Posted on 04/07/2002 4:54:28 PM PDT by one2many
Military Justice
&
Other Oxymorons
Abraham Lincoln vs the Sioux
Paul Weber
When King George the Second (surnamed Bush) announced that some of the soldiers (or is it detainees? or criminals?) captured in the undeclared war in Afghanistan would be tried in military tribunals, a lot of people got twisted out of shape. Military Tribunals, it seems, are not open to the public; the military serves as judge, jury, and hangman; and the accused can be convicted and sentenced to summary execution merely on a "preponderance of the evidence", rather than the usual "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in conventional capital cases. The words "Star Chamber" come immediately to mind. Oh, yes—and the guilty have no right of appeal. Once you’re found guilty, you can step right on out the back door to the waiting hangman.
"Ridiculous!" answered the big-government conservatives. "Military tribunals are very fair. And you don’t have to worry about the trials turning into media circuses like the O. J. Simpson case. We used military tribunals in several wars in the past, and they rendered even-handed justice."
Actually, no. American military tribunals have historically been set up to railroad people quickly to the hangman’s noose. Abraham Lincoln, the first president from the Republican Party (as well as our Empire’s first dictator), set up military tribunals in the Civil War that were allegedly to be used to try people in parts of the country where the conventional court system had broken down as a result of the war. Interestingly, one of the more famous military tribunals was set up in a state that was never threatened by the Southern rebels: Minnesota. The accused were not rebel soldiers, but Sioux Indians who had been causing a ruckus by making unreasonable demands on the Lincoln Administration, such as actually sticking to the terms of a treaty. According to Thomas DiLorenzo, author of a new book titled The Real Lincoln, the Santee Sioux of Minnesota had sold 24 million acres of land to the federal government for $1.4 million in 1851. By 1862, in the middle of the Civil War, the feds had still paid the Sioux nothing, even though thousands of white settlers had moved into the area. Because of a crop failure that year, the Sioux had begun to starve, and without the promised payments from the feds, they had no means of buying provisions.
Okay, I know it’s hard for you public-school-educated Americans to comprehend, but our masters in Washington really do have a sordid history of breaking treaties, particularly with the Indian tribes.
Weary of being stiffed by Washington, the Sioux finally revolted. In response, Lincoln sent a force under the command of General John Pope, a charming fellow whose stated purpose was to "utterly exterminate the Sioux." Of course the "war", such as it was, was no contest—sort of like the American military conquering the mighty nation of Afghanistan—and hundreds of Sioux, including women and children, were taken prisoner.
This is where the fun really began for the Lincoln administration. Remember, Minnesota never even came close to suffering invasion during the Civil War. The system of courts in Minnesota had not been destroyed. Nonetheless, it was very convenient to identify the Sioux as "illegal combatants" in the war. Maybe they didn’t wear uniforms, or something, or maybe they even attacked innocent civilians—something our own military never does, right? Anyhow, this Military Tribunal, according to David Nichols in Lincoln and the Indians, spent all of about 10 minutes on each "trial." The Sioux, many of whom spoke no English, were not allowed to put up much of a defense, even if they had some foggy notion of what was going on.
Over 300 Sioux were found guilty and sentenced to summary execution. The merciful Lincoln Administration, however, got a few signals from Europe that mass execution of hundreds of starving Indians with whom we had broken a treaty might just be a little bit immoral. Because some of those nations were toying with the idea of coming to the aid of the South, Lincoln decided, in a great show of mercy, to execute only 39 of the prisoners. But to mollify the folks in Minnesota, he also paid $2 million in federal funds, along with a promise to eventually kill or remove every last Indian from the state.
Yes, this is the same Lincoln whom official Washington and the public schools at all levels continually laud as one of our greatest presidents. This is the fellow we celebrate with a national holiday.
Another famous case involves the story of Major Henry Wirz, the unfortunate soldier given the unenviable task of overseeing the Andersonville prison in Georgia during the Civil War. First, a bit of background. The American military, which never targets civilians, (sarcasm) engaged in what we now call "Total War" on the population of the South. That is, they not only attacked the armies of the Confederacy, but also made war on noncombatants. Throughout the South, the invading Union Army burned crops, shot livestock and left the carcasses to rot, and burned people out of their homes. This, added to the fact that the South had been effectively blockaded for several years, meant the civilian population was reduced to starvation and had no access to medicine.
