Skip to comments.War Crimes Against Southern Civilians
Posted on 08/28/2013 8:03:18 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
click here to read article
“Women and children, no-combatants, are not the enemy.”
Yes, they are. If you don’t want your women and children killed then don’t wage war. This isn’t a civil court action, this is war.
Much of Civil War history is untrue because like most history, it is written by the victor. The story we hear is that hundreds of thousands of Southern men went to war over an issue that only affected six percent of the population. Read this book and learn the truth: there was no shining Northern force fighting a moral battle for the sake of ending slavery; there was no oppressive Southern force fighting to preserve it; and after the South declared its independence, the Union ruthlessly invaded, leaving Southerners no choice but to defend themselves.
The rebels seemed to have trouble with their accounting.
When people died, if they were too busy, they didn’t report it. Lee in particular didn’t keep track of his losses very well. Still his army was very small indeed when he surrendered it.
Add to that the problem of southern deserters looting southern homes, raping and stealing and such, because such people didn’t have reliable officers guiding them and restricting their activity. Sherman’s orders forbade entering private houses.
When a small homesteader came home and saw his house burned and his family killed, he may have reported that it was done by the Yankees, and such primary documentation would indeed be available. The facts of the matter may indeed be different: Sherman’s men focused their depredations on large plantations. Southern deserters also needed food, but moved in smaller groups, and so applied their attention to smaller farms.
Paul wrote of the slavery of his time.
Slavery in the time of the insurrection was legally different, in some ways harsher, in some ways less so. No Jubilee for the southern racial slaves.
Legal differences would make blanket application of Paul’s advice on one insititution to another at least questionable, and at worse unfair.
They lost the war, in part because of 40 regiments of southern men who fought for the US government against the insurrection.
The south began the war to further, extend and protect slavery.
The US government with many southern men as well as northern men, fought to end the insurrection.
Ending slavery was one way to weaken the insurrection, and crucially, the insurrectionists.
The history of the war of the rebellion is documented by the histories of surviving parties of both sides.
Southern partisans are embarassed by the cause for which they fought, and so seek to divert attention away from slavery, with falsehood. Jeff Davis wrote two volumes of fiction on the subject of the war.
Facts are, the south began their insurrection to further, extend, and protect the institution of human slavery. The US government suppressed the insurrection, at great cost.
As Lincoln said:
“ Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. ‘Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.’
If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?
Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
Movies potray a saintly north:
Like “The Outlaw Josie Wales” which potrayed US Army shooting down unarmed surrendering confederate solders with Gatling guns. May I point out that no such event ever happened.
Actually the movie business has been overly kind to the slave power.
Lincoln said it very well during his second inaugural.
They could have said whatever they wanted. He was not going to allow them to leave the union.
You keep trotting out that tired old line like as if it had some sort of relevance or cleverness to it. It doesn't. That's known as a non sequitur.
No, the founders weren't evil - but the slavers who attempted to rend our nation and went to war against their neighbors in shameless pursuit of their Peculiar Institution - they were certainly evil. And those who defend them have some evil in them as well.
Correct, in April of 1861, just as the war with UK was not about independence in April of 1775. I don't really know anybody who claims the purpose of the war in early 1861 was freeing the slaves. That's a strawman argument. As if purposes and goals of wars remain unchanged.
Purpose of the war changed, or perhaps expanded is a better word, in both cases over the first year or year and a half of fighting. Thus Declaration of Independence issued 15 months after fighting started, and Emancipation Proclamation issued 17 months after fighting started.
No, but if they'd freed their slaves, or even put freedom on the calendar, Britain and France would have recognized them, broken the blockade and they would have gained their independence.
But the problem was that the reason they wanted independence was to protect slavery, so independence without slavery was irrelevant. The CSA Congress debated the issue of whether to free even the slave soldiers they were recruiting as late as well into 1865, when most opposed the idea despite the utter peril of the times.
Also, of course, had they freed their slaves they would have had no terribly important reason to leave the Union in the first place.
Nevertheless, the southern states saw his election as a threat to slavery, as evidenced by their Declarations of Causes, among many other documents, and seceded to protect their property interests.
And there's one fact you can't deny: When the war was over, slavery was dead.
I'd suppose that is "common wisdom", because I've read similar things often before.
Nor have I ever read a really serious explanation of the Bible's views toward slavery.
Perhaps its out there, somewhere, but I haven't seen it.
So here goes:
To claim the Bible has "no opinion" on slavery is to miss the entire forest on account of so many trees!
In fact, God hates slavery for His chosen people, it's why he brought them out of Egypt, it's what most of the Old Testament is all about -- Israel's struggles to first escape slavery, and then to eradicate their love of slavery from their own hearts.
Over and over, throughout the Old Testament, God and His prophets remind Israel that their allegiance is owed to Him because He freed them from bondage to humans.
So there could not be a stronger Biblical condemnation of slavery for God's people.
And what is the New Testament all about, if not to make all people who accept Christ into God's chosen people?
The simple fact is that God does not want His people to be slaves to other men, or to sin (note Romans 6:6, Galatians 4:7 & 24).
And the New Testament is also quite clear that God does want His people to be "slaves" to God's law (i.e., Romans 6:18 & 7:25)), to Christ's love, and for those who wish to become leaders: slaves to each other (Matthew 20:27, Mark 10:44).
The New Testament is also clear in condemning slave traders as amongst the worst law breakers.
For that particular gem, I'd invite you to begin reading at 1 Timothy 1:8.
2 Peter 2:19 "people are slaves to whatever has mastered them."
Could there be a stronger condemnation of slavery?
We might not get another chance at liberty this century...
Your statement here is untrue, slanderous and evidence of profound misinformation about actual history.
Remember first, there was no Civil War in early 1861, until after secessionists provoked it, started it (at Fort Sumter) and formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.
The Confederacy then sent its agents, military supplies and eventually armed forces into every Union state and territory it could reach.
And all that began before a single Confederate soldier had been killed in battle with any Union force.
Second, despite huge exaggerations perpetrated by pro-Confederates, the recorded truth is that very few atrocities were committed by either side against the other's civilians, but both sides did practice "living off the land" in the other's territories.
For a listing of the "top ten" Civil War atrocities, check out this link.
Of the ten worst atrocities listed, three by Union forces, seven by Confederates.
Bottom line: by comparison with other wars -- i.e., First or Second World Wars -- the US Civil War was a fight amongst gentlemen.
In historical fact, despite innumerable incidents, outgoing President Buchanan refused to be provoked into war against secessionists.
And incoming President Lincoln announced in his First Inaugural Address that secessionists could not have war unless they themselves started it.
Which they promptly did, at Fort Sumter and soon after formally declared war on the United States.
The fact is that Civil War came because secessions believed it a better alternative to seemingly never-ending efforts at peaceful processes.
If you're talking about the Civil War itself, I'd say that's far from true.
If we go all the way back to Gone with the Wind, or Birth of a Nation, it's clear that even liberal Hollywood has bent over backwards to be "fair and balanced" toward Southerners.
Of course, I do watch very few movies, so there might be whole genres out there I don't know about, but can't think of even one recently which matches your description.
Can you name some?
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.