The Other Reparations Movement

LewRockwell.com ^ | August 19, 2002 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

[one2many]

<!-- a{text-decoration:none} //-->

CONTENT="">

The Other Reparations Movement

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Jack Kershaw of Memphis, Tennessee, wants to file a class-action lawsuit against the US government for reparations. Not on behalf of the descendants of slaves but on behalf of Southerners of all races whose ancestors were the victims of the US government’s rampage of pillaging, plundering, burning, and raping of Southern civilians during the War for Southern Independence.

Sherman the Mass Murderer

In 1860 international law – and the US government’s own military code – prohibited the intentional targeting of civilians in war, although it was recognized that civilian casualties are always inevitable. "Foraging" to feed an army was acceptable, but compensation was also called for. The kind of wanton looting and destruction of private property that was practiced by the Union army for the entire duration of the war was forbidden, and perpetrators were to be imprisoned or hanged. This was all described in great detail in the book, International Law, authored by San Francisco attorney Henry Halleck, who was appointed by Lincoln as general in chief of the Union armies in July 1862.

International law, the US army’s own military code, and common rules of morality and decency that existed at the time were abandoned by the Union army from the very beginning. A special kind of soldier was used to pillage and plunder private property in the South during the war. In The Hard Hand of War Mark Grimsley writes that the federal Army of the Potomac "possessed its full quotient of thieves, freelance foragers, and officers willing to look the other way," and that "as early as October 1861" General Louis Blenker’s division "was already burning houses and public buildings along its line of march" in Virginia. Prior to the Battle of First Manassas in the early summer of 1861 the Army of the Potomac was marked by "robbing hen roosts, killing hogs, slaughtering beef cattle, cows, the burning of a house or two and the plundering of others."

In Marching through Georgia Sherman biographer Lee Kennett noted that Sherman’s New York regiments "were filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World."

Unable to subdue their enemy combatants, many Union officers waged war on civilians instead, with Lincoln’s full knowledge and approval. Grimsley describes how Union Colonel John Beatty warned the residents of Paint Rock, Alabama, that "Every time the telegraph wire was cut we would burn a house; every time a train was fired upon we would hang a man; and we would continue to do this until every house was burned and every man hanged between Decatur and Bridgeport." Beatty ended up burning the entire town of Paint Rock to the ground.

The Union army did not merely gather food for itself; it pillaged, plundered, burned, and raped its way through the South for four years. Grimsley recounts a first hand account of the sacking of Fredericksburg, Virginia, in December of 1862:

Great three-story houses furnished magnificently were broken into and their contents scattered over the floors and trampled on by the muddy feet of the soldiers. Splendid alabaster vases and pieces of statuary were thrown at 6 and 700 dollar mirrors. Closets of the very finest china were broken into and their contents smashed . . . rosewood pianos piled in the street and burned . . . Identical events occurred in dozens of other Southern cities and towns for four years.

Sherman was the plunder-in-chief, and he had three solid years of practice for his March to the Sea. In the autumn of 1862 Confederate snipers were firing at Union gunboats on the Mississippi River. Unable to apprehend the combatants, Sherman took revenge on the civilian population by burning the entire town of Randolph, Tennessee, to the ground. In a July 31, 1862 letter to his wife Sherman explained that his purpose in the war was "extermination, not of the soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people."

In the spring of 1863, after the Confederate Army had evacuated, Sherman ordered his army to destroy the town of Jackson, Mississippi. They did, and in a letter to General Ulysses S. Grant Sherman boasted that "The inhabitants [of Jackson] are subjugated. They cry aloud for mercy. The land is devastated for 30 miles around."

Meridian, Mississippi was also destroyed after the Confederate Army had evacuated, after which Sherman wrote to Grant: "For five days, ten thousand of our men worked hard and with a will, in that work of destruction, with axes, sledges, crowbars, clawbars, and with fire, and I have no hesitation in pronouncing the work well done. Meridian . . . no longer exists."

