Well, about 640 federals were murdered by CSA forces in three incidents:
Lawrence, KS
Fort Pillow, KY
Saltville, VA
In addition to that, 40 Texans whose only crime was loyalty to the Union were hanged during the month of October, 1862 in Gainseville, Texas by CSA oficials --except for about 14, who were lynched while CSA officials looked on. Their names:
Nathaniel, Clark, Wernell, Richard Martin, Grandpaw Burch, H.J. Esmond, Ward, Evans, Clem Woods, Wolsey, Manon, Leffel, A. B. McNeice, Wash Moirris, Wesley Morris, Thomas Floyd (shot), John Crisp, James Powers, Rama Dye, J. Dawson, Wiley, K. Morris, Barnes, Milburn, W. Anderson, Gross, Ward,, Dr. Johnson, Childs, Senir, Childs, Junior, Hampton, Locke, Foster, Fields, D. Anderson, D. Taylor, R. Manton, Jones, carmichael, Henry Cochran.
This info if from "Civil War Recollections of Lemuel Clark".
Needless to say, nothing like any of this can be shown to have been done by Union forces.
Walt
This is a contradiction in terms. Keyes is a unionist and always has been. The neoconfederate "conservatives" have been relentlessly attacking Keyes lately. Oddly enough, they've all claimed to be "Reaganities" lately since I've been pointing out their non-stop "I hate Republicans" threads to the forum.
Since Reagan holds the SAME views as Keyes does, either they are holding Keyes to a different standard than Reagan or they are simply unaware of historical facts. If Neo-confederates practiced what they preach, they would've have voted against Reagan in 1980 since he was a "Yankee transplant" in California (which they claim to despise), born and bred in Illinois (I cannot tell you how much they my state's culture and its people)-- ironically, they accuse of being a "southern basher" for attacking the DEMOCRATS and RINOs in the south, rather than the PEOPLE as a whole in the south. Unlike them, I do not attack people SOLELY because of their region). Reagan, of course, praised Lincoln many times in speeches and in one state of the union address, he said he would have followed Lincoln's policies exactly if he had been in his shoes back in 1861. Everytime one of the southern GOP candidates for Governor makes a statement along those lines, they declare him a "scalawag" and vow not to vote for him. Reagan and Lincoln have very similar backgrounds, both being from Illinois, being charismatic, charming speakers, were attacked for having an "inferior" education, didn't join the GOP until being middle-aged, made very pro-human dignity statements (Lincoln=slavery, Reagan=abortion), but had no limus test on the subject and didn't do enough to stop it as President, as so forth.
The one difference is that Reagan was a great deal more conservative than Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was generally centrist, and it's kinda funny that the neo-confederates scream he was a socialist when the truth is that the "liberal" wing of the GOP in 1860 (the "radical" Republicans) wanted to get rid of Lincoln and vice-versa. Lincoln vetoed a lot of their pro-big government legislation, especially their socialist reconstruction plan. If the neoconfederates fail to realize this, either they are lying to spite Lincoln or they failed American History 101. This is basic college stuff.
Of course, Lincoln did flirt with some wacko liberal stuff and I will not make excuses for this. Lincoln appointed some leftist nuts to office and it taints his record. But you know what? So did Reagan (on a lesser scale). For example, his proposed "running mate" in 1976 was one of the most liberal Republicans in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Schweiker (RINO-PA). Again, we must examine his record as a whole. We also must bear in mind Reagan was president during generally peaceful times. During military conflicts, many of the Democrats made the same charges against Reagan that their 1860 counterparts made of Lincoln (they said Reagan suppressed civil liberties, spent millions of federal money to fund contras, overthrew existing soverign states, installed puppet governments, plotted assignations, etc., etc.) They make the same charges against Bush now.
No politician is every perfect. They lie, they cheat, they steal. Even the best of 'em.
It's kind of ironic, the GOP at the end of reconstruction (1876) was not nearly as conservative as today's GOP. Still, the two issues that they held then that are identical to modern Republicanism was staunch support for the 2nd amendment, and a platform to reduce immigration. Since the neo-confederates are generally closer to Libertarians, these are the only two issues I've seen them take a truly "conservative" stance on as well. Their beef is not one of ideology, but anger of losing a millitary campaign that ended 150 years ago.
My views are closer to that of the great General Sam Houston, founder of the Republic of Texas, and one of the few voices of sanity among southern Democrats of the 1850s. Houston believed in the right of states to leave the union. He believed in local sovergnity. What he did NOT believe in was JOINING the union of CONFEDERATE states, taking up arms against the north for their cause, or in any way supporting the continuation of slavery (Houston's views on slavery mirrored Lincoln-- he did not plan to abolish it, per say, but he was DEAD SET against expanding it or making it permanent). The confederates violated states rights and unconstitutionally "removed" Houston from office because he believed Texas was a independant REPUBLIC after secessing in 1861, that it would remain NEUTRAL in the war and he would never pledge allegance to the pro-slavery confederate declarations.
I believe this nation would be better off today if Houston had been nominated on the Constitution-Union ticket and won in 1860. Lincoln did an OKAY job under incredibly difficult circumstances, perhaps Houston would have done better. I can tell you one thing though, if Houston were alive today to post his views on the confederacy ("an utterly useless and lost cause"), half the Dixiecrats on this forum would start screaming he "hates my hertiage" and is a "history revisionist" Ditto with Reagan.