War Crimes Against Southern Civilians

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.

Sherman Logan: "It is generally believed by Biblical scholars that the sabbath and Jubilee year provisions of the law were aspirations never actually put into practice."

For crying out loud, FRiend, are you going to blame the Bible because Jews didn't always follow its commandments?
What's up with that?

The Bible is quite clear and consistent in opposing "slavery" for God's people, and this is the concept you must, must grasp or you'll be forever confused.
Yes, it recognizes that slavery is sometimes necessary, even amongst Israelites, but it requires that slaves not be mistreated and must be released after seven years (see Exodus 21).
That requirement alone makes it not real "slavery", but an employment contract -- i.e., to pay off debts.

If you wish to see an actual example of how this worked in practice, try Jeremiah chapter 34.
The short of that story is that Jews knew perfectly well what God required, and when they really, really needed His help, were willing to do it.

By the way... if you love history as much as I do, then compare the story of Jeremiah 34, where Jews in extremis free their slaves to win God's favor, contrast to that of Carthaginians in precisely the same predicament, who offer up to their god (Baal?) what he wanted most -- they kill their children.

So don't tell me the Bible doesn't know right from wrong, FRiend.

“You really should read the posts here, and their links.”

Do you mean like this one?:

Leviticus 25:44-46

‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.’

BroJoeK, I think that you noted that the OT makes a clear distinction between slavery for those “from among the nations” and for fellow Hebrews when you posted this:

“So clearly, God has a big problem with slavery for his chosen people. He doesn’t want it.”

However the same isn’t true for non-Hebrews as we see from the Leviticus text above. There we see that it permits the buying of non Hebrew slaves, bequeathing them to heirs, and their “possession forever”. That should ring a bell when looking at the practice of slavery in America.

“So there can be no doubt that both Old and New Testaments oppose involuntary slavery to anyone”

It looks to me like the Leviticus text doesn’t fit your claim.

“The New Testament also makes all followers of Christ in effect God’s chosen people.”

Critics of “replacement theology” don’t appear to share that view.

Good to see that you aren’t disputing the early influence of European radicals and socialists in the founding of the Republican Party. There is a history prof who is a favorite of Glenn Beck who asserts that the American South was influenced by Marx, when in fact Marx and his fellow ‘48ers were ardent supporters of Lincoln. Granted that their heirs changed parties over time.

“Be that as it may, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a troll in defense of the Democrat Party “

You cannot imagine my relief at learning that. Is that the same Democratic Party that Ronald Reagan belonged to as a young man? I thought so.

” But the rest of your post does beg the question; by singularly bringing up the imperfections of the Republican Party’s history, are you defending the Democrat Party?”

No. FR is a conservative forum, not a Republican Party echo chamber. You may be disappointed if you expect to find fealty to the party of Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and other such luminaries that the GOP thinks ought to be President.

It’s always amusing seeing Lincoln linked with appeals to God. He was some kind of politician, that’s for sure.

As a student of Lincoln you surely know of his reputation for ridiculing ministers in his youth. You know that he never joined a church. You know that his close friends prided themselves on being infidels, and that they defended Lincoln against the ‘charge’ of ever having been a Christian. Their defenses of Lincoln’s unbelief are easy to find. You know that one of his friends burned a manuscript of Lincoln’s to protect his ability to run for office.

But I digress. While those quotes from the Gospel of Abraham are all very poetic none of them deal with the simple little logical problem that I posted.

Slave owners = Evil.
Founders = Slave owners.
ergo:
Founders = ??

Solve for X.

“Good to see that you aren’t disputing the early influence of European radicals and socialists in the founding of the Republican Party. There is a history prof who is a favorite of Glenn Beck who asserts that the American South was influenced by Marx, when in fact Marx and his fellow ‘48ers were ardent supporters of Lincoln. Granted that their heirs changed parties over time.

I know that Marx tried to influence the Lincoln administration; how much is the question. I will not justify any influence that may have occurred; but It was not nearly as influential as the socialism of George Fitzhugh during the Antebellum Era.

