Replies

That one number exceeds the other is not the crucial issue. It is when the disparity is almost 10 to 1. As I previously noted, you would have to demonstrate that each confederate arrest was 10 times as bad as each union arrest on average to reverse the trend indicated by those numbers, and that falls well in the realm of statistical impossibility. Out of the 38,000 how many were not defensible and likewise, out of the 4,000? Any way you look at that question, you'd have to demonstrate that the northern arrests were 10 times more defensible than the southern arrests on average. That is simply too big of a burden for you to overcome no matter how many ways you recount it, Mr. Kerry.

You are assuming that the arrests themselves were wrong, but they may not have been.

There may have been justification for many of them.

Now, Bensel says that the North was more severe in its handling of the suspension, but maybe they were justified in being so.

It may have been that rather then 38,000 being too high, 4,000 was too low, and that the South did not make enough arrests and therefore weakened their own war effort. The first responsiblity both Lincoln and Davis had was to win the war that they were in, and getting control of illegal activities in their own areas was a major part of that responsibilty.

It would seem that Davis did not have enough power to accomplish the job given to him, at least as far as the Writ was concerned.

You are assuming that the arrests themselves were wrong, but they may not have been.

Tis no matter of assumption. Even the most partisan Lincoln sycophant will acknowledge that at least some of his arrests were unjustified.

There may have been justification for many of them.

Then that is your burden to prove, not mine.