Other historians disagree: "Civil War historian Mark E. Neely Jr. suggests that "there seems to be no difference in the arrest rate in those periods when the Confederate Congress refuse to authorization suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and those periods was authorized. ... civilian prisoners trickled into Confederate military prisons whether the writ of habeas corpus was suspended or not."[41]"" Mark Neely is a well known Lincoln apologist. Hell, McPherson is one of the major PC Revisionists in Academia. Got one from somebody credible saying that? I'm betting no.
While the "tyrant" Jefferson Davis imprisoned no fewer than 2,687 Southerners with or without suspension of habeas corpus.
Yes, some clearly were arrested under the same circumstances in the CSA. Still, it was far fewer than in the Union.
If we allow for a number of missing Confederate records, these percentages are relatively the same when compared to Union or Confederate populations.
Translation: If we just make up a bunch of BS I have no evidence for..........."
I gave you the link, you can read it yourself, there was an actual Confederate congress Declaration of War on May 6, 1861.
No they didn't. I gave you a link.
Prior to Confederate Declaration of War, there was no Union "invasion" of the Confederacy and after the declaration, every Union citizen who gave "aid and comfort" to Confederates was guilty, by Constitution's definition, of treason.,/p>
There was no Confederate Declaration of War and as even Lincoln's treasure secretary and later Chief Justice of the Supreme Court admitted, secession is not treason.
Chase's argument here is spurious, specious and politically motivated, though after the war was over, perhaps for the best. Chase's key nonsense is in claiming, "secession is not rebellion", since it was not secession alone which caused Civil War, but rather secession mixed with rebellion -- the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter -- which turned a political argument into a military war. And after the Confederate Declaration of War on May 6, 1861, the entire issue was mute.
You are spewing BS here. Secession is not treason. Every state has the right to secede. There was no Confederate Declaration of War.
Naw, it wasn't a SCOTUS ruling, it was only Crazy-Roger Taney babbling nonsense as a circuit court judge. SCOTUS never ruled on it during the war.
LOL! Every Supreme Court Justice who doesn't rule the way you like has bad reasoning, is crazy, etc etc according to you.
This source says: " Even so, the lowest estimate is 13,535 arrests from February 15, 1862, to the end of the war. [3] At least 866 others occurred from the beginning of the war until February 15, 1862. Therefore, at least 14,401 civilians were arrested by the Lincoln administration.
That's at the extremely low end of the estimates. The estimates run from 13,000 to 38,000.
If one takes the population of the North during the Civil War as 22.5 million (using the 1860 census and counting West Virginia but not Nevada), then one person out of every 1,563 in the North was arrested during the Civil War.[4]" Do the math for Confederate arrests and the results come out pretty much the same.
Only if one buys the extreme low estimate of jailed political dissenters in the Union that is most convenient for you.
So you repeatedly claim, but without ever providing a verifiable primary source for your claims.,/p>
I told you where you could find it.
And what about the others? The answer is, he didn't shut them down. They remained free to continue publishing.
LOL! He "only" censored 100. He's an icon of constitutional rights. (nevermind the chilling effect shutting down 100 in a country of 22.5 million would have)
The US Post Office, however, did not deliver their treasonous materials.
"treasonous" according to you is any disagreement with government policy.
Nor is there any evidence of Confederate authorities ever allowing publishers treasonous to them to operate.
There's no evidence of the CSA's government shutting down and censoring a bunch of newspapers.
Not at the time.
Yes at the time and any time after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
The numbers of dead only exceeded, perhaps, by those at Andersonville, Georgia. Worth noticing that Andersonville's death toll of 13,000 happened over just 15 months of operation, or nearly 900 per month on average. By contrast, at Camp Douglas, the official death toll of 4,415 happened over 39 months of operation, or just over 100 per month average. So, even if we contemplate your higher speculation of 6,000 total deaths, it's still just 150 per month, compared to nearly 900 per month at Andersonville, Georgia.
Its not my speculation. Even the Chicago paper published that 1500 names of Confederate Prisoners who were enrolled at Camp Douglas but who were never released from there and who were not officially reported as having died. Gee, they disappeared. What does anybody think happened to them?
Furthermore there was no deliberate cruelty and murder on the anything like the scale of Camp Douglas at Andersonville.
Furthermore, there was no shortage of food or medicine in the Union as there was in the CSA. The Union prisoners at Andersonville were not denied food out of cruelty. Famine stalked the land and some of the guards starved too.
As for the treatment of POW's as a whole: 26,436 Confederates died in Northern prisons and 22,576 Union soldiers died in Southern prisons. Considering the fact that the South held approximately fifty thousand more prisoners, the death rate in Northern prisons was about twelve percent whereas the death rate in Southern prisons was roughly eight percent. Again, there was no shortage of food and medicine in the Union. The deaths of POWs there were deliberate.
There is no evidence the "Lincoln administration" committed any crime against Minnesota Native Americans.
outright lie.
The root cause appears to be a two-month delay in Federal payments to reservation Indians, possibly from corrupt agents, accompanied by local merchants' refusal to extend credit to starving Indians. Nothing in the tragic events there suggest that Lincoln was somehow personally responsible.
More lies. The Lincoln administration refused to pay them the money they were owed so they could buy food after they were starved because UF federal government agents were corrupt and stole the food provided to them. The "trials" given to those publicly hanged were a mockery. The tribes were then ethnically cleansed and some were deliberately starved again.
If you want a rough equivalency, we could personally blame Jefferson Davis for the Lawrence, Kansas massacre in August, 1863. What sense would that make?
