03/27/2002 12:24:43 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"Logic or fairness doesn't figue in to the ranting of the pseudo-confeds."

Nor in the rantings of Walt.

33 posted on 03/27/2002 12:24:46 PM PST by Lee'sGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TADSLOS

Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, 7 October 1789:
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals .... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

C.S. Lewis:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."

This second quote sums up Lincoln and the Yankees!

34 posted on 03/27/2002 12:26:15 PM PST by Colt .45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
"Logic or fairness doesn't figue in to the ranting of the pseudo-confeds."

Nor in the rantings of Walt.

Sorry your request for sources as to the economic condition of Georgia in 1864 didn't garner the response you hoped for.

Walt

35 posted on 03/27/2002 12:27:53 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
In 1864 Georgia was such a cornucopia of food Sherman's men couldn't begin to carry it off, let alone eat it.

You continue to mouth off nonsense. My ancestors lived 10 miles from Andersonville. The South was STARVING you ninnie. You have no clue what you are talking about. "WhiskeyPapa" is quite a fitting moniker. Lay off it for a while, bub.
36 posted on 03/27/2002 12:32:28 PM PST by safisoft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
You're projecting. I wrote that before I read your response. The report does not say whether the corn was food-stuff or feed-corn. And at any rate, I would hate to subsist entirely on a diet of corn. The other comment is only a paraphrase taken from your memory as far as I can tell.

But more to the point, you still have not addressed the issue as to why Lincoln allowed/ordered? the tribunal -- the whole point of the article.

37 posted on 03/27/2002 12:32:35 PM PST by Lee'sGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
"In 1864 Georgia was such a cornucopia of food Sherman's men couldn't begin to carry it off, let alone eat it. " "OK, to use your tactic, can you document this 'cornucopia'?"

It is absolute bullshit and Wlat the Inhaler knows it. Everyone was starving at that time in the South. The responsibility for the deaths of those men in Andersonville rests solely with Lincoln and his accomplices in the destruction of our founders heritage.

Then you need to show that everyone was starving in Georgia prior to Sherman's march.

The record doesn't show that. It took me about 3 minutes to find:

"On another part of the line of invasion the Federal Twentieth corps, opposed only by desultory skirmishing of small Confederate bands, had made a path of destruction through Madison and Eatonton. Geary's division destroyed the fine railroad bridge over the Oconee, and the mill and ferryboats near Buckhead. On the 19th he also destroyed about 500 bales of cotton and 50,000 bushels of corn, mostly on the plantation of Col. Lee Jordan. This corps entered Milledgeville on the 20th, and Davis' corps, accompanied by Sherman, arrived next day.

...Howard at this date reported that he had destroyed the Ocmulgee cotton mills, and had supplied his army from the country, which he found full of provisions and forage."

http://www.civilwarhome.com/shermangeorgia.htm

I have also been reading "Sherman's March" by Burke Davis, so I knew I was on good ground in my statement. He confirms that Georgia was a fat land in the summer of 1864.

Calling my statements "bullshit" won't make them such, nor lend whatever you say much credibility, especially when you start sounding so shrill.

Walt

38 posted on 03/27/2002 12:35:50 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
But more to the point, you still have not addressed the issue as to why Lincoln allowed/ordered? the tribunal -- the whole point of the article.

I never intended to address such.

Pope was apparently acting entirely within his purview to call tribunals.

Lincoln was within his to review the death sentences and to commute most of them.

Walt

39 posted on 03/27/2002 12:39:24 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"Here's a quick taste:

"In 1864 Georgia was such a cornucopia of food Sherman's men couldn't begin to carry it off, let alone eat it. " "OK, to use your tactic, can you document this "cornucopia?"

But, you idiot, your response only serves to establish the destruction wreaked by the demon Sherman which resulted in the starvation of Southern women and children and old folks of Georgia, and the starvation of the prisoners at Andersonville.

I would like to repeat again the verdict of your idol, Red Jamie McPherson, on Henry Wirz. "Whether Wirz was actually guilty of anything worse than bad temper and ineffiency remains controversial today. In any case, he served as a scapegoat for the purported sins of the South. The large genre of prisoner memoirs, which lost nothing in melodramatics with passage of time, kept alive the bitterness for decades after the war. On this matter, at least, the victors wrote the history, for at least five-sixths of the memoirs were written by northerners."

Battle Cry..., p. 797.

40 posted on 03/27/2002 12:40:11 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: breakem
What part of their position is the same as terrorists?

The intentional killing of civilians, perhaps?

The souix were in a defensive posture. Land taken, another people moving in in droves, lied to by their leaders.

