The Untold Story of the Civil War

And how did you come to that conclusion? Just curious.

I could do like my professors in school, who, upon writing a blackboard full of complex equations, would say about the next step, "It is intuitively obvious that ..."

I have seen a cost tabulation made in 1861 of all the large forts in the US. It was either in the Congressional Globe or in one of my hundreds of old newspaper copies or perhaps both. I don't remember which. The total cost was not enormous, something like a million or two for each fort (from memory).

The values of the forts were dwarfed by the value of public lands in the territories and states. The minimum government price for public land was $2.50 per acre for land within six miles of a railroad and $1.25 an acre for land beyond six miles from the railroad. (Source: Wisconsin and Its Resources by James S. Ritchie, 1857).

Homesteaders could have the land they homesteaded if they lived on it, worked on it, and improved it for five years. They were credited with $0.25 per year per acre for that effort, bringing the total after five years to $1.25 per acre, the minimum government price for public land. (Source: Volume I of Kansas: a cyclopedia of state history, embracing events, institutions, industries, counties, cities, towns, prominent persons, etc. ... edited by Frank W. Blackmar, 1912)

Here are some other prices (Source: Where to Emigrate and Why, by Frederick B. Goddard, 1869).

Nebraska: "The value of wild or unimproved lands ranges from the Government minimum price of $1.25 up to $10 per acre. .... In 1860 there were over forty-eight million acres of wild, or waste areas in Nebraska ..."

Washington Territory: "The average value of wild or unimproved lands in Clallam County is $1.25 per acre ... The same average price rules in Pacific ..."

California: "We have so sparse a population, however, that there are vast quantities of good arable land which can be purchased of Government at from $1.25 to $2.50 per acre."

Oregon: "Probably two-thirds of the lands of the State are for sale at Government prices."

The US (including the South) paid something like 3 cents an acre in 1803 for the Louisiana Territory.

“Am I to feel sorry for the Germans because of the Dresden fire bombing? Do we owe the Japanese an apology for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I don’t think so. The civilian population paid a penalty for the folly of their leadership’s misguided decision to launch a war. So if I’m not going to feel any qualms about the Germans and the Japanese then why should I feel sympathy for the rebel civilians? What is so special about them?”

Your apparent inhumanity is breathtaking. You bring to mind the Germans, Japanese, VC, humanity itself at it’s worst. I’m sorry I’ve led you to expose yourself.

It appears we have no common ground to continue.

It appears we have no common ground to continue.

Apparently.

U.S Treasury agents streamed through the South in 1865 grabbing cotton, land, anything that they claimed to have been the property of the Confederacy

General Order Eleven (11) (US Civil War) depopulated the western most 5 counties in Missouri starting with Jackson County (Kansas City) and going south along the Kansas Border. All food crops and material goods were subject to confiscation by any local, state or federal authority (union) with the moxie to do so. All citizens were to remove themselves or face execution. All barns or structures where bushwackers could hide were burned to the ground. Starvation, disease and privation - you name it were justified in the name of federal military strategerie.

General Order Eleven (11)

That order was issued by General Ewing on August 25, 1863. Four days prior Quantrill had burned Lawrence and murdered upwards of 200 civilians. You don't suppose the two were connected do you?

That order was issued by General Ewing on August 25, 1863. Four days prior Quantrill had burned Lawrence and murdered upwards of 200 civilians. You don't suppose the two were connected do you?

Lawrence had long been the center of raids against Southerners in Missouri. Here's a quote about Lawrence and the Red Legs from a Kansas history book I posted to you long ago (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/930780/posts?page=423#423):

That a rank growth of general freebooting should have sprung up in Kansas during the war was no more than might have been expected. The border naturally attracts men adapted to shine in this calling, and the territorial period afforded admirable training for the wider field of spoliation opened by the war for the Union. Early in the struggle an organization appeared known as "Red-legs," from the fact that its members affected red morocco leggings. It was a loose-jointed association, with members shifting between twenty-five and fifty, dedicated originally to the vocation of horse-stealing, but flexible enough to include rascalities of every description.