In Citizen Sherman Michael Fellman describes how Sherman’s chief engineer, Captain O.M. Poe, advised that the bombing of Atlanta was of no military significance (the Confederates had already abandoned the city) and implored Sherman to stop the bombardment after viewing the carcasses of dead women and children in the streets. Sherman coldly told him the dead bodies were "a beautiful sight" and commenced the destruction of 90 percent of all the buildings in Atlanta. After that, the remaining 2,000 residents were evicted from their homes just as winter was approaching.

In October of 1864 Sherman even ordered the murder of randomly chosen citizens in retaliation for Confederate Army attacks. He wrote to General Louis D. Watkins: "Cannot you send over about Fairmount and Adairsville, burn ten or twelve houses . . ., kill a few at random, and let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon . . ." (See John Bennett Walters, Merchant of Terror: General Sherman and Total War, p. 137).

The indiscriminate bombing of Southern cities, which was outlawed by international law at the time, killed hundreds, if not thousands of slaves. The slaves were targeted by Union Army plunderers as much as anyone. As Grimsley writes, "With the utter disregard for blacks that was the norm among Union troops, the soldiers ransacked the slave cabins, taking whatever they liked." A typical practice was to put a hangman’s noose around a slave’s neck and threaten to hang him unless he revealed where the household’s jewelry and silverware were hidden. Some slaves were beaten to death by Union soldiers.

General Phillip Sheridan engaged in the same kind of cowardly, criminal behavior in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia in the autumn of 1864, after the Confederates had finally evacuated the valley. General Grant ordered him to turn the valley into a "desert," and he and his army did. A sergeant in Sheridan’s army, William T. Patterson, described the pillaging, plundering, and burning of Harrisonburg, Bridgewater, and Dayton Virginia:

The work of destruction is commencing in the suburbs of the town . . . The whole country around is wrapped in flames, the heavens are aglow with the light thereof . . . such mourning, such lamentations, such crying and pleading for mercy I never saw nor never want to see again, some were wild, crazy, mad, some cry for help while others throw their arms around yankee soldiers necks and implore mercy. (See Roy Morris, Jr., Sheridan, p. 184.)

It is important to recognize that at the time the Valley was populated only by women, children, and old men who were too feeble to be in the army. In letters home some of Sheridan’s soldiers described themselves as "barn burners" and "destroyers of homes." One soldier wrote that he had personally burned more than 60 private homes to the ground, as Grimsley recounts. After Sheridan’s work of destruction and theft was finished Lincoln grandly conveyed to him his personal thanks and "the thanks of a nation."

Historian Lee Kennett, author of Marching through Georgia: The Story of Soldiers and Civilians during Sherman’s Campaign, wrote an article in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution last year in which he argued that Southerners had been too critical of Sherman. His book is very favorable to Sherman and Lincoln, but he nevertheless wrote on page 286 that:

Had the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified (as victors generally do) in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants.

If Mr. Kershaw’s lawsuit goes to trial, Lincoln and his high command will finally be put before a tribunal, of sorts. He probably has little if any hope of winning such a case (in federal court!), but the trial record would go a long way toward combating the whitewashing of history that has occurred for the past 140 years.

August 19, 2002

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is the author of the LRC #1 bestseller, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Forum/Random House, 2002) and professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland.

Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com

Thomas DiLorenzo Archives

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

[Non-Sequitur]

There are more examples. I don't deny that rapes were committed by Union soldiers, I'm just disputing the claim that 4ConservativeJustices seems to be making that rape was unknown among confederate soldiers. The confederate army just didn't prosecute it as severely as the Union army did.

[Non-Sequitur]

So if you and Mr. DiLorenzo have no problems with reparations for something like this, then how can you have any problems with all the slavery reparations movements? In both cases it's payment for something that happened to people long since dead.

[one2many]

I don't normally reply to the likes of you but this begs an answer for those reading the thread.

I would characterize this as a sort of "countersuit" although it doesn't technically meet the criteria to be such.

I don't think your people are gonna get what they want this time; too many honest black folk are not going for this.

[one2many]

See mine above to Non_Sense.

[one2many]

See mine above to Non_Sense.

[rustbucket]

You mentioned a newspaper account of rape by Confederates. Here is account of a rape by Federal soldiers who occupied New Orleans, from the March 3, 1864 issue of The Daily Picayune.

Eleven soldiers belonging to the 159th New York Regiment were tried for marauding and committing outrages too gross for public mention. Of these, two were perhaps 25 years of age, and the others were mere boys, varying from 17 to 20. One of the youngest of these boys turned State’s witness and pointed out those of his companions who were engaged in the outrage; the part he took being simply that of stealing fowls of which he obtained about fifteen.

According to the story of this witness, the young men went to the plantation of Mr. R. D. Darden, in Lafourche, and while he and another of his companions were engaged in stealing chickens from the negro cabins, some of the crowd broke into one of the cabins. Who broke the door in he did not know and what was done therein he did not witness. The inmates of the cabin were a negro of about 40 years in age, his wife, and his daughter, a dusky damsel of 18 or 20 summers.

For the credit of humanity we will suppose that illegal foraging was all that they first intended. When the negro found that his hen house was being despoiled of his pretty chickens, he mustered up a sufficiency of courage to put his head out of the window and beg that a few at least of the brood should be spared to him for breed. Thereupon he was assailed by foul speeches and rude threats; brickbats were sent flying against his windows, and some of them threatened to enter the house and kill the old son of _____ .

Finding that there was a movement to carry these threats into execution, the old negro climbed up into his loft where he could look down on them, as he said, “like a eagle looking down on carrion.” About the time that he got up on the loft the door was burst open and a demand was made for the man who had spoken to them from the window. The women, to shield husband and father, declared that there was no man there.

In an instant the cabin was filled, a light was struck, and as the man was no where to be seen, a purpose more fiendish than that which had induced them to enter the dwelling, took possession of the marauders. The girl was at once seized, and with violence, alike criminal and brutal, they accomplished their fiendish purposes, one after another, in the presence of the father and the mother.

They then stripped the girl of her jewelry, ear rings, finger rings, a bracelet, and some of her choicest articles of apparel, as trophies of their diabolical achievement, and having done so, left.

The Judge, in disposing of the case, said that the ringleader, one H. B. Hopkins, should be drawn and quartered, but he would only sentence him to Tortugas for life, there to labor with ball and chain; Jordan M. Lee, a youth who took an active part in the proceedings and stood at the girl’s head with the bayonet at her throat, was sent to Tortugas for ten years; the others were all sent to the same place for three years each. Their names are Henry Dennis, James Lee, D. Rafften, John Thorpe, R. Wheeler, R. Coons, J Horan and H. C. Nelson. J Reil, the boy who turned State’s witness, and G. W. Scoefield, who was proved not to have been in the crowd, were sent back to their regiments.

You argued in your post that when a leadership had no respect for the law, that opinion was sure to trickle down to the lower ranks. Given that the Northern leadership basically waged war on civilians, it is perhaps not surprising that Northern soldiers raped. The other posters may well be correct that rapes by Northern soldiers far outnumbered those by Southern soldiers. You appear to have identified the cause.

[Non-Sequitur]

But again you have shown evidence when Northern soldiers crossed the line, then they stood an excellent chance of being apprehended, tried, and punished for it. That does not seem to be the case with confederate soldiers. That points to either a lack of respect for their civilian population who were being preyed on, or a lack of respect for the rule of law. Most probably the latter.

[gcraig]

Yet, are not our children and grandchildren worth fighting for?

Yes, they are. I am in the U.S. military, and I speak of conservative values every opportunity I get. All hope is not lost! There are still good people in our country. I pray that God will continue to guide us.

[rustbucket]

As in all wars, there are good guys and bad guys on both sides. Here is another tidbit from the New Orleans paper about the behavior of a Massachusetts regiment in North Carolina and the rescue of their victim by New York infantry:

"...they visited a second time the house of Lieut. White, and after abusing the family, took his daughter, an accomplished young lady of seventeen years. After having her hands tied in front of her and the rope thrown over her shoulders, she was driven by a big negro, with curses and abuse, in front of the command toward Norfolk. Within two miles of Norfolk, they met a regiment of New York white infantry, who, with its colonel at its head, knocked over the negro driver and rescued Miss White from the negro guard, and sent her to Norfolk in a carriage."

Rape was not involved here, or at least not reported. But could it be far behind if this sort of stuff happened when troops, black or white, were allowed to ravage the civilian population, as the Federal troops apparently were in situation after situation?

That is not to say that Southerners were all pure and virtuous. I imagine that a number of female slaves had been attacked by the lower sorts of masters. Set up a bad situation, like slavery or army attacks on civilians, and you reap the consequences.

[Non-Sequitur]

And here is an article from a St.Louis paper on how little Sterling Price cared about the behavior of his men.

"Mrs Charles Schmidt (...) whose husband is in the 26th Missouri regiment was ravished and her person violated by a number of the fiendish ghouls. This was done while Price had his headquarters in this town. Mrs S. Is now nearly dead. Mrs Schmich (...) was assaulted in her house not more than a square from Price's headquaters, by some of Shelby's men who took improper liberties with her and attempted to ravish her , but her cries excited the sympathies of some rebel soldiers less brutal than their fellows, who rescued the poor woman from their clutches. The cries of this woman must have reached the ears of Sterling Price but no guard was sent to arrest the brutes. (...) Mrs Frank Schryvor (...) whose husband died in the army , was another lady upon whom an outrage was attempted. Being a woman of great spirit and agility, she succeeded, by flight, in escaping from the fiends, and hid from them in the woods." - October 13, 1864 St Louis Democrat. article by "Waldo" upon Price's Missouri campaign of 1864.

[shuckmaster]

Bass John, 16, pvt, 48th Illinois. Convicted of attempted rape on a Georgia woman during the mach to the sea. It was clearly a judicial error but Bass had his head shaved and received a dishonorable discharge. "I must make an example of some one" said gl Howard about this case "and just as well a 48th man as anyone else".

Callan Samuel, pvt 15th Ohio vol. , attempted rape on "Mary" a colored girl in her cabin on Mr fenner's plantation at Victoria (Texas). The court-martial found him not guilty and release him.

Cole William H. pvt 109th NY vol. , At the end of 1863 he was accused for the rape of Mrs Alvisa Brown, 50, from Laurel, Prince George County (Md). Mrs Brown said the crime was committed last may, Cole received 10 years in the Albany state penitenciary (NY)

Eagan John, pvt, 4th US regulars, attempted rape on Mrs Bridget Kilkenny at Fort Schuley (NY) with an other unknown man. Eagan received dishonorable discharge and 5 years of jail.

Eliott William, pvt Co G 8th US infantry, attempted rape on Kate Brooks, a colored woman, on 7 november 1862 on Johnson's plantation at Rectortown (Va). Jail for life.

Forrest John, pvt Co M, 3rd Mass. Heavy art. attempted rape on Mrs Francis Parker near Fort Saratoga (DC) around 4 february 1865. Dishonorable discharge and 6 years of hard labour.

Jamison J W. Dr, asst surgeon, US navy, during the spring 1863 in NC, he made indecent proposal and attempted rape on Miss Margaret Harrell. He was seized but punishment is unknown.

Hakes George, Cpl, co F 6th Michigan cav. dishonorable discharge and 2 years of hard labour for the rape of Cornelius Robinson's wife, "loyal colored citizen" from Frederick county (Va) near Winchester, around 19 november 1864.

Harvey John, Lt, 49th Ohio vol. two years in state penitenciary for the rape of Mrs Catherine Farmer on a public road of Tennessee near Tullahoma.

Hays Edward, pvt, co L 4th Kentucky cav, 50, two years of hard labour in february 1865 for attempted rape on Miss Nancy Short, 12.

Hunter Charles C. pvt, Co I, 7th Kentucky cav. 18 years in Nashville penitenciary for the brutal rape of Mrs Mary Melissa Kirkesey in her home, on the morning of 18 may 1864.

Killgore Thomas, pvt 38th Ohio / Kunkle Daniel, pvt , co C, 38th Ohio vol., 10 and 4 years of hard labor for the rape of a colored woman in a cabin near Catawba river (SC), on 27 february 1865. Three other men of the same unit was in the gang but they stay unknown and not punished.

Leonhart Jacob, saddler in the 26th Independant Pa Battery, jail for the war duration in a penitenciary for attempted rape on "Sally" colored servant of Mrs Jane L. Young at McMinville, Warren county (Tennessee). He knocked down Mrs Young before.

McCarthy Arthur, sgt, Ohio, 2 years in a state jail and dishonorable discharge for the rape of a young girl near Bennetsville (SC) according three eyewitness from 11th Illinois. Coprs commander remitted the jail term and pdt Johnson dismissed the entire sentence after he received petitions from officiers and comrades of McCarthy.

Manning Patrick, pvt, co B, 8th New Hampshire. The victime, Miss Clara Grier, attested that Manning have tried to rape her at Natchez (Miss.) but the court don't accept this charge. Manning was punished by 3 years of hard labour for other offenses.

Merrill Robert L. , pvt, 1st DC cav. He raped Virginia Quarles, a colored woman, at Manchester (Va) in front of several witnesses but escaped justice in october 1865 and run away before the end of the trial.

O'Malley George W. 1st Lt, co E, 115th Pa, in may 1863 during a night, tried to rape Mrs Mercy M. Whippey from Camden (NJ) during her visit to her wounded son in the 2nd div. 3rd army corps hospital near Potomac creek . 6 years of hard labor with Lincoln's approval.

Robinson James, pvt, co G, 6th cav Mo state militia, / Stewart Samuel B, pvt same unit, 5 and 3 years of prison for attempted rape on Mrs Letta Vernon during a night in her home.

Rogers Charles R., pvt co E, 3rd Vt vol. , head shaved, dishonorable discharge and 5 years of hard labour for the brutal rape of Miss Pricey McCoy near Warrentown (Va).

Stillwell Stephen, pvt, 37th Kentucky Vol. 15 years of hard labor in state penitenciary for the rape of Mrs Sallie McKune in the home of Mrs Blair on 29 july 1863 near Lebanon (Ky) -

Van Buren William, pvt co B, 212th Illinois, one month in jail for "indecent proposals" to Mrs Ellie Farnan and daughter .

Wallenus François, 2nd Lt, NY ind. by dishonorable discharge for attempted rape on a comrade's wife. Drunken. "Courts martials and transfers jan. 1 to june 30 1864, war dpt 1864."

Walsh Charles, 2nd Lt, 1st NY dragoons, drunken at Port Tobacco, (Md) indecent proposals to Miss Eliza Quinn "five dollars to the right to rape your person". Dishonorable discharge.

Waxey Alfred, sgt, 8th Pa cav. , during summer 1865, violence to Mr William Johnson (colored citizen from Lynchburg Pa), indecent proposals and gesture to his wife. Degrade with lose of pay.

Wells Frederick D. pvt, co D, 90th batallion NY veteran vol. , 3 years of hard labor for attempted rape on Mary Harvey from Winchester (Va). Cornish John, co G , 30th USCT, attempted rape on Sarah Potter. Sentenced to death but commuted to life prison with Lincoln's approval. The only black soldier tried for rape but not executed !

Troest Louis P. pvt, by I, 1st NY light Artillery. Two years of hard labor for the rape of Polly Walker, slave of Mrs Swindler, a 60 years old widow living near Sperryville (Va). Jerry Spades, black servant of the unit captain, was found guilty of the same charge and received 5 years of hard labor.