What portion of this scenario does not apply equally to Palestinians of today? Do you believe the intentional Palestinian attacks on civilians are morally justified? If not, what specifically makes the difference for you between Palestinians intentionally killing children and Sioux Indians intentionally killing children?

BTW, what "leaders" are you referring to? The Indian leaders or the government leaders?

41 posted on 03/27/2002 12:43:18 PM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: safisoft
In 1864 Georgia was such a cornucopia of food Sherman's men couldn't begin to carry it off, let alone eat it.

You continue to mouth off nonsense. My ancestors lived 10 miles from Andersonville. The South was STARVING you ninnie. You have no clue what you are talking about. "WhiskeyPapa" is quite a fitting moniker. Lay off it for a while, bub.

I don't believe the line of Sherman's advance came within 100 miles of Andersonville.

The line of march he DID choose was full of provisions and forage for his 60,000 man army -- just as he thought it would be.

The fact that your people didn't share in the economic wealth that north Georgia did is not at issue. The so-called confederate states could have procured better provisions for the prisoners. They were clearly available. But they didn't.

Walt

42 posted on 03/27/2002 12:43:19 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
"Here's a quick taste:

"In 1864 Georgia was such a cornucopia of food Sherman's men couldn't begin to carry it off, let alone eat it. " "OK, to use your tactic, can you document this "cornucopia?"

But, you idiot, your response only serves to establish the destruction wreaked by the demon Sherman which resulted in the starvation of Southern women and children and old folks of Georgia, and the starvation of the prisoners at Andersonville.

The prisoners at Andersonville were already starving well before Sherman began his march.

Some few who escaped were able to make it to Sherman's lines. Sherman's men were appalled to see their emaciated condition.

Walt

43 posted on 03/27/2002 12:46:26 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
During the war an agency called the United States Sanitary Commission sent large quantities of food, clothing, and medical supplies to the south for the United States forces prisoners. Virtually all of it was stolen by the rebels and absorbed and diverted to market or used by the rebel army

The fact that the rebels would not extend POW status to African-American soldiers or to their Caucasian officers complicated the exchange of prisoners.

But what does this malevolent screed really have to do with anything? Is the writer saying that military tribunals are never appropriate? They have been used by almost every country at one time or another and are certainly called for in times of civil upset. Surely the civil courts on the sparsely settled Minnesota frontier would not have been able to deal with hundreds of renegade Indians.

It's just this sort of supercilious, impertinent, poorly written diatribe that gives whacked-out left wing loonies a bad name.

44 posted on 03/27/2002 12:48:36 PM PST by deroberst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
I would like to repeat again the verdict of your idol, Red Jamie McPherson, on Henry Wirz. "Whether Wirz was actually guilty of anything worse than bad temper and ineffiency remains controversial today. In any case, he served as a scapegoat for the purported sins of the South. The large genre of prisoner memoirs, which lost nothing in melodramatics with passage of time, kept alive the bitterness for decades after the war. On this matter, at least, the victors wrote the history, for at least five-sixths of the memoirs were written by northerners."

Battle Cry..., p. 797.

All well and good.

There was plenty of food in Georgia for the POW's at Andersonville. They did not receive it. Whether or nt it was Wirz's fault or someone else seems irrelevant.

Walt

45 posted on 03/27/2002 12:49:16 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
When King George the Second (surnamed Bush)

Can't help but notice. Dubya isn't the second President named George. With Washington in the mix, he is actually George the Third. Not the best namesake to carry around.

46 posted on 03/27/2002 1:00:01 PM PST by NovemberCharlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
I see you're seeking a new level here, agreeing with a marxist disruptor who has admitted to having voted for Clinton and Gore. You'd better check his "facts" before agreeing with him. One thing you'll learn early on is that Lincoln's own words are always counted as "facts" with this particular fellow, especially in cases where there is plenty of other evidence .
47 posted on 03/27/2002 1:08:36 PM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"There was plenty of food in Georgia for the POW's at Andersonville. They did not receive it. Whether or nt it was Wirz's fault or someone else seems irrelevant."

But whether or not your allegation is true is relevant.

48 posted on 03/27/2002 1:08:58 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Twodees
Are the quotes accurate or not?
49 posted on 03/27/2002 1:09:49 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
Are you trying to say that this is the reason that Lincoln and Grant didn't want to accept the return of the Federal prisoners held at Andersonville? That is the point the author made. Since you can't refute it, you want to drag in something from two years earlier. Your figure of 600 "innocents" who were supposedly tortured and killed by the Santee Dakota is verifiable at what source? You seem to have neglected to mention.
50 posted on 03/27/2002 1:13:01 PM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-141 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson