Posted on 08/20/2004 5:43:21 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
I am not asking for your laundry list. I am looking for some specificity.
Somebody earlier squeaked about Articles 15-17 of General Order No. 100, which reads: Art. 15. "Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to the hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of the appropriation of whatever an enemy's country affords necessary for the subsistence and safety of the army, and of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist. Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God."
Article 16 begins: "Military necessity does not admit of cruelty - that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge." Since General order No. 100 does not mention "torture" by name, this is about as close as it gets. I read this to say that it is impermissible to be "cruel," as defined. Otherwise, if there is a military purpose to the infliction of pain and suffering, that seems to go with the territory.
Article 17 reads: "War is not carried on by arms alone. It is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy." Pretty straight forward.
You provide no definition for, or evidence for, "mass rapes."
Article 17 reads: "War is not carried on by arms alone. It is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy." Pretty straight forward. You make sweeping statements about looting and destruction of "places of worship" and fail to recognize that such places were also used to hid arms, munitions, supplies, and personnel - not unlike what is going on in Iraq today! The southerners themselves made some places of worship valid military targets.
The taking of civilian hostages was permissible under Article 54.
Article 52 reads: "No belligerent has the right to declare that he will treat every captured man in arms of a levy en masse as a brigand or bandit. If, however, the people of a country, or any portion of the same, already occupied by an army, rise against it, they are violators of the laws of war, and are not entitled to their protection." This means that civilians who rebel against marshal law lose whatever protections they would have otherwise been granted - they have no rights in that case.
Nope. Historian Michael Bradley, who discusses the incident in his book "With Blood and Fire," describes Pittman as a "pro-Union" civilian who claimed to Milroy that confederates had "stolen" some supplies from him while the Tullohoma region was under confederate control. Notes Bradley,
Pittman provided Milroy with a list of goods for which he was seeking restitution as well as a list of his neighbors who he felt deserved punishment for "disloyal" actions.The record of Pittman's list indicates that the items taken were virtually all war requisitions, in Pittman's case amounting to basically 4 horses, a cow, some corn, and a Bowie knife. Far from indicating a civil authority, Milroy's order regarding Pittman states that Pittman "will be allowed to kill" the prisoners given to him as a reward.
Perhaps the most disgusting excerpt from Milroy's lists:
"Cynthia McCullum...she is a very bad and a very dangerous woman. SHOOT IF YOU CAN - MAKE IT LOOK AN ACCIDENT"
Says Dr. Bradley of the whole episode:
THe instructions about hanging the men in their own door yard suggest that a hangmans noose was not to be used. Such a knot would cause death instantly, but these men were to be hanged with a simple slip knot so that they would slowly strangle. Before their departure the U.S. troops were assigned the task to yank on the legs of the hanged, breaking their necks, ensuring they were dead. When hanged in such a fashion death occurs after five to ten minutes of excruciating agony. The fury of war, as waged by the Union provost marshal, had reverted to torture methods of the Middle Ages."Bradley on another Death List execution:
All three had their hands tied behind their backs and were forced to wade into a mill pond at Huffer's Mill. They were then shot in the back and their corpses were guarded for three days before the families were allowed to remove them from the water. The method of their execution was the same as that styled barbaric by General Slocum and General Thomas when three of their men were murdered at Mulberry in 1863."Those were three of the victims on the shorter Death List I posted in full to you. One of them, Leroy Moore, was "an old, white haired man" according to Bradley. Another was a preacher whose wife and children survived the winter by living in their tiny smokehouse after his farm was looted for valuables and set ablaze. No charges of any kind were ever stated against any of these men by Milroy, Pittman, or anybody else. The oral tradition states that their "crime" was that one of them gave three straggling confederate soldiers a place to sleep for the night in his barn shortly after the Battle of Franklin.
I believe as Justice Curtis did that it was a single mar on an otherwise impeccable judicial career.
that they accepted the Seneca officer as a HUMAN BEING???
the lincoln regime was RACIST to the core and HATED EVERY "injun". lincoln, the GREAT BLOODSPILLER, planned to KILL every one of us AND/OR "drive the godforsaken red savages from all our dominions, as they are in any measure fully human.".
