Posted on 05/23/2002 8:52:25 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
So bring on the names and the details.
Consider your man of straw cited, though for the record the above statement resembles the argument in your own recent postings about rape and theft ala "both sides did it" far more than anything I have written. Retaliation in itself can and does contain many moral wrongs. I simply noted the documented fact that the Lawrence raid was not the unprovoked attack on helpless innocents that many yankees attempt to portray when they reference it. Rather, it was an incident that was part of an ongoing exchange of back and forth skirmishes that had been going on for years and even the last decade.
The people in Lawrence were innocent civilian men and boys and the southern raiders shot them for it.
Some were. Others were not and in fact had participated in prior atrocities against the southerners. Senator Lane, who avoided capture by hiding, was a powerful influence behind many of the northern military actions being taken against the families of Quantrill's raiders and other confederates in Missouri.
Others have put the number of murdered at 52. Still others at over a hundred. Can we call 52 or over a hundred a massacre?
The people killed in Lawrence, Kansas were in killed in retaliation for Jayhawker raids into neighboring Missouri, where they did the exact same thing. Again, nothing wrong with retaliating against someone who harms you.
The people in Lawrence had nothing to do with Jayhawker raids except for living in Kansas. If I were to say that the burning of Atlanta was in retaliation for the burning of Chambersburg would that make it all right in your eyes?
The twenty two men hanged in North Carolina were hanged for desertion, another crime punishable by death at the time in the US army. Again, no wrong hangings here.
The 22 men hanged in North Carolina were Union soldiers in uniform. By your definition, then, the Union Army would have been justified in hanging every confederate officer or soldier who had been in the U.S. Army at the beginning of the war as a deserter?
Some were. Others were not and in fact had participated in prior atrocities against the southerners.
Try reading "The Devil Knows How To Ride: The True Story of William Clarke Quantrill and His Confederate Raiders" by Edward E. Leslie. No attempt was made by Quantrill to determine if anyone had participated in anything. They just rode into town and killed everything in sight. It didn't matter to them, other than they were Yankees. But that's OK to you, isn't it? Only Yankees can commit atrocities, right?
You can start by reading the previous post of orders in which Sherman documents his own burning of Meridian and other atrocities.
Once you are done with that, you can move on to the following incidents of Sherman ordering the murder of innocent POW's in retaliation to his sanctioned looters being fired upon. If you desire more, I'll gladly post some when I have time.
Confederate POW 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.
February 25, 1865 - two unnamed confederate POW's executed on the spot in retaliation for confederate calvalry firing upon Sherman's men as they were looting a plantation near Robertsville, SC
March 1, 1865 - unnamed confederate POW executed at random in retaliation to confederates killing a union soldier engaged in the act of looting near Blakeny's Bridge, SC.
Nah, Lee's Arm was suspect and their defense was long in the tooth! Besides the North had better draft picks!
Your man of staw is again noted. Again, I simply cited the record to place the raid in context. And as I indicated previously, I did so in anticipation of the frequent yankee tactic of attempting to portray the event as an isolated unprovoked act of rage against pure innocents.
I just asked the question which brought your answer that only Yankees were capable of atrocities.
Your man of staw is noted yet again, as is the irony of you making that statement in light of your recent comments to the effect of "they both did it."
Try reading "The Devil Knows How To Ride: The True Story of William Clarke Quantrill and His Confederate Raiders" by Edward E. Leslie. No attempt was made by Quantrill to determine if anyone had participated in anything.
To the contrary. Accounts of the raid itself speak of specific attempts to locate Senator Lane in direct retaliation for his contributions to the previous yankee atrocities.
They just rode into town and killed everything in sight.
Not true either. They apparently made a very strong and conscious attempt to target adult males. Women and children, who were definately "in sight" were largely left alone by the raiders. Other non-random manuevering occured as skirmishes broke out between the raiders and the jayhawkers. It was itself a brutal act, but not one of the completely random rage you purport. Innocents were killed in rage, but they picked Lawrence on a hunt for Lane specifically. Not that you are interested in facts like that.
Miller was under arms, a legitimate POW.
So far as seen on FR, Sherman's men killed no civilians at all. At least no one has been able to name one.
On the other hand, about 50 of Sherman's men, all legal combatants, were lynched during the march.
Walt
You can see reflections of this on these threads. For all the grievances, resentments, hatred of Yankees, state's rights slogans, and arguments about the constitutionality of secession, there doesn't seem to be a strong sense of being a separate nation with a unique destiny or identity or character, that could have made a successful revolution.
This has interesting implications for hypothetical or counterfactual history. Would an independent Confederacy have broken apart into smaller units? Would it eventually have drifted back into the orbit of the union or into the union itself? Or would its leaders have created the powerful, unified, expansionist state they desired?
The thesis about the weakness of Southern or Confederate nationalism also reflects back on the secessionist leaders, though no one could know beforehand, how strong or how weak Confederate nationalism would prove to be. It looks as though Southern pro-slavery leaders were wrong in seeing secession as an alternative to real political activity and engagement within the constitutional system. They didn't have the kind of grievances that would justify overturning the existing government. Nor did was the will present to create a new nation.
Of course it was force that decided things in the end. And it must have seemed plausible to assume in the heady, enthusiastic days of 1860 that the will and energy to create a new nation was present. But those like Sam Houston or Andrew Johnson who questioned the whole "two nations" or "irrepressible conflict" thesis may have been right in the end.
This also reflects on the Rockwellite secessionist or weak compactual creed which sees us forever breaking off into smaller political units. There will be conflicts between such units and without political and constitutional institutions it's more like they'll turn to the use of force. I can't help thinking that in most situations, staying put and settling things within the system is the best way, if it's possible. All the more so, since today we all reject the impassioned support of slavery of most secessionist and Confederate leaders.
Certainly not, it is just that Yankees were so much better at it, and on such a grand scale.
Who else could have coerced and duped 21 million people into supporting a war for the subjugation of 9 million, by "any means necessary", all wrapped in the moral cloak of "preserving the union" and "emancipation", leaving all who survived to be indentured servants to the new "government", but a corporate lawyer, Yankee politician?
Talk about an atrocity?
btw, if Quantrill and his men had meant to kill "everything in sight", they would not have drawn up a list beforehand, and the death toll would have exceeded 1000, which you would know if you had read Duane Schulz's Quantrill's War instead of Leslie's BS.
I found it odd that Mcpherson would argue such a position until I remembered that to suggest that the South could have won, serves to make JM's beloved North and Lincoln more admirable and to make the CSA look worse, much the way a pro-team's coach talks up the opposition so that when they are beaten, the victory is more "glorious".
The only way the CSA could have won the war was if Lincoln died or the British intervened.
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.