No we couldn't. Davis didn't have control over the Missouri Guerillas AND the raid on Lawrence Kansas was retaliation for the Kansas Redlegs' sacking of Osceola, Missouri first.
FLT-bird:
"Mark Neely is a well known Lincoln apologist.
Hell, McPherson is one of the major PC Revisionists in Academia.
Got one from somebody credible saying that?
I'm betting no." I'm betting you have no data which contradicts the point Neely made -- that numbers of Confederate political arrests did not change whether Jefferson Davis was operating under lawful habeas corpus suspensions or not.
Nor have you contradicted my math which says that relative to populations Confederate political arrests were roughly the same as the Union's.
I'm also betting you will never explain to us how Confederate political arrests under suspended habeas corpus are not "tyranny", but the same thing in the Union is "tyranny".
FLT-bird: "Yes, some clearly were arrested under the same circumstances in the CSA.
Still, it was far fewer than in the Union."
Relative to populations, it was roughly the same.
FLT-bird: "Translation: If we just make up a bunch of BS I have no evidence for...........""
The existing evidence supports my math that habeas corpus related arrests in the Confederacy were roughly the same as in the Union, relative to populations.
It's a fact there are fewer available Confederate records, so actual numbers may well have been higher.
FLT-bird: "No they didn't. I gave you a link."
You provided no link to prove your claim that there was never a Confederate Declaration of War against the United States.
I provided a link showing the actual Declaration of War on May 6, 1861.
FLT-bird: "There was no Confederate Declaration of War and as even Lincoln's treasure secretary and later Chief Justice of the Supreme Court admitted, secession is not treason."
You can see the actual Confederate Declaration of War yourself, and nobody has claimed that 1861 secession alone was treason.
By the Constitution's definition, treason against the United States consists in:
"levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort".
FLT-bird:
"You are spewing BS here.
Secession is not treason.
Every state has the right to secede.
There was no Confederate Declaration of War." And yet again: secession itself was not considered treason in 1861, but waging war against the United States was, by the Constitution's own definition.
The Confederate Declaration of War against the United States is available for you or anybody else to see.
And even if you resolutely deny there was ever an official Confederate Declaration of War, you cannot deny that Confederates waged Civil War against the United States, beginning in 1861 and ending... well, some of you guys never do give up, do you?
FLT-bird: "LOL!
Every Supreme Court Justice who doesn't rule the way you like has bad reasoning, is crazy, etc etc according to you."
LOL! Crazy-Roger Taney was indeed certifiably lunatic, and the evidence is overwhelming, consisting of, at least:
- Crazy-Roger's Dred Scott 1857 opinions denying slaves and former slaves citizenship.
- Crazy-Roger's 1861 circuit court habeas corpus opinion.
- Crazy-Roger's irrational fears of being arrested, which he never was.
FLT-bird:
"That's at the extremely low end of the estimates.
The estimates run from 13,000 to 38,000." Your high-end number of 38,000 is not justified by any data I've seen.
The number 14,401 seems entirely reasonable to me.
FLT-bird: "I told you where you could find it."
If you had a link you'd provide it, but you don't, which means you're pulling your claims out of thin air.
FLT-bird: "LOL! He "only" censored 100.
He's an icon of constitutional rights. (nevermind the chilling effect shutting down 100 in a country of 22.5 million would have)"
No, I'm saying Lincoln didn't censor or shut down 100 newspapers.
The US Post Office did refuse to deliver those newspapers.
FYI, many years ago, when I was a boy living in California, I was a paper-boy with two different newspaper routes, neither of which used US Post Office services.
So the US Mail's refusal to deliver newspapers, should it happen, was not an issue then.
That's what we're talking about here.
FLT-bird: ""treasonous" according to you is any disagreement with government policy."
According to a NY court ruling at the time.
Treasonous newspapers were not allowed in the Confederacy either.
FLT-bird: "There's no evidence of the CSA's government shutting down and censoring a bunch of newspapers."
I've got four examples:
- Richmond Examiner's content was carefully curated by Confederate authorities.
- Charleston Mercury was shut down in 1863 for its criticism of Confederate authorities.
- Mobile Register's editor, John Forsyth, was replaced by the Confederate government for his lack of loyalty.
The new editor, Dabney Maury, ensured that the paper adhered to the official line, avoiding criticism of the government. - Atlanta Intelligencer was forced to close in 1864 due to its opposition to Confederate conscription policies.
Of course, most Confederate newspapers were loyal to the Confederacy, but those that criticized too much were dealt with by authorities.
FLT-bird: "As for the treatment of POW's as a whole: 26,436 Confederates died in Northern prisons and 22,576 Union soldiers died in Southern prisons."
Those are your numbers.
Here are some different numbers:
"Records indicate the capture of 211,411 Union soldiers, with 16,668 paroled and 30,218 died in captivity.
Of Confederate soldiers, 462,684 were captured, 247,769 paroled and 25,976 died in captivity.
Just over 12% of the captives in Northern prisons died, compared to 15.5% for Southern prisons.[1]"
What those averages conceal is that some camps were much worse than others, so for every truly deadly camp there were others merely uncomfortable.
I see no need to exaggerate conditions either way.
FLT-bird: "outright lie."
Your claim here without evidence is just empty words, meaning nothing.
FLT-bird: "Davis didn't have control over the Missouri Guerillas AND the raid on Lawrence Kansas was retaliation for the Kansas Redlegs' sacking of Osceola, Missouri first."
So, roughly equivalent to Lincoln and the 1862 Dakota War.
1904 painting of Attack at New Ulm, Minnesota, 1862 Dakota War:
