And if you had read my post I did place the blame on both. Neither Davis nor the confederate congress implemented a supreme court. Regardless of the fact that their constitution required one.
You've never provided a shred of evidence that Davis worked against the formation of that court, yet you keep making the charge.
And I'm not aware of anything that indicated he worked for the formation of that court, either. He kept his cabinet fully stocked, but couldn't be troubled about a branch of government that was required by his own constitution.
1. Confederates locked up John Minor Botts for the duration of the war?
I said that Botts was locked up without charges and without trial, which he was. I don't recall ever saying it was for the duration of the war, and are you saying that Botts wasn't locked up without trial?
2. Confederates imprisoned Parson Brownlow for about a year and a half?
I pointed out that Brownlow's paper was shut down by the confederate government in October 1861. He was forced into hiding, arrested, abused, released, kept under virtual house arrest, and finally allowed North in March of 1862. That is about half a year. Had I said a year and a half then it wouldn't have made much sense since the Union forces had liberated Kentucky by March 1863. But are you claiming that Brownlow's paper wasn't shut down and he wasn't imprisoned?
3. The state of Mississippi blockaded the Mississippi River and prevented traffic on it for months before the war?
I pointed out, again correctly, that the Mississippi state forces did declare a blockade of the river for a short period, about a week if memory serves, and that they did fire on at least one steamer during that period. I never claimed it was months before the rebellion broke out. Are you saying that Mississippi didn't close down the river at all?
4. The Confederacy did not have a Circuit Court system?
I never claimed the confederacy didn't have a circuit court. I have pointed out, correctly, that they did not have a supreme court. And I have also pointed out, also correctly, that a supreme court was required by their constitution. A circuit court was not.
5. Claims of damage by Sherman's troops are overblown?
I have said that. And considering some of the claims made around here - every structure burned, every farm field salted, womes stolen, horses raped - it isn't hard to do.
6. Chambersburg was burned simply because Feds burned a couple of houses and VMI?
That had been given as a reason for the burning. The real reason seems to be that the rebel forced tried to extort a sum of money - $100,000 in gold or $500,000 in currency - and when the people weren't able to come up with the money then the town was burned. What reason do you have for the burning?
And if you had read my post I did place the blame on both. Neither Davis nor the confederate congress implemented a supreme court. Regardless of the fact that their constitution required one.
Why do you assume that Davis could form the court by himself? Davis was not Lincoln. The Confederate Constitution said it was the Congress' duty, not Davis.
I said that Botts was locked up without charges and without trial, which he was. I don't recall ever saying it was for the duration of the war, and are you saying that Botts wasn't locked up without trial?
With respect, your memory is not correct, not was mine perfect. Here is what you actually said. Remember this post? (bold red emphasis mine)
To: WhiskeyPapa
It's interesting how all the southron contingent can cite chapter and verse of what they see as the abuse of poor Clement Vallandigham and are totally silent on the subject of John Minor Bott. Who is he, they might ask? Why he is a former United States Congressman who dared to speak in opposition to Jefferson Davis and was held, without trial or charges, in a Richmond jail for the majority of the war. No criticism allowed concerning him, is there?
54 posted on 02/12/2003 12:58 PM CST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
You forgot to put the "s" on his name, so I had trouble finding him at first. Now let's look at a couple of my replies to your Botts post.
To: Non-Sequitur
So you're saying that former Congressman Botts was a political prisoner on more than one occasion. Was he ever tried for any of his alleged 'crimes'?
Botts was arrested in March 1862 and released in April 1862. In your earlier notes you left out the fact that Botts was released in April 1862. This made it seem as though he was in prison for years.
Shortly after his arrest in March 1862, Botts requested and got an audience with Confederate General Winder. General Winder told Botts what he had been arrested for -- another who had been arrested named Botts as the head of an organization that was trying to destroy the Confederacy. Botts denied it, and a Court of Inquiry was convened. Botts handled his own defense at this court. The recommendation of the Court of Inquiry was that he be released on parole. He was released in April 1862 on that parole by order of General Winder.
Do you still claim he had no trial and didn't know the charge against him? He did know the charge against him on his first arrest, and he did have a trial resulting from this arrest, after which he was released.
I don't know all the details of the second arrest and subsequent release. Perhaps this is the occasion of which you speak.
197 posted on 02/13/2003 9:06 PM CST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Non-Sequitur; GOPcapitalist
Concerning the arrests of Congressman Botts by the Confederates. I now have tracked down the details of his second arrest. I relayed the particulars of his first arrest, trial, and release in post 197.
A warrant was issued for the arrest of Botts on Monday, October 12, 1863, by order of Major General Jeb Stuart. Botts was arrested about 10:30 AM that morning and discharged at 5 PM the same day. That is the extent of his second arrest and release. Officially he was released because there was no charge against him. Botts was not interred in prison for the duration of the war.
Botts made a loud squeak about this second arrest. Botts' letter that was published in the Richmond Examiner in December 1863 apparently had been written on October 18, 1863, some days after he had been released.
Although there was no charge contained in the warrant, Botts claimed that he had been told semi-officially that he was arrested because he had entertained General Meade and other Union generals. However, he also admitted to having been seen carrying a gun in the vicinity of the Union and Confederate lines. Botts said he was carrying the gun for someone else.
If this is the extent of the charge you have against Southern justice, non-seq, then it is back to the drawing boards for you. Your example was full of holes.
198 posted on 02/13/2003 10:39 PM CST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
These are posts that I archived in WORD. Occasionally I will correct a typo in my own posts that shows up in WORD in case I want to post my information again. As far as I know, my posts above are word for word what they were in 2003.
The information I posted about Botts came from a book Botts wrote. I made a link to that book in post 400 of this current thread.
I have to be gone for a few hours. When I get back, I'll respond to your other points.
I pointed out that Brownlow's paper was shut down by the confederate government in October 1861. He was forced into hiding, arrested, abused, released, kept under virtual house arrest, and finally allowed North in March of 1862. That is about half a year. Had I said a year and a half then it wouldn't have made much sense since the Union forces had liberated Kentucky by March 1863. But are you claiming that Brownlow's paper wasn't shut down and he wasn't imprisoned?
Here's a link to your post [Link 1]. Your post says, in part:
Well William Brownlow of the Nashville Whig had his paper shut down and he was jailed by the Davis regime in October 1861. In 1863 he has released from jail and deported to the U.S. Does that count?
Here is a link to my reply to your string of posts about Brownlow [Link 2]:
To: Non-Sequitur His [Brownlow's] confinement was shifted to house arrest; then, still in poor health, he was released and banished to the North on March 3, 1863."
From "Blue & Grey in Black and White: Newspapers in the Civil War" by Brayton Harris, pp 112-113.
Your source is in error.
HEADQUARTERS,
Knoxville, March 3, 1862.
Honorable J. P. BENJAMIN, Secretary of War.
SIR: Your telegraphic order [of 1st instant] to transmit Doctor Brownlow out of Tennessee by "Cumberland Mountains or any safe road" was received on Saturday. This morning I sent Doctor Brownlow in charge of Colonel [H. Casey] Young of General Carroll's staff with a guard of ten men to Nashville and thence to Kentucky. I did not deem it safe to send by any of the mountain passes.
With great respect, I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,
G. H. MONSARRAT,
Captain, Commanding Post312 posted on 02/07/2006 10:24:53 PM CST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
They did not close the river. They stopped boats to inspect their cargo. See below. First though, here is one of your posts:
To: Gianni; rustbucket
Why send representatives to Washington to negotiate something that they 'walked away from' then?
Well, in the first place they had already walked away from it. In the second place, they were sent to negotiate recognition from the Lincoln administration, and only after that was there a vague offer to negotiate on 'questions of disagreement'. Unless the Lincoln adminiatration first gave into the demand for recognition there was nothing to talk about.
Rustbucket(?was it you?) posted refutation of this long ago - probably to you, but repeat it as you wish.
Rustbucket refuted nothing. Mississippi rebelled on January 9 and Governor John Jones Petus immediately closed the river to northern traffic. Two days later, Mississippi batteries fired on a steamer heading downstream, the O A Tyler. But wait, you say. Seven weeks later the confederate congress passed legislation that supposedly opened the river to Northern traffic. But did it? Pettus was a real fire-breather and I haven't seen anything that indicates that he pulled his batteries and allowed traffic to pass. After being closed for almost two months was there any traffic left to open it up to?67 posted on 05/09/2005 11:41:08 AM CDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Then here are a couple of my replies to you.
To: Non-Sequitur
Seven weeks later the confederate congress passed legislation that supposedly opened the river to Northern traffic. But did it? Pettus was a real fire-breather and I haven't seen anything that indicates that he pulled his batteries and allowed traffic to pass. After being closed for almost two months was there any traffic left to open it up to?