“You cannot imagine my relief at learning that. Is that the same Democratic Party that Ronald Reagan belonged to as a young man? I thought so.”

God does call us to forgive those who repent/turn away from evil. I even once supported the Democrat Party (barf) but saw the truth in how evil that Party has been and is. People have a choice of what Party they support – and defend. I, or anyone else for this matter, should not defend and/or justify the evil of the present or past; even if they may have had a legal right to do evil.

“FR is a conservative forum, not a Republican Party echo chamber. You may be disappointed if you expect to find fealty to the party of Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and other such luminaries that the GOP thinks ought to be President.”

Amen to it not being a Republican Party echo chamber, or any of the idiots you mention! But in our argument here you have not once stated anything negative about the Democrats –present or past. The Democrat Party has had many and held on to many evil ideals in their foundation. For this reason; the Democrat Party should be abandoned and never be defend and/or justified.

Your posts have tried to defend and justify the Democrat Party, so I will ask again; Why would you still want to defend this evil Democrat Party of then and now?

Pelham: "BroJoeK, I think that you noted that the OT makes a clear distinction between slavery for those “from among the nations” and for fellow Hebrews"

Pelham: "However the same isn’t true for non-Hebrews as we see from the Leviticus text above."

Pelahm quoting BJK: "both Old and New Testaments oppose involuntary slavery to anyone"

Pelham: "It looks to me like the Leviticus text doesn’t fit your claim."

Obviously, since even a FRiendly poster like Sherman Logan doesn't seem to grasp the concepts, I can't really expect somebody in opposition, such as yourself, to "get it" the first time.
So I'll be patient.

The operative word in my quote above is "involuntary" slavery.
How could there possibly be "voluntary" slavery, you ask?
Well, that's what you have to "get" here.
The Bible applies the word "slave" to people we would call "indentured servants", meaning people who, in effect, contract to be "slaves" for so many years (usually seven) in order to, typically, pay off some debt.

Indeed, when Jesus says, "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors", those are some of the people He's talking about.

And the Bible is quite clear about involuntary slavery, even of non-Jews.
I refer you again to Exodus 21:16 ESV

"Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

And Deuteronomy 23:15 ESV:

"You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you."

So while the Bible permits involuntary slavery of non-Jews, it condemns precisely those practices which were major political issues from the time of our Founders to that of secessionists.

Pelham quoting BJK: "The New Testament also makes all followers of Christ in effect God’s chosen people."

Pelham: "Critics of 'replacement theology' don’t appear to share that view."

But we're not talking about "replacement theology" (whatever the h*ck that is), but rather the simple fact that the New Testament is a new covenant between God and Christ's Church.
It in effect makes Christians also God's people.
Less than Jews? Greater than Jews? Equal to Jews?
I'd say that's for theologians to argue, but we can be pretty sure: whatever they decide will almost certainly be wrong.
There are two covenants, that's all we need to understand.

And anyway: the issue of "replacement theology" is irrelevant to the politics of slavery in the 19th century.
What matters is that politicians of that time quoted both Old and New Testaments to justify their positions on slavery.
Nobody claimed that some Old Testament rule on slavery applied to just Jews and not to Christians.

Indeed, one major point of my argument here is that while race-based permanent chattel-slavery might possibly be justified biblically, based on such quotes as have been posted here, once slaves have converted to Christianity, then there's no biblical justification whatever for keeping them permanently enslaved.

Six years then free: that's God's rule for His people.
And you better not have forced them into slavery in the first place (or you die), and you better not return escaped slaves to their masters.

Otherwise, sure, the Bible is "OK with slavery".

Pelham: "Good to see that you aren’t disputing the early influence of European radicals and socialists in the founding of the Republican Party."

Nonsense.
The fact is, in terms of the overall size and cost of Federal Government, there was not much change between the Presidency of George Washington (2.2% of GDP in 1788) and that of Howard Taft (2.5% in 1912).
In all those 124 years, excepting the cost of various wars, Federal spending remained around 2.5% of the nation's GDP.

So you can talk about whatever "socialist influence" on Democrats or "Marxist influence" on Republicans, or any others, the fact is our Federal Government remained much as it was Founded until the "Progressive Era" beginning, really with President Woodrow Wilson in 1913 -- 100 years ago.

At that point (1913) "socialism" or "statism" or "progressivism" or whatever you wish to call it (I call it fascism) exploded on America with much the same force it had hit Europe some years earlier.
Its three chief enablers were the 16th and 17th amendments, along with the new Federal Reserve.

From that day until this, the Federal Government doubled in size (to 5% of GDP by 1932), then doubled again (to 10% by 1940), then doubled again (to 20% by 1952 -- mostly military spending) and is now trying to double yet again, with military reduced below 5%, Government grew to 25% in 2011 and Obama-care expected to take us to 30% in the next few years.
Add to that state and local spending in the 15% range, and now government-in-general consumes nearly half of US GDP.

None of this had anything to do with supposed Marxist or socialist influence on either Democrats or Republicans of the 1860s.
All of it came nearly 50 years later, and it did drive both parties, beginning with Southern Democrat President Woodrow Wilson.
Government was curbed somewhat under Republicans Harding and Coolidge, but then increased under Hoover and went wild under Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt.

Indeed, that's the pattern today: relatively small increases under Republican Bush II followed by explosive government growth when Democrats controlled all of Congress and Presidency.

Keep in mind that the OT laws were very innovative for their time. The eye-for-an-eye justice was actually an improvement over the previous ‘law’ which was blood feud that ran for generations in some cases.

What do you do with a conquered people? Realistically the choice is death or involuntary slavery. You can’t just release them into the territory you’ve just conquered. They don’t believe what you believe. They’re still functioning under blood feud and living, like you are at subsistence.

The kind thing in that instance and time would be involuntary servitude with the opportunity to convert. There is a solid tradition in the Bible of non-ethnic members rising up to positions of secular authority and also as prophets of God.

Joshua was instructed to exterminate all Canaanites. One group, the Gibeonites, tricked him into making a treaty.

So he didn’t kill them, just enslaved them and their descendants. They were much later slaughtered by King Saul.

I think it’s also relevant to point out that in the ancient world few people were really “free” in the sense we use the term. They were enmeshed in webs of obligation and duty, even if not in legal servitude. The actual condition of women in most societies differed little from what we would see as slavery.There were also intermediate conditions between slavery and freedom.

So slavery was not viewed, probably not even by the slaves, with the horror we view it. It was just a fact of life, one of the bad things that could happen to anybody that was unlucky.

You are right and liberty is a very fragile, modern concept. People move toward it, seemingly instinctively, but why do they vote to enslave themselves? Is there some internal conflict between being liberated and being paternalized?

Jude Wanniski described this as the Mommy Party and the Daddy Party and that people were attracted to each as they saw their advantage there.

One other item that I think about, particularly when God orders someone killed, is what was their conversation with God? Had God warned the Canaanites for generations that they needed to move, that this was not and would not be their land?

We live in a world of lost knowledge which the Scriptures repeatedly emphasize. It is obvious to us in our modern world that a lot of knowledge gets lost.

Opening Stanza from Choruses from "The Rock"

The Eagle soars in the summit of Heaven, The Hunter with his dogs pursues his circuit.

O perpetual revolution of configured stars,

O perpetual recurrence of determined seasons,

O world of spring and autumn, birth and dying

The endless cycle of idea and action, Endless invention, endless experiment, Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness; Knowledge of speech, but not of silence; Knowledge of words, and ignorance of the Word. All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance, All our ignorance brings us nearer to death, But nearness to death no nearer to GOD. Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? The cycles of Heaven in twenty centuries Bring us farther from GOD and nearer to the Dust.