"At intervals the gang would dash into Missouri, seize horses and cattle -- not omitting other and worse outrages on occasion -- then repair with their booty to Lawrence, where it was defiantly sold at auction. "Red-legs were accustomed to brag in Lawrence," says one who was familiar with their movements, "that nobody dared to interfere with them. They did not hesitate to shoot inquisitive and troublesome people. At Lawrence the livery stables were full of their stolen horses. One day I saw three or four Red-legs attack a Missourian who was in town searching for lost property. They gathered about him with drawn revolvers and drove him off very unceremoniously. I once saw Hoyt, the leader, without a word of explanation or warning, open fire upon a stranger quietly riding down Massachusetts Street. He was a Missourian whom Hoyt had recently robbed." The gang contained men of the most desperate and hardened character, and a full recital of their deeds would sound like the biography of devils. Either the people of Lawrence could not drive out the freebooters, or they thought it mattered little what might happen to Missouri disloyalists. Governor Robinson made a determined, but unsuccessful effort to break up the organization. The Red-legs repaid the interference by plots for his assassination, which barely miscarried.

Are you forgetting about Union General Ewing's General Orders Number 10 issued on August 18, 1863, three days before the raid on Lawrence? General Orders Number 10 directed the banishment from Missouri of wives and children of guerrillas and others who aided guerrillas. (See Link).

Prior to General Orders Number 10, women relatives of some of Quantrill's querrillas had been taken to a prison to await trial for helping them. On August 13, 1863, the prison they were kept in collapsed and killed and injured a number of them.

To paraphrase you, you don't suppose these things were connected to the raid on Lawrence do you?

General Orders Number 10 issued on August 18, 1863, three days before the raid on Lawrence? General Orders Number 10 directed the banishment from Missouri of wives and children of guerrillas and others who aided guerrillas.

At least General Order 10 was directed at the families and the supporters of the raiders. The killing at Lawrence was indiscriminate. No attempt was made to determine if the victim had anything to do with the Red Leg depredations or not. If it moved they killed it, especially if it was a man or boy. So please don't pretend there is any moral high ground in this, on either side.

Prior to General Orders Number 10, women relatives of some of Quantrill's querrillas had been taken to a prison to await trial for helping them. On August 13, 1863, the prison they were kept in collapsed and killed and injured a number of them.

And no doubt you think the collapse was intentional.

To paraphrase you, you don't suppose these things were connected to the raid on Lawrence do you?

I've listened to you Southron type bitch and moan about Yankee brutality during the war and the fact of the matter is that the brutality you complain about was for the most part limited to Missouri and Kansas. And the irony is that the brutality was widespread on both sides with equal blame falling on North and South.

At least General Order 10 was directed at the families and the supporters of the raiders. The killing at Lawrence was indiscriminate. No attempt was made to determine if the victim had anything to do with the Red Leg depredations or not. If it moved they killed it, especially if it was a man or boy. So please don't pretend there is any moral high ground in this, on either side.

The Lawrence raiders were looking for a dozen men associated with the Red Legs and other raiders of Missouri, but they killed more people than that. I don't condone killing innocent people, nor do you.

And no doubt you think the collapse was intentional.

I doubt it, but I don't know and neither do you. The following site claims it was intentional: http://www.rulen.com/partisan/collapse.htm

I've listened to you Southron type bitch and moan about Yankee brutality during the war and the fact of the matter is that the brutality you complain about was for the most part limited to Missouri and Kansas. And the irony is that the brutality was widespread on both sides with equal blame falling on North and South.

I think you are forgetting about brutality in places other than Missouri and Kansas, but perhaps yours is the parochial perspective of someone who lives in Kansas. Brutality was indeed committed by both sides.