Replies

I stated "Would you have preferred that he acted meekly and permitted the Southern slaveocracy to survive in perpetuity?" To which you replied:

Yes.

You prefer no change to change for the better. That's why you're a conservative and I'm a libertarian.

Would you want X42 or any President to have any power (judicial, legislative and executive)?

No. I certainly wouldn't want any President to have the power that Jefferson Davis had. Nor would I want a constitution like the Confederates' that prohibited the abolition of slavery. Talk about the despotic power! That's the problem with you Confederate glorifiers. To you, the state can do no wrong. If a majority of the citizens of your state wanted to secede so that they could form a state based on the ritual kidnapping and raping of nine year old girls, your analysis would support their "right of secession and self-government."

Sherman didn't destroy entire cities?

Name one. (If you'd like to read a fair and comprehensive analysis of the ethics of Sherman's battlefield tactics, read this.) Although Sherman's tactics were hard on civilian property, few citizens were harmed by his tactics compared to other wars. Consider, for example, the fact that hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians died in bombing raids even before nuclear weapons were employed.

The problem with rules of war which seek to protect civilians is that they only encourage dictators and their armed forces to hide behind human shields. War is hell, but for some 4 million negroes, life itself under slavery was also hell.

More people were killed in that war than any war prior.

I didn't say it wasn't a long and bloody war. Nevertheless, disease killed far more soldiers than battles.

It was most uncivil - civilians are not prone to running onto the battlefield and being caught in crossfires.

They didn't have to run anywhere. The people of Atlanta only had to stick around town long enough for the Confederates to retreat into town to try to use them as human shields.

Northerners wanted nothing to do with blacks, except to send them out of the country, keep them in the south, or prevent them from migrating north and west.

Nonsense. There were plenty of Northerners who were quite sympathetic to the plight of negroes and attempted to help them, including Mary Todd Lincoln.

In the South many whites worked side by side with the slaves. But you should read the Slave Narratives in the Federal Writers project. Real, honest-to-goodness, ex-slaves. You'll find some mistreated, and many more that state that they loved their masters, loaned them money, defended them, even wished for the good old days.

It's not too hard to find accounts of a few slaves who were relatively well treated. I read one recently about a slave whose job was being a stud. Of course, if slavery was so popular with the slaves, why were the slaveholders so adament about the enforcement of fugitive slave laws? (Check out these accounts of escaped slaves.) And why did all able bodied Southern white men have to serve in the slave patrols?

And how do you explain the negroes that jumped and sang in joy when they were freed by Union troops and were very helpful in providing information on troop strengths and movements to them? (The history of my gggrandfather's Illinois cavalry regiment contains many such accounts.) Any negroes who enjoyed life as a slave were perfectly free after the passage of the 13th Amendment to continue to live the same way, but few (if any) chose to do so.

There were never massive slave revolts before the war

It's pretty hard to revolt when you have no weapons or other resources and are threatened with brutal whippings for even talking about escaping.

...no revolts against the women and children remaing at home when the EP was issued.

The Emancipation Proclamation specifically urged slaves to abstain from violence.

Lincoln made it very clear when he was inaugurated that his first priority was holding onto the forts, post offices, and tariff houses - and collecting the MONEY. He said nothing about forcing states to rejoin the union.

You expected him to announce his strategy in public? From Battle Cry:

"Lincoln had hoped to cool passions and buy time with his inaugural address -- time to organize his administration, to prove his pacific intent, to allow the seeds of voluntary reconstruction to sprout." (See page 264.)

Of course, the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter ended any realistic thoughts of voluntary reconstruction, both because it galvanized pro-war Northern opinion and made it clear that the Confederates were bloodthirsty rebels.

You prefer no change to change for the better. That's why you're a conservative and I'm a libertarian.

Political ideology aside, I do prefer change for the better. But unlike some, I insist that it be done legally.

"Nor would I want a constitution like the Confederates' that prohibited the abolition of slavery. Talk about the despotic power! "

And what clause of the US Constitution prohibits slavery?

That's the problem with you Confederate glorifiers. To you, the state can do no wrong. If a majority of the citizens of your state wanted to secede so that they could form a state based on the ritual kidnapping and raping of nine year old girls, your analysis would support their "right of secession and self-government."

And now thanks to Lincoln I'm stuck in one that sanctioned the murder of 30 MILLION unborn children. The states once had sovereignty, now thanks to Federalism all states must allow a Doctor to suck the brains out of a child seconds from being born. Thanks but no thanks.

Name one [city destroyed by Sherman] .Although Sherman's tactics were hard on civilian property, few citizens were harmed by his tactics compared to other wars.

Try Randolph, Tennessee. Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, where Sherman boasted that "Meridian no longer exists." The town of New Manchester, Georgia was completely destroyed - Sherman ordered the arrest and deportation of women and children, "I have ordered General Garrard to arrest for treason all owners and employees, foreign and native, and send them under guard to Marietta, whence I will send them North...... The Women can find employment in Indiana." The town was never rebuilt. Pardon me if I don't share in your admoration for a man targeting civilians.

The problem with rules of war which seek to protect civilians is that they only encourage dictators and their armed forces to hide behind human shields.

Yes - dictators do hide behide human shields. Ever heard of the "Immortal Six Hundred"? FYI , they were Confederates.

War is hell, but for some 4 million negroes, life itself under slavery was also hell.

If life was hell for slaves, were are the records of 4 million of them fleeing to the North after emacipation? With the men off fighting the war, a slave revolt and mass escapes would have been common. Again, read the Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers project for the truth about slavery. And newspapers also give creedence to "real" truths:

"A day or two ago a letter was received at the Treasury Department from a negro man, named Henry Jones, the property of Mr. E. Cannon, of Clarksville, in this State, which is worthy of the highest commendation, and justly entitled to be imitated by those who have been hoarding their treasure during the troubles which at present afflict the country. Henry places at the disposal of the Secretary of the Treasury $465 in gold, which he hopes will be of some service to the Government. In his letter he speaks of "our glorious cause," and declares that the slaves of the South have a deeper interest in the establishment of Southern independence than the white population. He thinks if the Yankees are successful the negroes are destined to the most cruel treatment at their hands."
"Patriotism of a Colored Man", Staunton Spectator, Staunton, VA, 18 Aug 1863, p. 2, c. 3

There were plenty of Northerners who were quite sympathetic to the plight of negroes and attempted to help them, including Mary Todd Lincoln.

But the most remarkable testimony on the subject, is borne by no less a personage than the notorious Henry Ward Beecher. In a recent sermon, Mr. Beecher says the free colored people at the North "are almost without education, with but little sympathy for ignorance." "They cannot even ride in the cars of our city railroads. They are snuffed at in the house of God, or tolerated with ill-disguised disgust." The negro cannot be employed as a stone mason, bricklayer, or carpenter. "There is scarcely a carpenter's shop in New York in which a journeyman would continue to work if a black man was employed in it." There is scarcely one of the common industries of life in which he can engage. "He is crowded down, down, down, through the most menial callings to the bottom of society." "We heap upon them," says Beecher, moral obloquy more atrocious than that which the master heaps upon the slave. And notwithstanding all this, we lift ourselves up to talk to the Southern people about the rights and liberties of the human soul, and especially the African soul."
Staunton Spectator, Staunton, VA, 6 Dec 1859, p. 2, c. 1

So why did Northern states like Illinois have laws preventing blacks from immigrating into those states?