(see the letter to Leonidas T. Braun of Boston,MA, dated feb 22, 1864.) all the anecdotes in the world won't cover that up.
free dixie,sw
...which is a marxist by any other name. The "popular" James McPherson is a marxist as well. So are many so-called "historians" of the civil war of their ilk.
in stark contrast to the sources I often quote
Your favorite source to quote around here is Farber, a Berkeleyite liberal. The only difference between him and Finkelman is that Finkelman takes a few more steps to the left.
With regard to slave ownership, the census data of 1860 showed the percentage of slaveholders. But only one slaveholder per household was listed. My point refered to "slave-holding families." It is not only reasonable, but a point of fact, that there were the sons of census "slaveholders" who fought for the south who were not themselves, yet, slaveholders. But, as their family wealth and influence was based on slaveholding, they had a vested interest in the continuation of the institution.
I just told you - they purported themselves to represent the entire state, called an unauthorized "referendum" in the counties around Wheeling on partitioning a new state, let only their sympathizers vote for a Saddam-style 99% victory, claimed a couple dozen counties to their south as theirs as well, and took it all to Lincoln for a rubber stamp.
Another post by capitan, another artificial truncation of article 16, another fib. Big surprise.
The FULL Article 16, including its mention of torture by name in the remainder of the exact same sentence that capitan artificially truncated:
Military necessity does not admit of cruelty - that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district. It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult.
the 1860 "census" was AT BEST a guess.
that's why geaneologists DO NOT trust it. (the DAR for example, will not accept ANYTHING from the 1860, absent OTHER PRIMARY source information.)
just ONE EXAMPLE: over 90% of the citizens of Dallas County, TX were NOT counted at all, as the Trinity River was out of her banks that year & the bridges were out. there's a city called DALLAS across the river!
the same was true for Tarrant County. (can you say FT WORTH,TX, children?? sure you can!)
what you/any damnyankee apologist cannot escape is that more than ninety percent (90%) of dixie's soldier,sailors& marines had GROSS ASSETS of less than 25.00USD on date of enlistment! POOR people could NOT/did NOT own slaves!!!! use your COMMONSENSE on this!
free dixie,sw
YEP.
Taney's blatant racism had been known since at least 1832, when he wrote this opinion as Attorney General for Andrew Jackson:
"The African race in the United States even when free, are everywhere a degraded class, and exercise no political influence. The privileges they are allowed to enjoy, are accorded to them as a matter of kindness and benevolence rather than right. They are the only class of persons who can be held as mere property, as slaves."
That is not Constitutional doctrine. That is not world history. That is Taney's deep-seated prejudice. Taney meant and firmly believed exactly what he said: The negro had no rights a white man is bound to respect. Fehrenbacher terms it "harsh racial doctrine" - I call it southern racist BS.
Shaking my head in amazement bump.
Source: Harry V. Jaffa, New Birth of Freedom, pp. 219-21
One piece of evidence Lincoln did not use in his refutation of Taney's claim that opinion in 1857 was more favorable toward the humanity of Negroes than opinion at the Founding relates to a Maryland trial in 1818 of a Methodist minister named Jacob Gruber. Gruber had spoken at a camp meeting at Hagerstown on "the national sin."
About twenty-six hundred white people were in the audience and over four hundred negroes were on the outskirts of the crowd. The bold evangelist attacked slavery as being inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence and criticized the slave trade as inhuman and cruel. Consequently, he was indicted by the grand jury for attempting to incite slaves to rebellion. So incensed were the people of Hagerstown that the counsel for the defense... secured the removal of the case to Frederick.
