Posted on 03/27/2002 11:05:01 AM PST by Aurelius
The intentional killing of civilians, perhaps?
The souix were in a defensive posture. Land taken, another people moving in in droves, lied to by their leaders.
What portion of this scenario does not apply equally to Palestinians of today? Do you believe the intentional Palestinian attacks on civilians are morally justified? If not, what specifically makes the difference for you between Palestinians intentionally killing children and Sioux Indians intentionally killing children?
BTW, what "leaders" are you referring to? The Indian leaders or the government leaders?
You continue to mouth off nonsense. My ancestors lived 10 miles from Andersonville. The South was STARVING you ninnie. You have no clue what you are talking about. "WhiskeyPapa" is quite a fitting moniker. Lay off it for a while, bub.
I don't believe the line of Sherman's advance came within 100 miles of Andersonville.
The line of march he DID choose was full of provisions and forage for his 60,000 man army -- just as he thought it would be.
The fact that your people didn't share in the economic wealth that north Georgia did is not at issue. The so-called confederate states could have procured better provisions for the prisoners. They were clearly available. But they didn't.
Walt
"In 1864 Georgia was such a cornucopia of food Sherman's men couldn't begin to carry it off, let alone eat it. " "OK, to use your tactic, can you document this "cornucopia?"
But, you idiot, your response only serves to establish the destruction wreaked by the demon Sherman which resulted in the starvation of Southern women and children and old folks of Georgia, and the starvation of the prisoners at Andersonville.
The prisoners at Andersonville were already starving well before Sherman began his march.
Some few who escaped were able to make it to Sherman's lines. Sherman's men were appalled to see their emaciated condition.
Walt
The fact that the rebels would not extend POW status to African-American soldiers or to their Caucasian officers complicated the exchange of prisoners.
But what does this malevolent screed really have to do with anything? Is the writer saying that military tribunals are never appropriate? They have been used by almost every country at one time or another and are certainly called for in times of civil upset. Surely the civil courts on the sparsely settled Minnesota frontier would not have been able to deal with hundreds of renegade Indians.
It's just this sort of supercilious, impertinent, poorly written diatribe that gives whacked-out left wing loonies a bad name.
Battle Cry..., p. 797.
All well and good.
There was plenty of food in Georgia for the POW's at Andersonville. They did not receive it. Whether or nt it was Wirz's fault or someone else seems irrelevant.
Walt
Can't help but notice. Dubya isn't the second President named George. With Washington in the mix, he is actually George the Third. Not the best namesake to carry around.
But whether or not your allegation is true is relevant.
"If anyone were to try to make a case against universal application of the free speech provision of the 1st amendment, they could start with the case of WhiskeyPapa."
Actually, like Voltaire, I support your right to self-expression, I just wish that there were a way to make your exercise of it less obtrusive.
One thing I learned 30 years ago when I was first exposed to one of your rabid Lincoln cultists is that Lincoln's own words are the only evidence that sort ever accepts as valid and no other evidence is admissable. To any observation of one of Lincoln's illegal actions, that sort always responds with a quote from him making an excuse for the action, which is supposed to be accepted as gospel. What Lincoln said is what they insist is the truth about him. What he did doesn't count at all.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/dakota/dak_chrono.html
Other sources indicate about 540 deaths among whites and 60 among the Indians. I did not mean to imply that all the whites were "innocents," although a large number of women and children were indeed killed. A large number of the deaths were soldiers or civilians who died in combat.
However, considering that the Americans won the war by capturing essentially the entire nation, it is obvious that they did not retaliate in kind, or ther would have been a whole lot more than a total of about 100 Sioux who died in combat and were executed.
A sincere effort was made to determine which of the Sioux had participated in killing of women or children or in rape. Only those actually convicted of these crimes were executed.
If the Union forces were bloodthirsty tyrants, why execute only 38? Why not 380? Why not 3,000? Why bother to take any prisoners at all? Why not just hunt them down and kill them all?
If Confederate forces had committed such atrocities (almost unheard of), do you really think they would not have been executed after court-martial when captured?
The Union policy was based on the theory that the war itself was a horrible thing and that almost any policy which would shorten it was morally justifiable. You may disagree with this philosophy, but it is certainly defensible.
The black troops, however, faced greater peril than white troops when captured by the Confederate Army. In 1863 the Confederate Congress threatened to punish severely officers of black troops and to enslave black soldiers. As a result, President Lincoln issued General Order 233, threatening reprisal on Confederate prisoners of war (POWs) for any mistreatment of black troops. Although the threat generally restrained the Confederates, black captives were typically treated more harshly than white captives. In perhaps the most heinous known example of abuse, Confederate General Nathan B. Forrest shot to death black Union soldiers captured at the Fort Pillow, TN, engagement of 1864.
BTW, I am aware of the fact that General Forrest's personal culpability for the excesses at Fort Pillow is a matter of historical debate.
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.