During the early years of the war, the opposing sides negotiated the exchange of prisoners, but as the war dragged on, the North realized that—surprise!— the Union soldiers they were taking back were starving and disease-ridden, a fact that just might have been related to their own blockade and their own policy of Total War. The Union generals, not wanting to "exchange skeletons for healthy men", decided to cease all prisoner exchanges, fully knowing that the South would be put in the impossible position of rationing what little food was available, while at the same time being morally responsible for feeding their prisoners of war. Attorney Louis Schade, in a letter defending Major Wirz, pointed out that the South advised the North that they were unable to feed their prisoners, offering to simply let the North take back their prisoners without any compensating exchange, on humanitarian grounds. The offer was made in August, 1864, but the North did not send transportation to pick up the prisoners until December. It was during that period of time that most of the deaths at Andersonville occurred.
Almost 22,000 Northerners died in Southern camps during the war, compared to the 26,000 Southerners who died in Northern camps, despite the fact that the North did not suffer any blockade or Total War tactics, as had the South. From this, we can gather that Southern troops were not treated very kindly in Northern prisons, but the victors in war get to write the history, so the story of mistreatment in Northern prison camps has been largely swept under the rug.
The North, however, needed a scapegoat and a show trial, so Major Wirz faced a military tribunal. Wirz was made to stand trial despite the fact he had been wounded during surrender. He was so weak that he was unable to sit upright during his trial; he had to recline on a sofa in the courtroom. He was denied the right to speak in his own defense. Wirz, ironically, was accused of "murder in violation of the laws and customs of war." Well, General Sherman never did anything like that, did he? A dozen "witnesses" were produced, all accusing Wirz of personally beating 13 prisoners to death. There were several problems with the testimony, however, the most conspicuous being the fact that none of the alleged "witnesses" could recall the names of any of the victims! This lapse of memory seems to have occurred despite the fact that several of the alleged victims lived for five or six days after the beatings. Isn’t it unusual that, among the thousands of prisoners at Andersonville, not one witness could be produced who could recall the name of a single victim? Against those 15 "witnesses," the defense was allowed to produce 145 witnesses who all swore Wirz never murdered any Union soldiers. Despite the preponderance of evidence indicating Wirz never killed anyone, the Union general in charge of the proceedings (gee--you don’t suppose a commander of the opposition forces would be a little, you know, biased, would you?) found Wirz guilty and ordered him hanged.
It gets better, though. On the night before the scheduled execution, several federal officers approached Schade with an offer of clemency for Wirz if he would simply testify that Jefferson Davis himself had a hand in the "murder" of the unnamed prisoners. Such a claim would be, of course, absurd. Jefferson Davis was never anywhere near Andersonville, but the Union, unable to try Davis for treason, was trolling for a more mundane charge, like murder. Wirz, in one of those strange, darkly heroic moments of history, refused to go along with the perjury, saying he could not accuse an innocent man even to save his own life. Two hours later, he mounted the gallows and was hanged.
On the matter of suborning perjury, our masters in Washington evidently get a free pass every time. Bill Clinton was actually a small-time amateur at this tactic, having used it to wriggle out of his nasty little incident with Monica and the legendary cigar. His Republican predecessors, however, tried and failed to suborn perjury in order to implicate someone in alleged murders in which neither the bodies nor the names of the victims were ever produced. Jefferson Davis actually wanted to be put on trial for treason, confident he could prove that individual states had every right to secede from the union. The Feds, reviewing the mountains of evidence in the writings of the Founding Fathers indicating the states did indeed have just such a right, never brought Davis to trial.
These are just two examples from our illustrious history of military tribunals. I’m sure that, with a little research, one could come up with many more examples to demonstrate that military tribunals are set up with the specific purpose of arriving at the "right" predetermined verdict.
Paul Weber’s novel, Transfiguration, is available at http://www.xlibris.com/Transfiguration.html.
One of the great trends in the United States is that of the breaking of the shackles of misinformation of the insular, monolithic, self-serving media-government cartel. At the core of this massive plutocratic apparatus is the Lincoln myth. It is time to out "Honest" Abe.
