Replies

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:

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.

Its up to him to prove his claims - not up to me to disprove them.

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".

Strawman alert! I never said that.

Relative to populations, it was roughly the same.

only if you believe a number very close to the extreme low estimate of those jailed without charge or trial or at best trial before military tribunal in the union.

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.

Except you have failed to provide any of this supposed "existing evidence"

You provided no link to prove your claim that there was never a Confederate Declaration of War against the United States.

Yes I did. Go back and look. Hell, ask even Google which has a hardcore pro federal government/pro leftist bias.

I provided a link showing the actual Declaration of War on May 6, 1861.

Except that link did not show an actual declaration of war.

You can see the actual Confederate Declaration of War yourself, and nobody has claimed that 1861 secession alone was treason.

Except there was no Confederate Declaration of War and your link did not show any.

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".

Yes, levying war against the states. That's what Lincoln did.

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.

Waging war against the states is considered treason. But of course, the CSA did not declare war and was only seeking to defend themselves. It was the Lincoln administration which launched a war of aggression against the Southern States.

The Confederate Declaration of War against the United States is available for you or anybody else to see.

The lack of a confederate declaration of war is available for anybody to not see since it never happened. You can query in any number of places though and find out that there was no Confederate Declaration of War.

No it didn't. The CSA never sought to rule over the US or any Northern states. They merely sought to defend themselves after being attacked by the Lincoln administration. In an actual civil war, two sides fight for control over the central government. That is not what happened. It was no more a civil war than the 1775-1783 affair was. It was a war of Independence.

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.

LOL! Thanks for proving my point. He made some decisions you didn't like and knew that Lincoln had signed an arrest warrant for him. So you claim he must be "crazy". By the way, a majority of the SCOTUS ruled that way in Dred Scott. Taney was not a majority all by himself.

Your high-end number of 38,000 is not justified by any data I've seen.

it is by some of the sources I've seen.

The number 14,401 seems entirely reasonable to me.

of course it does because its at the extreme low end of the estimates produced.

If you had a link you'd provide it, but you don't, which means you're pulling your claims out of thin air.

Nope! I told you the book that listed it. Feel free to read for yourself.

No, I'm saying Lincoln didn't censor or shut down 100 newspapers. The US Post Office did refuse to deliver those newspapers.

Refusing to deliver papers is effectively censoring them in the same way that denying someone a platform to express their views is censoring them.

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.

Yes it was. It was censorship in a way very similar to the censorship imposed by Big Tech in recent times.

According to a NY court ruling at the time. Treasonous newspapers were not allowed in the Confederacy either.

"Treasonous" was any disagreement with government policy to them. New England elites think the same way today.

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.

It happened in the CSA but much like the arbitrary arrests and suspension of habeas corpus, it happened on nothing like the scale it happened in the Northern States. Newspapers in the Southern states were if anything far more harsh in their criticisms of President Davis than Northern newspapers dared to be of Lincoln.

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.

Those are your numbers. What is not mentioned, is that there was no shortage of food or medicine in the Northern states while there was in the Southern States as a result of the naval blockade. As for Andersonville.....

During the amnesty debate in the House of Representatives in 1876, Hill, of Georgia, replying to statements of Blaine, discussed the history of the exchange of prisoners, dwelling on the fact that the cartel which was established in 1862 was interrupted in 1863, and that the Federal authorities refused to continue the exchange of prisoners. "The next effort," he said, "in the same direction was made in January, 1864, when Robert Ould, Confederate agent of exchange, wrote to the Federal agent of exchange, proposing, in view of the difficulties attending the release of prisoners, that the surgeons of the army on each side be allowed to attend their own soldiers while prisoners in the hands of the enemy, and should have charge of their nursing and medicine and provisions; which proposition was also rejected."

Continuing, Mr. Hill said: "In August, 1864, there were two more propositions. The cartel of exchange had been broken by the Federals under certain pretences, and the prisoners were accumulating on both sides to such an extent that Mr. Ould made another proposition to waive every objection and to agree to whatever terms the Federal Government would demand, and to renew the exchange of prisoners, man for man, and officer for officer, just as the Federal Government might prescribe. That proposition was also rejected. In the same month, August, 1864, finding that the Federal Government would neither exchange prisoners nor agree to sending surgeons to the prisoners on each side, the Confederate Government officially proposed, in August, 1864, that if the Federal Government would send steamers and transports to Savannah, the Confederate Government would return the sick and wounded prisoners on its hands without an equivalent. That proposition, which was communicated to the Federal authorities in August, 1864, was not answered until December, 1864, when some ships were sent to Savannah. The record will show that the chief suffering, the chief mortality at Andersonville, was between August and December, 1864. We sought to allay that suffering by asking you to take your prisoners off our hands without equivalent, and without asking you to return a man for them, and you refused."

The death toll at Andersonville was indeed high but that was due to shortages of medicine and food. Confederate authorities were not wantonly cruel. They tried to alleviate the lack of medicine by offering to let the Union send its own doctors with medicine to take care of them. The offer was refused. They offered to let the Union pick up the particularly sick and wounded POWs and that offer was ignored for months while they were dying.

the high death tolls of Confederates in Union POW camps like Camp Douglas, Hellmira and Point Lookout have no such excuse. They could have been adequately fed, housed and provided with adequate medical care. The federal government just didn't want to. That is in addition to widespread reports of deliberate murder and cruelty I've quoted before.

Your claim here without evidence is just empty words, meaning nothing.

Precisely what I say about your claims.

So, roughly equivalent to Lincoln and the 1862 Dakota War.

Except Confederate authorities in Richmond had no control over the guerilla war in Missouri.