Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

About Woodrow Wilson's concentration camps......
PGA Weblog ^

Posted on 07/12/2013 7:27:07 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-212 next last
To: wardaddy

Like I said - it would be idiotic to attempt to defend the indefensible and sure enough - you come in true to form.

BTW: what’s with the haiku format? Are you auditioning to be FReeRepublic’s FReaky poet? The incoherent, disjointed stream~of~unconsciousness is groovy baby ;-)


161 posted on 07/14/2013 6:03:43 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
The Union had similar. Numerous pro-Confederates were arrested and held in prison camps without trial.

Former Vice President (and Presidential candidate) John Breckinridge, a US Senator, escaped out his back door as the authorities came in the front. Fleeing south, he offered his services to the Confederacy, becoming one of their more effective field commanders, rising to the rank of Lieutenant General before accepting the position of Secretary of War.

162 posted on 07/14/2013 6:08:40 AM PDT by Stonewall Jackson (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: central_va
central_va: "First hand account of Yankee Cavalry in action:"

In December 1862 the freshly-formed 119th Illinois Volunteer Infantry was a pathetic unit against Forrest's dashing cavalry -- the 119th hardly more dangerous than boy-scouts at a campfire.

By April 1865, having marched 2,000 miles through Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and ending -- after Lee's surrender -- at Fort Blakely, near Mobile (where my ancestor was wounded and disabled); the 119th became a highly effective, combat hardened military force.

In my opinion, they both defeated Forrest (at Tupelo, 1864) and returned his favor to them.

163 posted on 07/14/2013 6:25:47 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
North had recources to feed prisoners but did not and refused swap for your beloved Federals at Andersonville

The lack of resources is not much of an excuse for maltreating prisoners. The Confederates captured prisoners knowing full well they couldn't feed them.

In all fairness to the Confederates, much of the suffering at Andersonville was inflicted by prisoners on each other. It was truly a "survival of the fittest" scenario, with gangs preying on weaker gangs or unaffiliated prisoners ... about what you would expect when life is reduced to its basest elements.

Which is not to minimize the sadism and brutality of some of the Rebel guards, who would entice starving men across the "dead line" and then shoot them for sport.

164 posted on 07/14/2013 6:51:59 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Dude!!!! You stayed up too late and drank or snorted waaaay too much party substance. You must have one hellavu headache this morning.


165 posted on 07/14/2013 8:50:03 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
Not at all. I was gauging the intellectual honesty of y'all.....and wasn't disappointed. Thank you for the link. I listened to as much as I could. It fails to support your contention. But the value of your post is that it prodded me to go looking in greater detail at the "contraband" issue.

The beauty (to me at least) of these WBTS threads is that it inspires us to look into our history and seek the truth. We can evaluate the facts and still come to differing conclusions. Or we can make up "facts" whole-cloth and disrespect the truth.

What I found is at variance with your assertion about "internment camps" for Freedmen. Here is a narrative which describes the events (yea, I know - opinions vary) and here is the preliminary report of the Freedmen's Inquiry Commission, along with a brief final report here.

There was no deliberate and malevolent "lock up the darkies" internment camps. There was a certain amount of disorder and "seat of the pants" scrambling which took place as the union attempted to care for the newly freed slaves. I suppose that a dark heart can find darkness in the events but reasonable people see it for what it was.

166 posted on 07/14/2013 9:39:41 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

On vacation at seaside area

Sir up late when I can wirh kids

Never liked drinking

Haven’t snorted anything but air since 1978

Am addicted to one thing....hence 5 kids

Tks have a good day


167 posted on 07/14/2013 11:27:38 AM PDT by wardaddy (the next Dark Ages are coming as Western Civilization crumbles with nary a whimper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

If you must bloviate incessantly with opinion not fact

Learn to spell Right

Forrest...not Forest

Neat trick of rationalizing war brutality when it suits ya bur first to howl when it doesn’t

Yankee hypocrisy....steady giving pleasure since the 1830s and still going strong


168 posted on 07/14/2013 11:34:07 AM PDT by wardaddy (the next Dark Ages are coming as Western Civilization crumbles with nary a whimper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

You try posting on a droid razr at nite kid


169 posted on 07/14/2013 11:36:44 AM PDT by wardaddy (the next Dark Ages are coming as Western Civilization crumbles with nary a whimper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

I’ve made it quite clear I think Lincolns terms where decent and thoughtful and practical

And it was to the South’s detriment

And that while I don’t love Abe I don’t see him as a radical or ardent abolitionist

He got lucky with 39.5 percent of the vote and ran with it

Like I said I’m ambivalent about him


170 posted on 07/14/2013 11:48:20 AM PDT by wardaddy (the next Dark Ages are coming as Western Civilization crumbles with nary a whimper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