The Reverend Mr. Gruber's sermon was precisely the kind of inflammatory speech that President Buchanan (and Jefferson Davis) had denounced as responsible for the sectional crisis. It was the kind of speech that the proslavery South denounced as a betrayal of the constitutional compact and used to justify secession. Here is the successful speech to the jury by Gruber's counsel, calling for his acquittal:
Any man has a right to publish his opinions on that subject [slavery] whenever he pleases. It is a subject of national concern, and may at all times be freely discussed. Mr. Gruber did quote the language of our great act of national independence, and insisted on the principles contained in that venerated instrument. He did rebuke those masters, who, in the exercise of power, are deaf to the calls of humanity; and he warned them of the evils they might bring upon themselves. He did speak with abhorrence of those reptiles, who live by trading in human flesh, and enrich themselves by tearing the husband from the wife -- the infant from the bosom of the mother: and this I am instructed was the head and front of his offending. Shall I content myself with saying he had a right to say this? That there is no law to punish him? So far is he from being the object of punishment in any form of proceeding, that we are prepared to maintain the same principles, and to use, if necessary, the same language here in the temple of justice, and in the presence of those who are the ministers of the law. A hard necessity, indeed, compels us to endure the evil of slavery for a time. It was imposed upon us by another nation, while we were yet in a state of colonial vassalage. It cannot be easily or suddenly removed. Yet while it continues it is a blot on our national character, and every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will be effectually, though it must be gradually, wiped away; and earnestly looks for the means, by which this necessary object may best be attained. And until it shall be accomplished: until the time shall come when we can point without a blush, to the language of the Declaration of Independence, every friend of humanity will seek to lighten the galling chain of slavery, and better, to the utmost of his power, the wretched condition of the slave.
* * *
Now the reader will be interested to learn the identity of Gruber's attorney, the author of these noble and just sentiments, these Jeffersonian and Lincolnian sentiments, so eloquently and even beautifully expressed. His name was Roger Taney.
----------
By my nolu chan #1299 and nolu chan #1366, and nolu chan #810, I provided a detailed demonstration of the earlier fabrications. For an earlier comment by 4ConservativeJustices see 4ConservativeJustices #652 Below is a brief review.
See [capitan_refugio #1462 to GOPcapitalist] Yes, my statement that it was from the Hamdi "decision" was in error. It was from the Hamdi "documentation" on Findlaw.com and I mistook it for the decision or the dissent. Big deal.
First, the reactions of three other Freepers, lentulusgracchus, Gianni and GOPcapitalist to the antics of capitan_refugio.
[lentulusgracchus #1422 to GOPcapitalist] "Simply put, it would seem that you are intentionally perpetrating a fraud and hoping that nobody will double check your work to catch it. I pinged him and asked for an explanation way back up the thread, but he blew me off and just kept posting. What the hell kind of deal is that? Now, his attention having been called to this stuff three times previously (nolu chan, 4ConservativeJustices, and me), he does it again. This sucks."
[Gianni #1501] Once might be an honest mistake. Twice? Maybe I could believe that. Thrice, and response of 'big deal' - outrageous and dishonest.
[GOPcapitalist #1465] The big deal is that this seems to be a recurring problem with you, capitan. Not only did you do this with Hamdi, but you also did it with the Prize Cases (presenting an argument as if it were the decision), Bollman (presenting the dissent as if it were the decision), and this latest case that NC pointed out. That's a pretty bad track record, especially considering that the "decision" part of the case is easily found. It's the one that usually starts with "Justice So-and-so delivered the opinion of the court" and ends with something to the effect of "so held."
1. QUOTE ALLEGEDLY FROM FOOTNOTE IN HAMDI V. RUMSFELD.
It is not possible to look at the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and mistake it for a Decision of the United States Supreme Court. One look at the pictures in nolu chan #1402 are all the proof that is needed. It looks nothing like any Supreme Court decision on FINDLAW (or elsewhere). As is usual, when capitan pulls this stunt, he did not provide any link for his bogus source.
capitan_refugio #1370 attributed the quote to a "Hamdi footnote." It has thus far been admitted, in Clintonian fashion, that it was not from Hamdi. My nolu chan #1402 provides a jpeg of the material quoted by capitan_refugio. It is most definitely not a footnote. Capitan not only claims to have mistaken the Petition for a Writ of Cert for a Supreme Court Decision, he mistook double-spaced text spanning the last 9 lines of text on page 24 and the first 10 lines on page 25 as a footnote. That is possible only if you believe in Clintonian fairy tales.
FINDLAW link to PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERT (PDF File)
Hamdi decision, regular FINDLAW HTML version
Hamdi decision, Printer-friendly FINDLAW HTML version
FINDLAW does not provide decisions in PDF format, they are in HTML. The decisions provided on FINDLAW are not double-spaced.
The header of the court decision looks like this. It does not resemble a petition for writ of cert. JPEG of Petition for Writ HERE.
As GOPcapitalist noted, Supreme Court decisions contain an identified holding. In Hamdi it looks like this. There is no remote equivalent in a Petition for a Writ.
Held: The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded.Justice O'Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer, concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. Pp. 14-15.
Justice Souter, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concluded that Hamdi's detention is unauthorized, but joined with the plurality to conclude that on remand Hamdi should have a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant. Pp. 2-3, 15.
O'Connor, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Kennedy and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
From the late, great, deleted thread, "Confederate Constitution to be unveiled for holiday," which was pulled 8/17/2004 at 5:36:23 CDT.
Link to post, but Thread deleted
Here is our same capitan_refugio quoting at length from the actual court decision in Hamdi about six weeks ago. He knew perfectly well what the court decision looked like then.
To: GOPcapitalistI took the time to actually wade through the opinion of the plurality and the dissents. I found Scalia's and Thomas's dissents very interesting reading. Scalia was very unhappy about the decision, and it showed in his sarcasm. With that said, there is nothing in the Hamdi decision or the dissents which reflect negatively on Lincoln.
Lincoln is only mentioned by name three times, all in Scalia's dissent. In the Scalia discussion, none of his comments regarding the suspension clause are anything but equivocal. And that is not suprising, because the case is not about Lincoln, or the Suspension Clause. It is about the rights of a citizen and due process. Several places in the decision and the dissent the point is made that no one claims to have suspended the writ.
Scalia wrote: "During the Civil War, Congress passed its first Act authorizing Executive suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, see Act of Mar. 3, 1863, 12 Stat. 755, to the relief of those many who thought President Lincoln’s unauthorized proclamations of suspension (e.g., Proclamation No. 1, 13 Stat. 730 (1862)) unconstitutional. Later Presidential proclamations of suspension relied upon the congressional authorization, e.g., Proclamation No. 7, 13 Stat. 734 (1863)."
[Extensive quote continued]
3,174 posted on 08/02/2004 2:57:52 AM CDT by capitan_refugio
2. The BOLLMAN case.
GOPcapitalist noted that regarding Bollman a dissent was presented as the opinion of the court. Also, regarding Bollman, capitan at capitan_refugio #237 argued that "Bollman was not about habeas corpus...." In American jurisprudence, it is the seminal case about habeas corpus. Eric M. Freedman in Habeas Corpus, Rethinking the Great Writ of Liberty, devotes his chapters 3, 4, and 5 exclusively to Ex Parte Bollman.
3. The PRIZE CASES.
In capitan_refugio #649, capitan purported to quote from the Opinion of the Supreme Court in The Prize Cases. Capitan continued, in his words, "The Supreme Court finds: (1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries, (2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and (3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority."
In this case capitan quoted from the recap of the argument of one of the lawyers, Mr. Carlisle, and presented it as the opinion of the court. All of capitan's purported "findings" of the court were the reverse of the actual findings of the court.
See 4ConservativeJustices #652 and nolu chan #810.
4. LEMMON V. THE PEOPLE.
When speaking about Lemmon v. The People, at capitan_refugio #386, capitan regaled us with this mush about a case that never went to the Supreme Court: "Lemmon v the People was a case which foreshadowed Dred Scott. The Taney Court overturned a New York State statute which immediately freed slaves brought into the state. The decision guaranteed "sojourn and transit" and transit rights to slave-owners through free states. It did not address, to my knowledge, the issue of residence. Every stated position about the outcome of the case is wrong. Lemmon was decided by the New York State Court of Appeals in 1860, about 4 years after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Scott v. Sandford.
5. SCOTT V. SANDFORD.
In capitan_refugio #384 capitan purported three quotes to be about the U.S. Supreme Court case of Scott v. Sandford which were actually about the Missouri case of Scott v. Emerson. Two of the quotes were from Fehrenbacher's Chapter 10 entitled "Versus Emerson." The chapter titles appear at the top of pages through the chapter. See nolu chan #389.
6. MITCHELL V. HARMONY
capitan_refugio #1279, of 9/16/2004 at 11:39pm CDT shows, in reference to Mitchell vs. Harmony, "I saw the case referenced several times, but I have not taken time to look it up yet...."
nolu chan #1299, shows that capitan_refugio #1279 provided a quote from Hamdi which had absolutely nothing to do with the comments in Mitchell regarding the 2nd and 3rd objections. This erroneous response resulted from capitan_refugio once again demonstrating his expertise about a court decision he had not read.
capitan_refugio #1335, of 9/17/2004 at 11:30am CDT shows the dismissal of Mitchell with the comment "you cite a pre-war case about the Mexican-American War, which isn't at all analogous."
capitan_refugio #1370, of 9/18/2004 shows that capitan had still not read the decision in Mitchell vs. Harmony. "I have not read Mitchell, but the description in the Hamdi footnote is that the plantiff was a US citizen." Of course, we now know the description is not found in the Hamdi decision and is not found as a footnote anywhere.
Undaunted at having not read the decision, capitan_refugio #1492 to GOPcapitalist on 9/19/2004: "You still don't have the slightest understanding of Hamdi, outside of your's and a few other's odd constructions of its dicta."
And, of course, there was the eloquence of capitan_refugio #1488 which is no longer there, having been removed by the admin moderator.
ROTFLMAO!!!! What history has he misinterpreted? He also cites examples of Northern slavery and black codes dating back to our founding - where did he lie about that?
You lie, twist and distort every post, refusing to admit that you were wrong - Taney did not hold the position you claim in the Scott V. Sandford case, I pointed out that he was citing a century of European history as the basis for his statement.
Now, as usual, you simply post more specious tripe as evidence. Taney's statement is not his personal opinion, it's a statement regarding the factual, legal condition of blacks in the United States of America. This is what then lawyer Roger B. Taney had to say in 1819,
A hard necessity, indeed, compels us to endure the evils of slavery for a time. It was imposed upon us by another nation, while we were yet in a state of colonial vassalage. It cannot be easily or suddenly removed. Yet while it continues, it is a blot on our national character, and every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will be effectually, though it will be gradually, wiped away; and earnestly looks for the means by which this necessary object may be best attained. And until it shall be accomplished, until the time shall come when we can point, without a blush to the language held in the Declaration of Independence, every friend of humanity will seek to lighten the galling chain of slavery, and better, to the utmost of his power, the wretched condition of the slave.Taney had inherited 10 slaves, freed 7 in 1818, another in 1821. The remaining two were old and feeble, and received pensions until their deaths. Even Justice Taney treated his ex-slaves better that you would treat Southerners. You despise Taney for some alleged racist point of view, yet you yourself have stated that the Union did not go far enough an wipe out every Southern man, women and child. The unmitigated gall and hypocrisy of you positions are amazing.
GMTA!
!!!!!!!!!!!
i would NOT pick out one whose postings of an ANTI-southern nature are worse than the others hateFILLED lies & distortions.
WISHING that the damnyankee cause was JUST/HONORABLE/DECENT does NOT make the ATROCITIES committed against the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of helpless UNarmed civilians & CSA POWs any less CRIMINAL.
btw, over the last 2 days i've gotten two private e-mails that stated, in so many words, that they wished the damnyankees had MURDERED ALL of my family in 1864.(one said: "INJUNS deserve to die & if they had killed ALL of them, we wouldn't have to put up with you,_________. (obscenity deleted)".
NICE FOLKS, HUH???
free dixie,sw
Then I'd be dead too. Post 'em on thread, so we can all see what gentlemen they are </sarcasm>
A) Dead professors either in undocumented conversation or "unpublished" material.
B) E-mails that you've received that either support you fully or are so over the top in hating you that they provide you more ammo, but which the senders never just post openly.
C) Conversations with academics who later both refute what you claim they said and aren't even experts in the area you claim they were.
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.