Show that the river was closed after that January 11th date. I found the following:
Steamboats Passed Vicksburg. Vicksburg, Feb 13 -- The Horizon and Roane passed down at noon, the Natchez at 3, the Rowena at 8, and the Yazoo and New Uncle Sam at 9 P.M. yesterday; the Lexington at 2, the B. J. Adams at 4, and the Magenta at 8 o'clock this morning. [Daily Picayune Feb 14, 1861]
Steamboats Passed Vicksburg. Vicksburg, Feb 15. -- The steamers Von Phul and Magnolia passed down at noon; the Fort Wayne at 1, and the Quarrier at 11 P.M. yesterday; the Skylark and Planet at 1 o'clock this morning. [Daily Picayune, Feb 16, 1861]69 posted on 05/09/2005 12:00:25 PM CDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Non-Sequitur
Glad to see that you survived.
I spent yesterday in a local library doing microfilm research of the old newspapers again. I searched in a Vicksburg paper for the January 1861 blockading of the Mississippi River by Mississippi Governor Pettus that you've posted about on occasion. I expected to see headlines and a big article since it would have been a big deal. Instead, I found only a couple of small articles from The Weekly Whig of Vicksburg on January 30, 1861:
Navigation of the Mississippi -- ... The navigation of the Mississippi is not and has never been obstructed by this State, and the State Convention has unanimously decided that it shall not be, except for purposes of absolute self defence.That is consistent with actions of the Confederate government with respect to free navigation of the river. I have posted their actions to you in the past. The second article from that Weekly Whig issue said the following:
The Northern journals are much incensed about the battery being placed by order of the Governor of this State. After branding us with all kinds of epithets, such as "traitors," "scoundrels," etc., they say that boats are required to pay the usual wharfage rates, although their business engagements did not require them to land at Vicksburg.
The officers of every boat stopped will attest to this as being false. It was at their own discretion to land or not land at the wharf-boat as they choose.A search on the web found the following: Governor Pettus. This web site explains that a day after Mississippi seceded Governor Pettus put a battery on a bluff overlooking the river to prevent a possible US fleet coming south. Perhaps he was worried about a fleet being sent south to stop Mississippi. After all, this was immediately after the Federal government sent the Star of the West with some 200 armed troops into Charleston Bay. Perhaps Pettus was simply being cautious in light of the Star of the West incident. The fleet didn't show, so after a few days Pettus sent the troops home.
According to the web site, the soldiers did fire on one boat because it didn't stop after a warning shot. I don’t know why the state stopped boats. Maybe they were inspecting what was being shipped south in light of their secession. Can you point out any boat that was not allowed to continue on its navigation of the Mississippi River after perhaps a brief stop at Vicksburg during this early period before the war?
241 posted on 09/09/2006 1:13:15 PM CDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Here is what I was referring to:
To: rustbucket
Were the Confederate district courts different?
There were no confederate district federal courts, at least no records exist of any decision being handed down by one. There was no confederate supreme court, no confederate judiciary at all other than individual state courts.. I'm not aware of any confederate version of the U.S. Marshal. Absent a federal court system what purpose would they have served?
257 posted on 07/31/2003 8:32 PM CDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Your post occurred shortly after I had posted a long list of appointments to the Confederate District Courts I found on the web. Then I posted the following and thatdewd followed with a list of Confederate District Court records he found on the web.
To: Non-Sequitur
There were no confederate district federal courts, at least no records exist of any decision being handed down by one. There was no confederate supreme court, no confederate judiciary at all other than individual state courts.
Then how do you explain the following from the November 24, 1864, Daily Picayune?
Our readers have seen the announcement of the sentence of A. W. McKee by a court-marshal in Louisiana, to be shot, and of the decision by Judge Moise, of the Confederate States District Court in Louisiana, that the court marshal had no jurisdiction over McKee [a civilian], and releasing him from their bonds, to answer any civil offense for which he might be prosecuted.You seem fond of making claims that others would have a hard time disproving. In this case, however, Gotcha!
This supposedly nonexistent 1864 Confederate States District Court seems to have anticipated the 1866 US Supreme Court ruling in ex parte Milligan. Pity the Yankees didn't have courts willing to stand up in wartime for their citizens' rights (Taney's ex parte Merryman ruling excepted).261 posted on 07/31/2003 9:34 PM CDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
You graciously acknowledged your error.
To: rustbucket
You seem fond of making claims that others would have a hard time disproving. In this case, however, Gotcha!
That's because in most cases my information is well supported. But in this case I made a quick post based on a single website and I got nailed for my carelessness. You certainly did 'gotchme'.
294 posted on 08/01/2003 5:28 AM CDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I'll continue this series of posts again tomorrow. Good night.
I have said that [Claims of damage by Sherman's troops are overblown]. And considering some of the claims made around here - every structure burned, every farm field salted, womes stolen, horses raped - it isn't hard to do.
I guess whether damage on civilian items was excessive or overblown depends on your point of view. Every building wasn't burned, everything was not stolen or broken, etc., but the damage was quite extensive. You should have tried your statement out on my now deceased Georgia in-laws, whose parents and grandparents had seen Sherman's troops come through their farms.
Your statement in the following post started a long chain of posts about damage by Northern soldiers. [Link]
To: Wampus SC
There sure were a lot of pictures of the damage alleged to have been done by Sherman's troops. Who faked those pictures? And how? And when?
No, Sherman's army did a great deal of damage to industrial targets like factories, storehouses, railroad facilities, cotton gins, and the like. Items that supported the confederate war effort. What seems to have been badly overblown over the years are claims of damage to purely civilian properties.
387 posted on 01/20/2005 5:12:45 PM CST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
There followed a long series of posts describing documented damage by Federal troops in various places. Here's one focusing mainly on damage by Sherman's troops using the words of Federal commanders in the Official Records. I'll leave the bold red font off in the following two posts since much of the screen would be red.
To: Non-Sequitur
I'll expand on my quote from Jacob Hoke of Chambersburg, PA:
The three gentlemen from whom I have quoted - Early, Imboden, and Slingluff, - refer to the humane manner in which General Lee conducted his campaign in Pennsylvania in 1863, and claim that no wanton destruction of private property was made. This is freely admitted. With the exception of the railroad buildings in Chambersburg, and one or two buildings on the field of Gettysburg, no houses or barns were destroyed. Private property was taken for the use of the army, but, except in a few cases by stragglers, the regulations of seizure laid down by General Lee in general orders No. 72, and issued specially for the Pennsylvania campaign, were strictly observed.With respect to your post of Sherman's orders, let's look at the actions of some of his soldiers in Georgia and the Carolinas. Union commanders weren't very effective at curbing looting, burning, etc.
Col. Acker, 9th Michigan Cavalry, Dec 19, 1864: "During that day we marched thirty-nine miles and took six prisoners. 20th, Companies B, C, and D, being detached for a scout to Griswold Station in charge of Captain Ladd, meeting the enemy, but keeping them at bay, burned the town, destroying the railroad, cutting the telegraph wire, burned a train of cars."
General Howard (Union) to General Sherman, Dec. 28, 1864: "I regret to say that quite a number of private dwellings which the inhabitants have left, have been destroyed by fire, but without official sanction; also, many instances of the most inexcusable and wanton acts, such as the breaking open of trunks, taking of silver plate, &c."
Brevet Major General Williams (Union) to the Twentieth Corps, Robertsville, SC, Jan. 31, 1865: "The indiscriminate pillage of houses is disgraceful and demoralizing to this Army. The houses in this vicinity, of free negroes even, have been stripped of the necessary bedclothes and of family apparel. Brigade commanders will at once take measures to put a stop to these infamous practices. ... The brevet Major-general commanding the corps expects the hearty co-operation of all officers to put a stop to practices disgraceful to our arms and shocking to humanity."
General Sherman, Feb 1865: "Vacant houses being of no use to anybody, I care little about, as the owners have thought them of no use to themselves. I don't want them destroyed, but do not take much care to preserve them."
Gen. Howard (Union), Feb. 9, 1865, General Field Orders No. 9, issued near Binnaker's Bridge, SC: "The attention of the general commanding has been called by officers of our own army to the wanton and indiscriminate destruction of private property, burning of dwelling houses, plundering and pillaging the houses of the few poor people who have remained at home ..."453 posted on 01/21/2005 2:16:13 PM CST by rustbucket [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Non-Sequitur
Thaddeus Stevens' iron mill was a legitimate military target as were any supplies in it. As far as the looting of mill worker homes, if it occurred as you say it did, it shouldn't have happened. I gather such looting was not widespread, unlike the looting and burning by Northern troops in the South that I've been documenting in these posts to you.
Here are some more instances of the behavior of Northern soldiers:
Major General Gillmore (Union) to General Hatch (Union), South Carolina, Mar. 1, 1865: "I hear from all sides very discouraging accounts of the state of affairs in Charleston; that no restraint is put upon the soldiers; that they pilfer and rob houses at pleasure; that large quantities of valuable furniture, pictures, statuary, mirrors, &c., have mysteriously disappeared ..."
General Howard (Union), Brightsville, SC, to General Logan (Union), Mar. 7, 1865: "General Blair reports that every house in his line of march to-day was pillaged, trunks broken open, jewelry, silver, &c., taken."
General Logan (Union) to General Howard (Union), January 7 - March 31, 1865 report: "In accordance with your Field Order, Numbers 29, I moved the corps from McPhersonville to Hickory Hill, breaking camp at 7 a.m. Before the rear of my column passed through McPhersonville I regret to inform you that the village was in flames. This was doubtlessly induced by the desertion of their houses by the entire population, for on our entrance into the village not a human being was to be found."
General Howard (Union), Field Orders No. 175, November 22, 1864: "The crime of robbery and arson have become frequent throughout this army."Your turn.
468 posted on 01/21/2005 4:32:44 PM CST by rustbucket [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
You correctly pointed out to me once that the Charleston looting wasn't done by Sherman's troops. You were right. They were General Gilmore's troops (Union).
I recently made a copy from the old newspapers of an extensive report by Louisiana officials after the war documenting pillage, robbery, etc, by Federal troops there. It took many issues of the paper to cover it. Each issue usually had two to three 30-inch long columns of small print about this barbarity, some of it by officers. Even I was amazed. Much of it probably came about from the opportunity for mischief afforded army troops who were staying in enemy territory, but unfortunately it really appeared to be a systemic problem with the Union army.
This takes me back to some of the very the first posts we exchanged. Here was one of mine to you. Real reason shown in blue:
To: Non-Sequitur
Let's see what the 1863 US Army instructions issued by Lincoln say about retribution:
Art. 27. The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation than can the law of nations, of which it is a branch. Yet civilized nations acknowledge retaliation as the sternest feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage.
Art. 28. Retaliation will, therefore, never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and moreover, cautiously and unavoidably; that is to say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence, and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution.Now let's see whether General Early's actions satisfy the US Army guidelines. Here are some words from Early reported in the Philadelphia Age at the time:
I was very reluctant, and it was a most disagreeable duty, to inflict such damage on these citizens; but I deemed it an imperative necessity to show the people of the Federal States that war has two sides. I hope and believe it has had, and will have a good effect. I saw with much pleasure, since then, an able article in the National Intelligencer, which called upon the north to consider gravely whether such a mode of warfare as they had inaugurated is likely to yield a success commensurate to its cost.As regards your claim of bad actions by Lee's troops in Pennsylvania, I imagine there might have been a few instances of pillage. There was certainly normal foraging to support the army, a standard feature of warfare from both sides. However, I take the word of the Chambersburg resident whose report I cited earlier that Lee's troops were not generally known to have committed many outrages. If there had been wanton destruction by Lee's forces, as there was by Hunter's, the Union propagandists of the time would have never stopped talking about it:
The three gentlemen from whom I have quoted-Early, Imboden, and Slingluff, - refer to the humane manner in which General Lee conducted his campaign in Pennsylvania in 1863, and claim that no wanton destruction of private property was made. This is freely admitted. With the exception of the railroad buildings in Chambersburg, and one or two buildings on the field of Gettysburg, no houses or barns were destroyed. Private property was taken for the use of the army, but, except in a few cases by stragglers, the regulations of seizure laid down by General Lee in general orders No. 72, and issued specially for the Pennsylvania campaign, were strictly observed. But while the comparative good conduct of the Confederates in Pennsylvania is admitted, it must also be remembered that there was no bushwhacking of them, nor depredations committed upon their trains.671 posted on 9/4/02 11:12 AM Central by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 661 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Since posting that, I've learned from the Official Records that in fact there was bushwacking against the Confederates on this expedition. And, more importantly, as a result of Chambersburg, Lincoln almost banned house and town burning by the Union army. At the very least, Chambersburg made the latter day vandals and visigoths from the North think twice. So, Early almost met his objective of stopping the burning of Southern houses and towns.
Burning Chambersburg caused roughly the same economic damage (2 million dollars) in Chambersburg that Union General Hunter had earlier caused to civilian property in the Shenandoah Valley. Hunter damaged a thousand homes and left a 60-mile path of destruction in the Valley that I documented on that thread.
Your 'couple of houses and VMI' comment followed my post above.