[Non-Sequitur]

Sad cases all. And, I'm sure, not the only cases of rape or assault that Union soldiers were tried for. But what you have shown was that if a Union soldier committed a crime like that then the Union army took steps to punish him. In most of those cases the action resulted in jail time and dishonorable discharge. Military justice was important in the Union army.

But what you haven't shown is a similar belief in the confederate army. What about confederate soldiers who raped or robbed or murdered? We know that it happened - your own secretary of war was complaining about as early as November 1861. But he washed his hands of the matter, leaving it up to the civil authorities. That has been my point all along. Not that Union soldiers never raped anyone, that would be ridiculous. But that the Union army respected the rule of law while the confederate army did not. The Union army went after miscreants and brought them to trial and sentenced them to jail if convicted. Where is there any evidence that the confederate army was so diligent in punishing it's own? Even when they preyed on their own civilian population?

[tsomer]

I think its fair to say that had any evidence existed it would have been broadcast far and wide by the media and the educational industry.

You have to remember that the last 20 years of Civil War scholarship have centered on promoting the Union cause as the cutting edge of societal enlightenment and the vanguard of socialism. Documentation that the "slaveholders" also raped Yankee women would have reinforced their demonization of the South.

It is true that a demoralized army is the worst scourge you can bring down on a civilian population; that is why most of the Southern command chose to surrender rather than disband and conduct guerilla warfare. Sherman in contrast, embraced such maurauding, following his army more than leading it.

[Non-Sequitur]

I think its fair to say that had any evidence existed it would have been broadcast far and wide by the media and the educational industry.

Do you mean evidence of rape by confederate soldiers? The evidence does exist and most of it is from southern sources themselves. Do you mean the confederate army punishing such actions? Again, the evidence exists that seems to suggest that the army washed it's hands of the actions of its soldiers. And far from the actions of a demoralized army, members of the confederate government were commenting on such activities as early as November 1861.

[rustbucket]

More rapists are listed at Civil War Crimes. More Union soldiers are listed than Confederate soldiers at this site, though it does list some Confederates.

Non-Sequitur posted a couple of the Confederate cases that were mentioned on the above web site but didn't mention the numerous Union cases cited. Perhaps Non-Sequitur's Confederate examples came from some other web site.

On the other hand, Non-Sequitur's objectivity, or lack thereof, is fully illustrated with his statement, "...the Union army respected the rule of law while the confederate army did not." While I have enjoyed discussions with Non-Sequitur, that statement takes the cake. It is worthy of a Whiskeypapa award.

[Non-Sequitur]

I've seen the site. What it does is list instance after instance where the Union army arrested, tried, and when convicted, punished a soldier for assaulting or raping a southern civilian. What I have never seen is any indication that the confederate army was as diligent in dealing with their own soldiers who were guilty of similar crimes. Yet if you look into other parts of that same website you have Judah Benjamin's plaintive letter to the governor of Virginia asking for him to take over prosecuting confederate soldiers charged with crimes like murder, robbery and, yes, even rape. You have a Union surgeon quoting the women of Atlanta as saying that they were surprised that the Union soldiers weren't raping every woman in sight, something that they said couldn't be said about their own soldiers. And so forth and so on.

So answer my original question, if you please. Show me where the confederate army was as conscientious about protecting the virtue of southern womenhood as the Union army was. Or, failing that, show me where rape was unheard of among the confederate soldiers. Either they didn't do it, or they didn't have to worry about being punished for it. One or the other. And if your answer is that they didn't do it, well, then who would qualify for the WhiskeyPapa Whopper award then?

[rustbucket]

Ask, and you shall receive. From the laws passed by the Confederate Congress in 1862 organizing the military court system:

CHAP. XXXVI.--An Act to organize military courts to attend the Army of the Confederate States in the field, and to define the powers of said courts.

