Military Justice & Other Oxymorons Abraham Lincoln v the Sioux

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.

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

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.

"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

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

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?

"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.

"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

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.

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.

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!

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.

"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'?"

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:

...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

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

"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.

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.