Legend of a 'noble South' rises again

Sun Movie Critic ^ | February 16, 2003 | Chris Kaltenbach

[stainlessbanner]

Director says 'Gods' has Southern slant, but 'full humanity'

The North may have won the Civil War, but in Hollywood, the South reigns triumphant.

That was certainly true in 1915, when D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation portrayed the conflict as a war of Northern aggression where order was restored only by the arrival of the Ku Klux Klan. It was true in 1939, when Gone With the Wind looked back on the antebellum South as an unrivalled period of grace and beauty never to be seen again. It was true when Clint Eastwood played The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976), a Confederate war veteran who has run afoul of Northern "justice."

[Non-Sequitur]

Hey, 4CJ, maybe you can help us out here. In the DiLorenzo article that billbears provided the link to, Tommy claims that the "Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army." Now I've looked and looked and I can't find those provisions in any of the conventions that came out of Geneva in either 1863 or 1864. So, do you suppose DiLusional was either too drunk or too ignorant to notice that they were missing? Or was he just plain lying?

[WhiskeyPapa]

#441 (the post to which you responded) contains not a word about the presence or lack thereof of Yankee captains in the slave trade.

It doesn't? Can you read the English language? From your #441: 'But you apparently made it up, just as you made up the statement that Yankee slave traders were active up into the Lincoln administration.'

Yeah, had a brain cramp there.

But it was GOPcap that was claiming this stuff about Yankee slave traders. Is that another or your IDs?

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

You never proved any such thing.

To the contrary, Walt. A few months ago a posted a list of over 60 known yankee rapists, many of whom were in Sherman's army.

Over a million men served in the Union army. Sherman had 60,000 with him. There were 80,000 Union troops in Tennessee. You never proved that Sherman's army raped and murdered its way through the south. His men were very well behaved given the circumstances.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Here is the thread. You posted this James Miller's name implying that he was a civilian, when he was in fact a POW.

Anyone who wants to read the thread (surely a small number) can tell from the context that you are lying and dissembling. You list among your rapists a number of USCT, when Sherman had no USCT with him. You will just tell any kind of lie. I asked repeatedly in this thread for you to name a rebel civilian murdered on Sherman''s order; you provided none. Later, I noted that a number of Kilpatrick's men had been murdered by rebel forces and noted that no confederate was executed in return. Later, this James Miller -was- executed, but not in the same time frame in which Kilpatrick was writing. You clearly tried to pass off this Miller person as a civilian when he was captured under arms and in uniform.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/675688/posts?page=179#160

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

207 posted on 05/06/2002 1:13 AM EDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

To: GOPcapitalist

James Miller, an elderly methodist minister with 7 children being held among Sherman's prisoners even though he had never even heard a shot fired in battle, was randomly executed in retaliation for civilians shooting of a Sherman looter near Cheraw SC in 1865.

Well, this was a cute little half-truth by you.

Miller was a CSA soldier.

"In retaliation Confederate prisoner James Miller was executed by Federal forces. However the act was not without sorrow for the Federal firing squad. Advanced in years and father of nine girls the prisoner claimed to have never heard a shot fired in battle. Apparently he was one of the thousands of reserve soldiers(read as old men and young boys) in the army of Lt. General Hardee. A Wisconsin member of the detail reported that had the old man bounded away, the Yanks wouldn't have attempted to stop him.

Source:

http://members.aol.com/x69xer/quarter.html

So I am still waiting for you to provide the name of a CSA civilian murdered by Sherman's men or on his orders.

It needs to be stressed that even though Kilpatick knew of the out and out murder of 46 of his men in just a short space, and even though he held a number of CSA prisoners, he clearly stated he would take no further action, "for now."

The record of Sherman's march and the whole war geenrally places the onus of guilt on the CSA for murder, bushwhacking and lynching.

You passed over without comment (unless I missed it) my tally of the @ 640 federal lives taken at Fort Pillow, Lawrence, Kansas and Saltville, Virginia.

In response you documented no similar actions by Union forces, but only lamely named some place names without specifying what their significance was. When I pointed out that the only one I knew about - Roswell, Ga, involved no life of life whatever, you just went merrily on with your lies and half-truths as this effort of yours to pass off James Miller as a civilian shows. Miller was a lawful POW and he was chosen by lots from among the POW's to be exceuted due to the many abuses by the CSA forces.

Walt

208 posted on 05/06/2002 9:05 AM EDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies | Report Abuse

[4CJ]

In this case I would have to leave it to DiLorenzo to justify his assertion, and provide supporting documentation if this was from the published documents, or from some other source under consideration.

The protection of civilians and their property has fluctuated wildly - from complete and utter destruction of belligerents in ancient times, to the recent policies of protection. Plunder and pillage was prohibited by the 1806 Articles of War. I do know that during the time frame in question this was instituted:

Art. 44. All wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded country, all destruction of property not commanded by the authorized officer, all robbery, all pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force, all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing of such inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense.

A soldier, officer or private, in the act of committing such violence, and disobeying a superior ordering him to abstain from it, may be lawfully killed on the spot by such superior.
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (aka The Lieber Code), 24 Apr 1863.

[4CJ]

Yeah, had a brain cramp there.

No problem.

But it was GOPcap that was claiming this stuff about Yankee slave traders. Is that another or your IDs?

No, GOPCapitalist is sombody else. I did sign up the id "4CJ" to prevent that name from being used, since I go by that as well, but I have never posted with it.

[4CJ]

Unfortunately as the burned buildings and numerous deaths to civilians attested, no union general cared for the rule of law

As I noted in a previous post - in which I failed to ping you, my bad! - Union officers and military still were legally bound the the 1806 Articles of War, and later to the Lieber Code. Both of them prohibited such atrocities.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Nonsense. To borrow from a famed 19th century abolitionist lawyer...

"The Constitution says: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Here's another:

"As the Constitution in terms settles the fact that our republic is a state against which treason may be committed, the only constitutional question attending the late war was whether a levying of war against the United States which would otherwise be treason, is relieved of that character by the fact that it took the form of secession from the Union by state authority. In other words the legal issue was, whether secession by a State is a right, making an act legal and obligatory upon the nation which would otherwise have been treason.

This issue I suppose to have been settled by the action of every department of the Government, by the action of the people itself, and by those events which are definitive in the affairs of men.

The Supreme Court In the Prize Cases held, by happily a unanimous opinion, that acts of the States, whether secession ordinances, or in whatever form cast, could not be brought into the cases, as justifications for the war, and had no legal effect on the character of the war, or on the political status of territory or persons or property, and that the line of enemy's territory was a question of fact, depending upon the line of bayonets of an actual war.

The rule in the Prize Causes has been steadily followed in the Supreme Court since, and in the Circuit Courts, without an intimation of a doubt. That the law making and executive departments have treated this secession and war as treason, is matter of history, as well as is the action of the people in the highest sanction of war. It cannot be doubted that the Circuit Court at the trial will instruct the jury, in conformity with these decisions, that the late attempt to establish and sustain by war an independent empire within the United States was treason."

--Richard Henry Dana, U.S. attorney, 1868

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

In this case I would have to leave it to DiLorenzo to justify his assertion, and provide supporting documentation if this was from the published documents, or from some other source under consideration.

Or maybe it's an example of the poor scholarship DiLorenzo was known for in 2001. As I recall he was caught in quite a few falsehoods in those days.

[billbears]

I refer you to Article 10 of the '63 conference

that in time of war the belligerent nations should proclaim the neutrality of ambulances and military hospitals, and that neutrality should likewise be recognized, fully and absolutely, in respect of official medical personnel, voluntary medical personnel, inhabitants of the country who go to the relief of the wounded, and the wounded themselves;

Are inhabitants combatants? According to Sherman they may have been, but here I read they were to be treated as neutral

[Non-Sequitur]

Are inhabitants combatants? According to Sherman they may have been, but here I read they were to be treated as neutral.

I read 'inhabitants of the country that go to the relief of the wounded'. How did Sherman violate that?

[billbears]

I read 'inhabitants of the country that go to the relief of the wounded'. How did Sherman violate that?

Well if you're killing and raping innocents (as Sherman did) what exactly is going to happen to the wounded? They're going to heal all by themselves? Who in their right mind would go near a wounded man under threat from an invasion force? And exactly how many of these citizens knew of these rules to claim them? I'm quite sure Sherman did, he just didn't care

[Non-Sequitur]

And can you provide any evidence that the southern civilian population, those that weren't being killed and raped that is, were busily engaged in caring for the wounded? Face it, billbears, you streatching matters almost as much as your buddy Tommy does. His claims about the Geneva Convention of 1864 were wrong. He either didn't do his homeword or he was deliberately misstating the facts.

[GOPcapitalist]

So rather than considering the merits of a legal argument, you would rather turn this into a contest of appeals to authority. Sorry Walt, but that type of argument is inherently weak.

The whole of Dana's argument itself reduces around its central point: "This issue I suppose to have been settled by the action of every department of the Government."

Simply put, that assertion is the equivalent of saying that the successful exertion of force determines right from wrong. If you are prepared to accept that doctrine and its logical consequences, by all means do so. Simply be aware that in doing it you are asserting your own subscription to a belief system in which no truth exists beyond that which is relative to the person enforcing it by coercion. If force alone makes right, Walt, then abortion, theft, murder, and -yes- slavery would become "right" simply because they have been and theoretically can be enforced by the power of the state. This must be so as long as you accept the might-makes-right argument. And seeing as you do, I will simply note that you have just voluntarily removed yourself from your claim to a moral cause, beyond the raw exertion of coercion in and of itself, in the north's waging of the civil war.

[GOPcapitalist]

Let's take a look at that thread then, shall we?

"I count 46 dead federals, and NO dead confederates executed in response. Do some research and prove me wrong." - Walt
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/675688/posts?page=179#189

...to which I responded directly in my following post by naming Miller.

See it there, Walt? You asked for confederates. Not civilians. Not women and children. Just confederates. And now you lie about it, claiming that you were asking for civilians. Nice try, I suppose, but consider yourself caught.

[GOPcapitalist]

Hey Walt! That string of lies by Nevins on the tariff issue has been exposed again. And, as usual, you are ducking away from the response. What gives? Are you truly that afraid to take me on over the tariff issue?

[Hacksaw]

Great little fillibuster that Mary Landreiu, isn't she? Thanks Dixie!

Give them a break - they still have a lot of the French influence.

[safisoft]

Walt. A few months ago a posted a list of over 60 known yankee rapists, many of whom were in Sherman's army.

Perhaps definitions should be used when discussing things with Wlat. Our war criminals, are his heroes. In his logic, there is no such thing as a "Yankee rapist" as long as the woman was Southern. After all, the South deserved it and was "asking for it."

[safisoft]

Who in their right mind would go near a wounded man under threat from an invasion force? And exactly how many of these citizens knew of these rules to claim them?

How very sad. What a commentary. How unlike the spirit of Sergeant Richard Kirkland of the 2nd SC CSA who during the Battle of Fredricksburg went under fire to give water to wounded Federal soldiers. He was called "Angel of Marye's Heights" and was later killed at Chickamauga doing the same thing... I'll take one man like Richard Kirkland over a thousand butchers like Sherman.