SEC. 4. The jurisdiction of each court shall extend to all officers now cognizable by courts martial under the rules and articles of war and the customs of war, and also to all offences defined as crimes by the laws of the Confederate States or of the several States, and when beyond the territory of the Confederate States, to all cases of murder, manslaughter, arson, rape, robbery and larceny, as defined by the common law, when committed by any private or officer in the army of the Confederate States, against any other private or officer in the army, or against the property or person of any citizen or other person not in the army: Provided, Said courts shall not have jurisdiction of offenders above the grade of colonel. For offences cognizable by courts martial the court shall, on conviction, inflict the penalty prescribed by the rules and articles of war, and in the manner and mode therein mentioned; and for offences not punishable by the rules and articles of war, but punishable by the laws of the Confederate States, said court shall inflict the penalties prescribed by the laws of the Confederate States; and for offences against which penalties are not prescribed by the rules and articles of war, nor by the laws of the Confederate States, but for which penalties are prescribed by the laws of a State, said court shall inflict the punishment prescribed by the laws of the State in which the offence was committed: Provided, That in cases in which, by the laws of the Confederate States, or of the State, the punishment is by fine or by imprisonment, or by both, the court may, in its discretion, inflict any other punishment less than death; and for the offences defined as murder, manslaughter, arson, rape, robbery and larceny, by the common law, when committed beyond the territorial limits of the Confederate States, the punishment shall be in the discretion of the court. That when an officer under the grade of brigadier general or private shall be put under arrest for any offence cognizable by the court herein provided for, notice of his arrest and of the offence with which he shall be charged shall be given to the Judge Advocate by the officer ordering said arrest, and he shall be entitled to as speedy a trial as the business before said court will allow.

By your logic that you can't find records of Confederates tried for rape, therefore the Confederacy did not respect the rule of law, I suppose that my Georgia ancestors must not have existed either because Sherman destroyed the courthouses and court records on his march to the sea. As a genealogist, I am reminded of Sherman whenever I search Georgia records.

[Non-Sequitur]

That is still not evidence that the law was enforced. You complain that I see no evidence that rapists were prosecuted and say that is evidence that they didn't enforce the law. What are you saying, that lack of prosecution is evidence that no rapes occured? That's even more ridiculous.

The confederate government had a history of abiding by the law, when the law was convenient. The confederate constitution required a Supreme Court yet no such court was ever established. The confederate constitution outlawed protective tariffs yet such tariffs were implemented in May 1861. The confederate history is full of instances where they said one thing and did another. Why should I believe that this was any different?

[rustbucket]

Something I'm saying is more ridiculous than something you are saying? Interesting argument we've progressed to.

I thought the Confederate Supreme Court consisted of the highest district judges from the various states. I don't think that it was ever convened, but does that mean it didn't exist or just that it didn't convene?

Did the Confederate Constitution outlaw all tariffs including those for revenue or just protective tariffs that promoted or fostered one branch of industry over others? Were the tariffs they eventually imposed protectionist or revenue generators? (I don't know.)

[Non-Sequitur]

I thought the Confederate Supreme Court consisted of the highest district judges from the various states. I don't think that it was ever convened, but does that mean it didn't exist or just that it didn't convene?

That was true in the interim constitution adopted in February 1861. But for their permanent government they adopted the same three branches that the United States government had: executive, legislative, and judicial. The final constitution adopted in March called for a separate supreme court and such inferior courts that the congress may establish. Davis and his government never bothered to form and seat a supreme court. They ignored an entire branch of government that was required by their constitution.

Did the Confederate Constitution outlaw all tariffs including those for revenue or just protective tariffs that promoted or fostered one branch of industry over others?

It's true that the constitution forbade protective tariffs. I suppose that would depend on what one considered a protective tariff. The tariff enacted in May 1861 slapped a tariff on virtually every conceivable import including things like all types of clothing, iron goods, tobacco products, and cotton fabrics. All goods for which there happened to be fledgling confederate industries. Considering that the confederacy was at war one would expect that items like these should have come in duty free. What other reason is there, unless there were local industries to be protected?