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

Skip to comments.

War Crimes Against Southern Civilians
http://www.amazon.com ^ | April 30, 2007 | Walter Cisco

Posted on 08/28/2013 8:03:18 PM PDT by NKP_Vet

This is the untold story of the Union's "hard war" against the people of the Confederacy. Styled the "Black Flag" campaign, it was agreed to by Lincoln in a council with his generals in 1864. Cisco reveals the shelling and burning of cities, systematic destruction of entire districts, mass arrests, forced expulsions, wholesale plundering of personal property, and even murder of civilians. Carefully researched largely from primary sources, this examination also gives full attention to the suffering of Black victims of Federal brutality.

(Excerpt) Read more at amazon.com ...


TOPICS: Books/Literature; History
KEYWORDS: civilwar; confederacy; dixie; fortpillowmassacre; kkk; klan; ntsa; quantrillsraiders; sourcetitlenoturl; whitesupremacists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-236 next last
To: Trod Upon
Why were the slaveholders of 1776 any more entitled to nationhood than the slaveholders of 1861?

It's really very simple, and it's contained in the DOI. Which is a moral document. It proclaims who has a right to independence. None of the Founders were so stupid they didn't realize any group with sufficient firepower could obtain their independence by force, so they didn't even discuss that issue. The DOI covered whether they had a right to be free, not whether they had the power to win their freedom.

And that moral right existed when a revolution was for the purpose of securing the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being denied by the existing government.

A revolution for other purposes and in particular for the purpose of denying those rights to others was by the very terms of DOI merely a wicked exercise of physical force.

The men of 1776 did not launch their revolution to protect and extend slavery. In fact, they pretty universally expected the institution to gradually disappear.

The men of 1860 by their own words seceded specifically to protect their institution of slavery. Which means that by the moral principles expressed in DOI it was unjust.

181 posted on 08/31/2013 11:34:55 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ( (optional, printed after your name on post))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Confederate Conscription Act was passed April, 1862. Coincidence?

To answer your question, both sides discovered you can’t fight a long, bloody war with volunteer armies. Men stop volunteering when they find out war isn’t nearly as much fun as they expected.

The 20-Negro Law in the South was at least as unpopular as Emancipation was in parts of the North.


182 posted on 08/31/2013 11:39:30 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ( (optional, printed after your name on post))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Lincoln makes it a war to end slavery then conscripts the entire Army. LOL. That IS what happened...


183 posted on 08/31/2013 11:44:56 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Emancipation Proclamation Jan 1, 1863 was followed one month later by the Union Conscription Act. Coincidence? Right....

So what does it say that the confederacy resorted to conscription in April, 1862, and that a far higher percentage of the rebel armies were made up of draftees than the United States army?

184 posted on 08/31/2013 11:48:57 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Your point might make some sense if the CSA had not also resorted to conscription, and quite a bit sooner than the Union.


185 posted on 08/31/2013 11:51:11 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ( (optional, printed after your name on post))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

My point has NOTHING to do with Confederate Conscription and you know it. Your invalid point about how the noble Yankees turned into anti slavery crusaders is hogwash. They were conscripted because most wanted no part in freeing the slaves.


186 posted on 08/31/2013 12:00:22 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Lincoln makes it a war to end slavery then conscripts the entire Army. LOL. That IS what happened...

Only in your addled brain. Out of a little over 2 million men in the United States army during the war, a mere 2% were draftees, with another 6% substitutes paid for draftees. The confederate army, on the other hand, was 25% conscripts by war's end, and the rest of the army were virtual conscripts, since the confederate congress had reneged on the terms of all the one-year enlistments, changing them to three years.

187 posted on 08/31/2013 12:14:09 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: central_va

But the fact is that very few of them were conscripted, and it’s just as easy to say that the confederates were conscripted (in far greater numbers) because most wanted no part in fighting to preserve slavery.


188 posted on 08/31/2013 12:16:12 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

The enrollment act also turned the current Union Army of volunteers into conscripts.


189 posted on 08/31/2013 12:37:56 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Sherman Logan: " I really wish I could agree with you. But the same chapter of Exodus that provides the death penalty for kidnapping also provides matter of fact discussion of buying Hebrew slaves."

FRiend, I see perfectly well what your problem here is, and I think I can help clear it up.
Your problem is the definition of the word "slave".
The Bible absolutely did not mean the same thing in referring to Hebrew "slaves" as American secessionists meant referring to their "peculiar institution".

For starters, ancient Israelites could not lawfully become slaves except for specific reasons, usually to pay off a debt.
And even then, slaves had to be given their freedom after seven years.
So by our understanding of terms, that's not really slavery, rather it's a long-term employment contract with "wages" used to pay off debts.
Once the contract is fulfilled, the "slave" goes free.
In colonial times, these people were referred to as indentured servants, and indeed, in the very beginnings, that's also how African slaves were treated.

Only over time did slavery as it was known in 1860 develop, where only people of African descent could be slaves, where slaves were considered sub-human (see Dred Scott) "property", and even when gaining freedom were still subject to vagaries of laws which might re-enslave them (as was declared by the Confederate government during the war).

Note Deuteronomy 23:15 ESV:

So how is it that those who claim slavery was "no sin" cannot see that the Bible condemns both the capturing of slaves and returning escaped slaves to their masters?

If slave-holders were truly interested in Biblical views, wouldn't such verses give them pause?

190 posted on 08/31/2013 12:39:56 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Trod Upon; Sherman Logan
Trod Upon: "...my whole point was about the reasons for Lincoln prosecuting the war in the first place..."

