Author Topic: Rebel atrocities? (Read 1583 times)

Ga.windbreak · « **on:** February 08, 2009, 03:30:55 AM »

Lee went into the north twice. Just what happened up there? There were raids by southern Cavalry under the orders of Southern Generals. What bad things, if any, did they do? Bragg went into MO, did his men do any wrongs that are worthy of note?

Of late there has been a desided shift to everything that the North did that was wrong, was not saving the Union a worthy cause also?

Its true that I'm a Southern man but that does not mean that we did everything right, we did not! I'm reminded of Jesus saying "ye without sin cast the first stone."

Trying to save the rightful meaning of the Constitution was/is a wonderful and right thing to do and we were invaded illegally but by the same token to not stay within the system and make it better over allowing some to fan the fire to war was not, IMHO, the way we should have gone. The numbers alone cry that out, over 600,000 dead, today we would call that genocide. If President Bust had lost even 20,000 boys over there, going on 8 years now, we would have been calling for his head. And talk about stepping on the Constitution; GW Bush is right up there with the best of them in my book.

So I'm asking what wrongful things did we do while north of the Mason/Dixen line?

littlecanoe · « **Reply #1 on:** February 08, 2009, 04:11:02 AM »

GaW,

The middle of your post makes me scratch my chin just a bit. It almost sounds as though you believe that those who broke from the union did so illegally or without just cause; Or something close to that. Were our Founding Fathers justified in seeking freedom and establishing that Constitution? Could they have stayed within the system and caused change? Could the Southern states have done the same? Can we today stay within a corrupt system and cause change? Difficult questions to answer but worth considering.

Was saving the Union a worthy cause? Historically this nation was at a pivotal time in that the union was bound to change. Nothing else could have happened. Had the CSA stayed a part of the USA they would have had to compromise Liberty. Compromised Liberty would have changed the Union. Had they kicked the invaders out of their country the union would have been changed as the continent would have been split. We see the changes brought by invasion and subjection. The Union is dead, that Union that our Founding Fathers gave us. It is a historical footnote.

Paul speaks of looking toward Heavenly things and seeing them as though he is looking through a dark glass. He sees something but all the details are distorted and blurred. He can't see clearly. We look back in time through dark glass and mourn what was lost. We see a vision of freedom and liberty but can only understand what that would be like through our personal experiences.

Back to the main topic, the raiders that were outside CSA control will be brought up. Aside from them, Andersonville would be the only thing that comes to mind.

tn_junk · « **Reply #2 on:** February 08, 2009, 04:29:34 AM »

I don't believe there can be a war without atrocities, on both sides.
Just isn't in the nature of mankind.

alan

Ga.windbreak · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2009, 06:12:52 AM »

Quote from: littlecanoe on February 08, 2009, 04:11:02 AM

GaW,

The middle of your post makes me scratch my chin just a bit. It almost sounds as though you believe that those who broke from the union did so illegally or without just cause; Or something close to that. Were our Founding Fathers justified in seeking freedom and establishing that Constitution? Could they have stayed within the system and caused change? Could the Southern states have done the same? Can we today stay within a corrupt system and cause change? Difficult questions to answer but worth considering.

Was saving the Union a worthy cause? Historically this nation was at a pivotal time in that the union was bound to change. Nothing else could have happened. Had the CSA stayed a part of the USA they would have had to compromise Liberty. Compromised Liberty would have changed the Union. Had they kicked the invaders out of their country the union would have been changed as the continent would have been split. We see the changes brought by invasion and subjection. The Union is dead, that Union that our Founding Fathers gave us. It is a historical footnote.

Paul speaks of looking toward Heavenly things and seeing them as though he is looking through a dark glass. He sees something but all the details are distorted and blurred. He can't see clearly. We look back in time through dark glass and mourn what was lost. We see a vision of freedom and liberty but can only understand what that would be like through our personal experiences.