From Timeline of Andersonville:
August 10, 1864
Confederate Agent of Exchange Judge Robert Ould notifies Union authorities that the South will unilaterally release a number of prisoners of war from Camp Sumter if transportation is provided to take them home; however, two months will pass before the United States Government acts on this proposal.
August 21, 1864
Union Brigadier General T. Seymour, appointed by the United States War Department to investigate military prison conditions in the South, reports to Federal headquarters that the wisest course of action is to allow Union prisoners of war to remain confined at Andersonville, and not to initiate a prisoner exchange.
April 17, 1865
Brigadier General and Union Commander of Jacksonville, Florida, E. P. Scammon, having previously agreed to exchange prisoners, today stops 2,500 Andersonville inmates on route to Jacksonville and directs them to return to Andersonville, under orders of U. S. Major General Quincy A. Gillmore, who kills the exchange.
============================================================
For a closer look at the travesty of the government sanction of Wirz, with gory details such as the mutilation of his body, see these links:
(American public schools are)… publicly-financed dungeons of academic sorrows where kids are forced to comply with state mandates biased toward non-achievers, and are put on the honor roll for learning their ABC’s and memorizing chemistry symbols. –Karen DeCoster
'Honest Abe' was not so honest and virtuous after all.
Now what do we do with the Lincoln Memorial? Sell it to Illinois and have it trucked off? The Feds have a lot tied up in that 'white elephant'.
"Lincoln used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a powerful central government. He [Lincoln] illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; launched a military invasion without consent of Congress; blockaded Southern ports without declaring war; imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies; arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses; censored all telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, an act that Lincoln?s own attorney general thought was unconstitutional; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections; deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln's unconstitutional behavior; confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments." --Paul Craig Roberts
I was thinking of turning it into a large bird cage and stock it with rare birds like crows and pigeons.
Let's make sure that everyone reading this knows who and what you and your buddyroos are right off the bat shall we?
Let's give a big ole PINKO ALERT!!
Let's let these good people on this thread know how you and your fellow travelers vote.
Here is your reply to Leesylvanian from another thread:
==================================
Leesylvanian:
Keep in mind when dealing with WP that you're dealing with a man who favors the government's rights/authority over those of the people. He voted for Clinton twice. 'Nuff said!
Wlat (WhiskeyPapa):
Well, I've never said I voted for Clinton twice, so I am glad you will be glad to post a retraction.What I said was that I had never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. I voted for John Anderson in 1980. In '84 I voted Democratic. Same in '88. In '92 I DID vote for Clinton, although I was for Perot until he went batty. In'96 I didn't vote. In '00, I did vote for Al Gore. --Walt
780 posted on 2/28/02 10:49 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/634252/posts?page=780#780
The first use of a military tribunal on American soil was General Washington's command to try British Major Andre (the man to pursuaded Benedict Arnold tp betray the Unites States and join the British Army). General Washington, after the trial, offered to exchange Major Andre for Benedict Arnold. British General Clinton refused. Andre was then hanged.
A competent history of the military tribunals in the United States would have mentioned all the wars in which they were used. It would also have mentioned the two Supremem Court cases concerned with such trials -- Millgan during the Civil War, and Quirin during WW II.
This article is not a "history" of anything. It is a piece of garbage that no competent writer would have put his name to, and no competent editor would have published.
Congressman Billybob
If folks do want to think about these things, start with David Herbert Donald's Lincoln, pp392-395.
Paul Craig Roberts, a friend an ally of mine on Affirmative action, is suffering a temporary delusion on this business. Let him see the facts, and the mendacity of DiLorenzo, and all this shall pass.
We only have so much time to give to fanatics and deluded folks.
Cheers,
Richard F.
==============================
Beheading the "Great Messiah"
by Karen De Coster
Abraham Lincoln, as most of us were told in Mr. Smith’s 9th-grade history class, was a God-sent savior, a brilliant, articulate, and diversity-loving individual, and the Messiah of the great "Union." Most of us were brainwashed on enchanting quotations from the "great man from the little log cabin." This week celebrates his birthday, and may he be remembered for what he truly was. So let me begin a short and biased Lincoln diatribe, and may it rattle Abe’s grave and leave him forever unsettled.
Lincoln was a ruthless dictator of the most contemptible sort. A conniving and manipulative man, and a scoundrel at heart, he was nowhere near what old guard historians would have us believe.
Lincoln has been transformed into the indomitable icon of the American Union. But yet, this beast ruled the country by presidential decree, exercised dictatorial powers over a free people, and proceeded to wage war without a declaration from Congress. Lincoln blocked Southern shipping ports, justifying his actions by saying "he would enforce all laws and collect all revenues due the North." The blockades were an act of war. He set his Northern Army upon the South at Fort Sumter, and set in motion one of the most brutal attacks ever upon freedom by maneuvering the South into firing the first shot at their Northern aggressors.
However, Mr. Smith’s textbook would have us believe that Lincoln was a preservationist of sorts, a man dedicated to preserving the grandeur of State ideals. Most 9th-graders don’t have the intellect to ask what is so glorious about State ideals. Instead, they absorb just enough to make it into ignorant adulthood. In fact, if they had questioned these teachings, they would have discovered that Lincoln was a consummate con man, manipulator, and a State-serving miscreant.
In the march through Georgia during Lincoln’s War of Northern Aggression, he and Sherman carved out a murderous campaign, maiming innocent civilians and setting a precedent for the next century’s bloody genocides that followed. A fine exemplar was he, the Communists might say.
As if the pure evil of the war to subjugate the Southern states struggling for independence was not unscrupulous enough, Lincoln was hardly the watchman of the black race as portrayed by Mr. Smith’s ninth-grade history text, either. Lincoln had no fondness for the black man, and in fact, often spoke with the candor of that which would make him a modern-day racist of satanic proportions.
As Lincoln scholar Tom DiLorenzo points out, Lincoln believed there was an inherent inequality between the black and white race, and held a conviction that a "superior position" should be assigned to the white man over the black man due to this political and social inequality. David Duke was forever browbeaten for muttering anything even resembling this.
Any good historian at least understands that his goal was not to free the slaves, as DiLorenzo correctly states. In 1862, Lincoln published a letter stating, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."
Lincoln was the darling candidate of the moneyed industrialists of the North. At the core of his political tenets was a government of high import taxes, and his Republican party, whom he lead, passed the Morrill tariff into law soon after taking office. To quote DiLorenzo, Lincoln "even promised in his First Inaugural Address to launch an invasion of any state that failed to collect its share of tariffs." He was committing himself to collecting customs in the South, even if that meant they would secede. The free-market economics of the South were up for assault.
Lincoln signed ten more tariff-raising bills throughout his agonizing administration. He manipulated the American public into the first income tax, he handed out huge land grants and monetary subsidies to transcontinental railroads (corporate welfare), and he took the nation off the gold standard, allowing the government to have absolute control over the monetary system. Then, he virtually nationalized the banking system under the National Currency Acts in order to establish a machine for printing new money at will and to provide cheap credit for the business elite. This mercantilist tyrant ushered in central banking, our greatest economic curse to this day. Furthermore, his "New Army" and the slaughter effort on the South put into motion an unprecedented profusion of federal coercion against free citizens, both North and South. By way of conscription, he assembled a vast army by presidential decree, an act of flagrant misconduct which drafted individuals into slavery to the federal government. Additionally, any war dissenters or advocates of a peaceful settlement with the South were jailed, and, as even Mr. Smith knows, Habeus Corpus was abolished for the duration of the war. He then tossed into the slammer as many as 30,000 civilians WITHOUT due process of law for reasons of criticizing the Lincoln administration, and suppressed HUNDREDS of newspapers that did not support his war effort.
After his Army stopped secession in its tracks, Lincoln created provisional courts sympathetic to Northern aggression, invented the office of Military Governor, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which became a propaganda tool for historians in later years, though it did not free the slaves in Northern-controlled areas.
All said, Lincoln was a ruthless dictator and he set the precedent for what is known as the "Imperial Presidency." He was the most evil, damaging, aggressive, abominable, and destructive president ever to defy American liberty. Happy Birthday, Abe.
February 12, 2001
Karen De Coster is a politically incorrect CPA, and an MA student in economics at Walsh College in Michigan.
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.