Posted on 02/25/2004 11:52:26 AM PST by 4CJ
So clarify the question.
Moving into the state, and staying for more than 10 days. Blacks were fined $50 + costs, and sold into service for up to 99 years.
It wasn't clear, I have a friend named Ike. Maybe you were talking about him.
If the Ike you refer to waged war on innocent civilians - not as collateral casualties, but as primary targets, then he is guilty of the same crime. Osama bin Laden waged war on civilians - Do you hate him?
Should Mexicans be penalized for crossing the border? This was before blacks had citizenship if I'm not mistaken. Illinois may have looked at the massive influx of immigrants as a problem just as some here see the influx of Mexicans as a problem. Some here call for border crossers to be shot. I think they need to be deported if they're caught quickly, and don't consider them criminals, but many here want much stiffer penalties against them, so this instinct may be expected, especially in the 1800s.
So how many black slaves sare you saying Lincoln had?
It's clear that Ike was targeting the supply sector, just as Sherman was, so do you hate him too? Surely you have an opinion on Ike.
Osama bin Laden waged war on civilians - Do you hate him?
Laden's purpose is to spread the tyranny of his cult and his attacks have no direct military value, and do not serve to save lives in the long run so of course I hate him. Ike's purpose was to defeat dictatorship and his attacks had direct military value and saved lives in the long run so he did right. Sherman's purpose was to save the union, a fringe benefit being the abolition of slavery, his actions had direct military value, and his actions saved lives in the long run so it was good.
Depends on who is doing the counting. Stanton's figures were acknowledged to be low for the number of prisoners prisoners kept in Southern prisons. A more complete 1903 estimate reported approximately 194,000 Union troops were held in Southern prisons while 215,000 Confederates were held in Northern prisons. See the following site:
As the site notes there should have been a much greater disparity in deaths between the two sides given the North's greater supplies of food, medicines, and doctors.
In the summer of 1864, the Confederate Agent of Exchange, Judge Ould, offered to buy medicines for Union prisoners at 2-3 times their cost and to let Federal doctors bring the medicines through the lines and treat the sick Union prisoners. The North never replied to this humane offer. Medicines were embargoed by the Federal blockade and were scarce in the South.
Records were not all that well kept on either side. One of my wife's ancestors died at Point Lookout prison in the North but he is not listed on the prison death rolls. There are claims on the web of severe undercounting of deaths at Point Lookout. While I don't know whether these claims are correct, there is evidence to support the undercounting.
The Charleston Daily Courier (December 3, 1863) reported that deaths were being substantially undercounted at the Fort Delaware Federal prison, but this report may not be correct. Who knows?
The number of prisoners kept at Andersonville is not certain. Those who were prisoners in the camp counted more than the somewhat PC park currently does. Fortunately for posterity, the prisoners carved their count into a stone monument at the park. The reduced number currently acknowledged by the Park Service has the effect of boosting Andersonville's death rate to more than the range claimed for Elmira Prison in New York.
There is no disagreement that the North stopped the exchange of prisoners. Their action resulted in bulging prison populations and deaths on both sides. Both Grant and Butler admitted doing this. They basically condemned men to death in the prisons.
Also, please note that this is (a) not the first time I have asked for clarification over the same matter and (b) not the first time that I, along with and literally dozens of other freepers, have attempted to direct your attention to the intentionally inflamatory, harrassing, and IMHO abusive posting habits of the same individual who has made the said complaints to you when the previously said descriptive term was used to indirectly reference his known behavioral patterns on this forum. Thank you in advance for any clarification you may offer.
Take him out all together and the thread is probably somewhere in the 400 range. Yesterday I counted almost 25 or 30 successive posts by him without interuption by anyone else, almost all of them needlessly inflamatory and personally abusive as seems to be his modus operandi.
No, they made demands on their lives. Should we always give in to terrorist demands? You don't kill POWs at a 39% clip over a disagreement. That's murder.
The only person I initiated contact with was Non, cyborg, fiddlestix, and 4CJ (indirectly). All the rest of my posts have been answers to those that disagree with me. If I wasn't here, the thread would've died at 100 posts (which may have been a good thing).
I'm sorry, but you lost me. What demands?
You said your link was probably the most accurate and they said 36,000, taking the rate to 39%.
IIRC, the stone carving made by the prisoners themselves showed that 51,000 to 52,000 prisoners were kept at Andersonville. That total would give a 25 to 26% death rate. Both prisons were horror shows.
Yes, and that's what I was asking for, some honesty on at least one subject there shouldn't be any disagreement over.
Whatever it was that caused the exchanges to stop. Since the North could feed their prisoners, if they didn't like the terms of whatever the south was demanding they didn't have to give in to the demands. Since the South couldn't feed their prisoners, they had a moral obligation to release them. To not do so and let them die at 39% was murder.
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.