The Confederate soldiers themselves were eating a concoction of cornmeal moistened and wrapped around the end of their rifles, then put in the fire to cook and harden. This, and a handful of parched peas. They were starving themselves. The Union boycott didn’t help matters. Southern civilians were in even worse straits, eating grits three times a day. They made regular grits in the morning, the fried the solidified grits in large pieces to eat as a type of “pie”, then the same for dinner, if they had any dinner. They stewed “greens” which in other times would have been considered weeds. Read the memoirs of Mary Chestnutt and other Southerners who lived through the war, they were first first hand witnesses-participants. As bad as the Confederate soldiers had it, the civilians fared even worse, because for one thing, the soldiers were considered to need the “best” such as it was, because they had to do the fighting. Second, because the soldiers-both Confederate and Union-comandeered what little food the civilians had. Most of the war ws fought on Southern soil, so Southern civilians fared the worse.

In other words, the Union prisoners weren’t being starved because of Southern cruelty, the Confederates simply didn’t have enough food to even feed themselves.

And I don’t blame the South for not wanting to trade prisoners for blacks who fought for the Union-there was a real fear that these blacks would not hesitate to put a knife in the backs of Confederate men, not excluding civilians.

Consider this-when Lee’s forces fought in Pennsylvania, he threatened to shoot any soldiers who looted crops there. Sherman, during his march through Georgia, didn’t scruple to burn the homes and crops of civilians the entire way to the sea, and allowed his soldiers to eat whatever little livestock they came across. What they couldn’t eat right then and there, they took with them. These days, that would be considered a war crime.


171 posted on 07/14/2013 11:49:27 AM PDT by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel
The Confederate soldiers themselves were eating a concoction of cornmeal moistened and wrapped around the end of their rifles, then put in the fire to cook and harden.

The Confederates had the transportation to get those troops to Andersonville. They had the ability to get food to them. If they wanted to, but they didn't.

In other words, the Union prisoners weren’t being starved because of Southern cruelty, the Confederates simply didn’t have enough food to even feed themselves.

I know of no evidence supporting the idea that there was widespread hunger anywhere in the South.

And I don’t blame the South for not wanting to trade prisoners for blacks who fought for the Union-there was a real fear that these blacks would not hesitate to put a knife in the backs of Confederate men, not excluding civilians.

And I see nothing wrong with refusing to negotiate prisoner exchanges when your opponent refused to treat a conservable number of your prisoners as soldiers.

Consider this-when Lee’s forces fought in Pennsylvania, he threatened to shoot any soldiers who looted crops there.

LOL. No he didn't.

172 posted on 07/14/2013 12:13:30 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
The irony of you scolding anyone on spelling is rich. But then you always have had a streak of bald-face to you.
173 posted on 07/14/2013 12:18:05 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
wardaddy: "Forrest...not Forest"

Thanks for that, FRiend.

The rest of your post I didn't understand.

174 posted on 07/14/2013 2:50:51 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Don’t know what your nutty rant at me was all about. Hope you got it out of your system. I am having a good day Zimmerman got off. :=)


175 posted on 07/14/2013 3:47:44 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Borges

Depends how you define “win”. Some sort of outcome that would have simply pushed out the aggressors France and Britain?


176 posted on 07/15/2013 11:58:00 AM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
I don't think so. Germany was the most reluctant of the all the players in WWI. They did NOT want to get involved in a full scale war knowing they were not prepared for it. Britain used Belgium neautrality as their Trojan Horse to take Germany downa a notch.
177 posted on 07/15/2013 12:02:04 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee

An outcome that would not have impoverished Germany.


178 posted on 07/15/2013 12:07:38 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee

Again, your words reflect German propaganda, not historical facts.
In recent decades German scholars have carefully examined archived records from 1914, and it’s just not debatable that the German high command, with the Kaiser’s approval, pushed the very reluctant Austrians into declaring war on Serbia.

After years of preparations, trials and delays by 1914 the Kaiser was ready to make his big move, especially after the murder of his friend, the Austrian Archduke.

Of course, no German civilian wanted war, and very few ever suspected their own government was guilty of starting it.
But the documents are clear, and if you want a single name most responsible, that would be, iirc, a von Molke the younger.
But he certainly did not act on his own, they were all in on it, including the kaiser.

Will provide references when more time...


179 posted on 07/15/2013 12:44:17 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee; Borges; donmeaker; AnalogReigns
Here is my main source: David Fromkin, "Europe's Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914?".
I'm sure there are others which make the same points.

Fromkin's book should be read together -- side by side -- with Barbara Tuchman's "Guns of August".
They compliment, they don't contradict each other.


180 posted on 07/16/2013 7:07:37 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-212 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson