See, that's what I mean. An accusation of murder should have some evidence or logic behind it. Wild accusations of murder qualify for tinfoil. I wouldn't dream of accusing Lee of murder unless I had a link ready. I think that's what separates those who recognize reality from those of you living in the past who accept any kind of wild revisionism as long as it demonizes those you consider the enemy.
Nonsense. Where is that implied? There were many factors.
When you said that those who recognize that slavery was the reason for secession were not recognizing facts. It's it the South's own words in their Declarations. You Spent a whole thread talking about about a black southerner fighting for the Confederacy acting as if he was the norm. I can take you to an Underground Railroad station right here near my house to show you that many blacks did not support the Confederacy.
Nonsense. Where is that implied? I posted an article about Mr. Winbush, and the fact that his grandfather for the Confederacy - a position Mr. Winbush stated he would take as well.
Again, you said that Winbush proves yankees had their facts wrong. That implies black supported slavery.
Not at that time - until then modern wars were much more "gentlemanly".
War was gentlemanly?! Read about the English versus the Highlanders! Read about the Alpiners versus the Saxons! I'd say burned houses and supply barns isn't near as bad as what the Highlanders and the Saxons went through!
Sherman instituted the policy of waging war on innocent civilians, to make Georgia "howl". That is, the defenseless old men, women and children.
And it's what Ike, Truman, Patton, Doolittle, all of them did. It's how wars are won, you destroy the opposing army's supply. Southerners had it easy compared to Tokyoans, Germans who were firebombed, Hiroshimians, Nagaskians, etc. Hundreds of thousands were killed. All the South lost were inanimate objects.
His army could beat them. But please see post 72 - the US Supreme Court ruled on this issue before and after the war. Civilian property could not be seized/destroyed without compensation.
It was rebellion.
By Lincoln's own admission, he was perfectly content for the seceded states to be left alone [''beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere], as long as he could 'collect the duties and imposts'. A demand for tribute.
Yeah right, that's beyond the pale. Like I said, tinfoil.
Sigh. Please read the statement whch preceded your reply. [For clarification, I did not state that the justice was killed, only that he was hung in an attempt to force him to divulge the location.]
You Spent a whole thread talking about about a black southerner fighting for the Confederacy acting as if he was the norm.
A post of a man who was proud of his ancestor. But it was not an isolated incident:
The next recorded organization of negroes, especially as Rebel soldiers, was at Mobile, toward Autumn; and two or three months later, the following telegram was flashed over the length and breadth of the rejoicing Confederacy:"New Orleans, Nov. 23, 1861. "Over 28,000 troops were reviewed today by Gov. Moore, Maj. Gen. Lowell, and Brig.-Gen. Ruggles. The line was over seven miles long. One regiment comprised 1,400 free colored men."The (Rebel) Legislature of Virginia was engaged, so early as Feb. 4, 1862, on a bill to enroll all the free negroes in the State, for service in the Rebel forces; which was favored by all who discussed it; when it passed to its engrossment, and probably became a law.
Horace Greeley, The American conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-'65: Its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to Exhibit Especially Its Moral and Political Phases, With the Drift and Progress of American Opinion Respecting Human Slavery From 1776 to the Close of the War for the Union, Hartford, CN: O. D. Case & Co., Vol. 2, p. 522.
Again, you said that Winbush proves yankees had their facts wrong.
Well duh. If blacks, slave and free, fought for the Confederacy that speaks volumes about the true causes of the war - to many it was that arrogant yankees attempted to dictate their attitudes and beliefs on the country, and failed to abide by the terms of their agreement.
But for the sake of argument, slavery was already legal. The South had no need to secede to continue it - there were not enough states against it to pass an amendment, and Lincoln himself signed and amendment that would have made slavery permanent.
War was gentlemanly?!
Please, I wrote that modern warfare was gentlemanly per accepted international laws & treaties. The Lieber Code attempted to legalize the attack and destruction of civilian property. See the decision by Taney cited previously which recognizes that civilian property is not a legimate target of war.
All the South lost were inanimate objects.
Hundreds of thousands of homes and farms were leveled, entire cities were destroyed, thousands of women were raped, property stolen, numerous slaves murdered, civilian livestock slaughtered for no reason, the women & children of Roswell enslaved and sent north, nunneries and churches looted and destroyed, and entire populations were left to starve to death or to freeze.
That you delight in such men, or consider their actions trivial speaks volumes.
It was rebellion.
So? The court still had ruled the taking/destruction of civilian property illegal.
Yeah right, that's beyond the pale. Like I said, tinfoil.
Does Lincoln need Heavy-duty or regular? It was what he said.