T. S. Eliot (1888-1965), The Rock (1934)

Can’t agree with you. Continuing slavery flew in the face of the Declaration. Fundamentally, both revolutions were against a “foreign” centralized government meddling with the domestic affairs of the aggrieved populations, neither of which viewed slaves as other than chattel. I think the revolution was ultimately to our benefit, but we romanticize it by pretending that the Founders really believed “all men are created equal.” It’s just not true, as evidenced by the fact that the slaves were not emancipated at once. If the principles expressed in the Declaration are the standard by which we deem a revolt justified, then to a certain extent the Declaration condemns the very revolution it announced. No, I see no moral difference. Both the colonies and the south retained slavery for economic reasons.

Disagree. They would be correct in stating that it became the ultimate stated justification for the slaughter, but you must know that, from the Union perspective, it was about territory. You may believe the stated purpose at the end is more important, but if that is the case then why take issue with my brief statement about the context of the beginning of the war? What the war may have ultimately become in the minds of some is wholly irrelevant to what drove events early on. Suppose the southern states had seceded for other than reasons of perceived economic necessity, slavery having been obviated by technology or an economic shift. You think Lincoln would have said “Aw shucks, well at least they don’t hold slaves anymore.” and waved goodbye and wished them well? Of course not.

As I understand it, here’s the difference between us.

You say the war was “not about ending slavery,” because that was not an initial war goal in April of 61.

To my mind, while accurate, that is intentionally misleading, because it ignore the Fact that the goals and purpose of the war changed over time. Little more than a year after the start of the War, in summer of 62, universal emancipation was an explicit goal of the Union, as shown in numerous military regulations, executive proclamations and acts of Congress.

To say “The war was not about slavery” is therefore to me just as dishonest as to claim it was only about slavery, or was a primary war goal from the start.

I’m just trying to be accurate here.

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.

No disagreement that any threat to slavery would be viewed as an existential economic threat in the southern states...my whole point wan't about why the South left but rather why Lincoln chose war, and that was to retake the territory.

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.

This despite Lincoln's inaugural statement? It was about retaining territory and population.

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.

Except that it continues to this day, all over the world. Overtly in parts of Africa and the Middle East, where it is old-fashioned theft of physical labor, and covertly in the more developed world, where it is mostly girls forced into prostitution. I'll agree that it is good that the legal institution is gone in America, but slavery is still with us and will continue long after you and I are gone.

Lincoln was strolling down the path of war by refusing to abandon Sumter once South Carolina left the Union.

Lincoln (and Buchanan) did not recognize that SC had left the Union.

Here's the rub. You and I (and Lincoln and Buchanan) are all in agreement that any people anywhere have a legitimate moral right to revolt against their rulers if they feel they are oppressed. But what you are saying is that if anybody else (of the same People) disagree, they must simply submit and not have the same right to fight for what they believe in.

IOW, if in 1968 there had been a true attempt at revolution by lefties, or if there were one today, those of us who prefer the Constitution and the system it set up would have had no right to resist them.

The Loyalists of 1776 had every bit as much moral right to fight for their beliefs as the Patriots did. Some Loyalists no doubt fought on the side they did out of impure motives, such as who they expected to win. But then so did some of the Patriots.

Similarly, in 1861 there were honorable men and scoundrels on both sides, but the men of honor on both sides had a legitimate moral right to fight to defend what they believed in.

See that's what happens when you "appeal to arms," as the secessionists called it. Sometimes you lose the appeal, and when you do, you have no right left to claim the moral high ground.

Or, as Arnold put it in Twins, "Negotiate first, attack last."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGstM8QMCjQ

The CSA chose to attack instead of negotiating, because they needed to knock the Upper South and Border states off the fence. It didn't work out any better for them than it did in the movie. Just took longer.

It’s just not true, as evidenced by the fact that the slaves were not emancipated at once.

IOW, you believe the Dred Scott decision was legally correct.

If the principles expressed in the Declaration are the standard by which we deem a revolt justified, then to a certain extent the Declaration condemns the very revolution it announced.

True, and the Founders were well aware of it. They just didn't know how to resolve the contradiction safely.

They expected, reasonably enough based on trends at the time, that the problem would resolve itself within a generation or two, without bloodshed. They had absolutely no way of knowing that slavery would suddenly become wildly profitable, with the result that getting rid of it became more difficult over time, not less.

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.