Sorry, but the decision for war was not Lincoln's, it was Jefferson Davis' -- when Davis chose to start war at Fort Sumter and then soon after formally declared war on the United States.

Lincoln's choice was simply victory or defeat, and he chose victory -- since that is what the Constitution expects when the United States is attacked.
Lincoln also expected that a Union defeat would mean the loss of every slave-holding state and territory and the likely dissolution of the remaining "United States".

By the way, in 1860 US politicians had known for decades that a Civil War would necessarily destroy slavery wherever Union armies controlled slave-holding territory.
Military precedents were set in previous wars, and learned opinions given by the likes of former President John Quincy Adams.

So it would be fair to say that though slavery's destruction was not a stated goal at war's beginning, many Union leaders understood at the time that slavery would not survive a Union victory.

191 posted on 08/31/2013 12:57:59 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Simply not true. The text of the act is readily available online. Show where it says that.

Here's what the confederate act says: "All of the persons aforesaid who are now in the armies of the Confederacy, and whose term of service will expire before the end of the war, shall be continued in the service for three years from the date of their original enlistment, unless the war shall have been sooner ended."

The truth is that substantial numbers of US volunteers, having done their duty, were free to go home and did so. Finally, why would the US army offer bonuses for reenlistment if they were simply extending the terms of service, making reenlistment moot?

192 posted on 08/31/2013 1:16:25 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Keep for future reference - WELL ARGUED!


193 posted on 08/31/2013 1:33:28 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Trod Upon
I wish I could say the same. I would be willing to bet that a very large majority of Americans, if asked "what was the Civil War about?", would tell you what they were told in school: that it was fought to end slavery. That belief is common as dirt.

Anyone who wonders why the states of the South attempted to "secede" should just read Mississippi's Declaration of Secession. Slaves were considered the most valuable asset class in the world (described as "property worth four billions of money"). The slaveholders were desperate, describing "secession" as "not a matter of choice, but of necessity" to protect their lives as slaveholders.

So, there's really no mystery about what happened. "Secession" was designed to protect slavery and the Union's response was to protect the United States and to protect the rights of American citizens who lived in Southern states.

Nowadays, nearly everyone opposes slavery and most people are very grateful that it was abolished. Slavery wasn't good for the slaveholders and it certainly wasn't good for anyone else. And, now it's gone for good.

194 posted on 08/31/2013 1:45:38 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

It is generally believed by Biblical scholars that the sabbath and Jubilee year provisions of the law were aspirations never actually put into practice. It is possible (male) slaves were indeed freed after seven years, but women slaves and their offspring were for life.

And non-Hebrew slaves were treated as permanent chattel, just like all the nations around them did.

It is true the first few years in America blacks were apparently treated as indentured servants, just like whites were. Based on Caribbean and Spanish precedent, this changed pretty quickly, with the adopting of civil (Roman) law precedence for dealing with slaves over English common law, which had no provision for chattel slavery.


195 posted on 08/31/2013 2:01:18 PM PDT by Sherman Logan ( (optional, printed after your name on post))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
And, now it's gone for good.

Really?

What planet are you living on?

Americans who WORK for a living are slaves of the DC apparatus that extorts money from their paychecks under penalty of imprisonment and monitors their every move.

The working man in this country is no longer free, but a slave to the former slaves, who instead of being repatriated remained in this nation and allied themseleves with Jews, Communists, and homosexuals in a mission to invade every institution and make non-compliance with their poltically correct ideology a crime.

Hard working tax paying Americans are indeed slaves of the political class who confiscates their wealth and redistributes it to the former slaves and foreign invaders.

I'd rather pick cotton and be guaranteed 3 squares and a roof over my head that have my hard earned money stolen from me by a bunch of degenrate beauracrats and faggots.

196 posted on 08/31/2013 2:18:43 PM PDT by Rome2000 (THE WASHINGTONIANS AND UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE ARE THE ENEMY -ROTATE THE CAPITAL AMONGST THE STATES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
Yes, indeed. We are also plagued by parasites today.

Just as the slaveholders were parasites, we have parasites today in the form of a welfare class who, like the slaveholder class, are trapped in a culture of dependency. I discussed that in post 170 (above).

It took a powerful external force to free slaveholders from their addiction to slavery and it will take a powerful force to free the modern welfare class from their addiction to welfare. Freeing folks from dependency and addiction is never easy and the addicts never like it at first, but ultimately, if they can regain their independence and self-respect, they wind up grateful to those who forced them to change. We have work to do in this country today.

So, yes, you're right, we are victimized by parasites today. And, it is a burden we should not be forced to bear. However, that said, I'm certainly living much better than did any of the real slaves. ;-)

197 posted on 08/31/2013 2:35:16 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
I'd rather pick cotton and be guaranteed 3 squares and a roof over my head that have my hard earned money stolen from me by a bunch of degenrate beauracrats and faggots.

No, you wouldn't. Working sunup to sundown in the southern summer is no joke, and nobody who could avoid it would ever volunteer, and certainly not for subsistence only.

I understand how hyperbole works, but let's not get carried away.

"When I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him."

198 posted on 08/31/2013 4:36:08 PM PDT by Sherman Logan ( (optional, printed after your name on post))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
I'd rather pick cotton and be guaranteed 3 squares and a roof over my head that have my hard earned money stolen from me by a bunch of degenrate beauracrats and faggots.

Will you throw in your children and your children's children?

199 posted on 08/31/2013 5:06:24 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Excellent analysis and commentary. Biblical ignorance used to prove a point is almost a specialty at FR.


200 posted on 08/31/2013 6:48:19 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-236 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