Back to the main topic, the raiders that were outside CSA control will be brought up. Aside from them, Andersonville would be the only thing that comes to mind.

lc,
I'm glad I made you "scratch" your head. It is true that we, the south, followed the letter of the lawwhen we seceded from the Union. But think for just a moment; our whole system of government was/is set up to work by compromise. Lincoln won the Presidency with only 37 % of the total vote, the Democrates played into his hand by splitting up their forces. Davis was asked to run and if he had, could have possibly fixed the split thus saving both the Constitution and the Union. If there had been no split Lincoln would have never made it to the White house and that whole mess would have never seen the light of day. Remember when you're in a fight and throw in the towel you have just signaled that you give up.

We are talk of what ifs and woulda, coulda, and shoulda but the real what if, IMHO, should be What if we had stayed and fought the good fight and come out on the other side a much better and stronger nation plus having also freed the slaves and without the worse loss of life in US history. You know we throw around the figure 630,000 dead like the congress throws around billions like its nothing. Please don't take this wrong 630,000 dead is horrific but after saying it so often it just becomes a number. Yet its not and never should be; no matter which side one of those men was your kin and one was mine plus we are all brothers in this human race if you really think about it

The man who I admire the most for his love of the constitution, I believe, could have saved the very thing he professed to love yet he let his heart rule his head at that one moment in history when we could have gone in a different direction. Abe Lincoln wouldn't have even been a footnote in our histories time line and just maybe we would be much better off today than we are. As General Thomas Moore, of Nam fame has said "there is always something else you can do." Nothing is over until you're dead; or you throw in the towel.

What say you?

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #4 on:** February 08, 2009, 08:57:35 AM »

As I see it, the biggest difference in the acts committed by Southern forces and those committed by the North is simple. The Union committed these acts in overwhelming numbers against the civilian population, for the sole purpose to "PUNISH" the South for taking away their money source, i.e., taxes, tariffs, without which, the North could not continue their expansion of power. History speaks for this fact. The South committed NO such acts against civilians in the North, and were in fact under strict orders to "respect the property rights and liberties" of those civilians encountered.

Yes, some vigilantes were active, but NOBODY has EVER shown me a single shred of evidence that the Confederate government or military either knew of, or approved of such activities. Andersonville was NOT a Southern atrocity! Jefferson Davis personally pleaded with Lincoln to have provisions of food and medicine brought to Andersonville under Confederate guard, to HELP those imprisoned there, and Lincoln IGNORED his pleas! But those who wrote the history seem to have neatly overlooked Point Lookout, in the North. That place made Andersonville look like Disney World! But the SOUTH has always been portrayed as the only wrong-doers!

The atrocities committed by Union forces against Southern civilians has been documented to show that EVERYBODY in the U.S. high command KNEW of, and APPROVED of, and in some cases ORDERED such acts against CIVILIANS, from those military commanders directly responsible for the commission of those acts, all the way up to Abraham Lincoln, himself!! It was a planned, direct, and intentional assault on CIVILIANS!
What the South did, it did against MILITARY forces and NOT CIVILIANS !!
Did some civilians die as a result of the South's war tactics? Of Course they did! But the difference was that they were NOT the TARGETS! In the case of the South, they were truly "collateral" in nature.
There were so few, in fact, that they pale in comparison to those committed by the North.

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #5 on:** February 08, 2009, 09:13:43 AM »

"Of late there has been a desided shift to everything that the North did that was wrong, was not saving the Union a worthy cause also?"

What kind of "Union" can you have at the point of a bayonet? A Union, by its nature, MUST BE VOLUNTARY !
The Union died when Lincoln ordered the Invasion and the Destruction of the South. His complete hatred and disregard of the Constitution only helped kill it sooner.

As for the "wrongs" done by the South? If somebody comes after me with the sole purpose of destroying me, I'm gonna get back at 'em in any way I can.
There are those that seem to forget that WE WERE invaded. WE were not the aggressors. WE did not commit murder in order to "Save The Confederacy." And NOBODY who didn't want to be a part of the Confederacy was ever kept there by Force!

billy_56081 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 08, 2009, 09:17:35 AM »

War is an atrocity as anyone who has ever been involved in one knows from the experience. There are no civilians in a war, only combatants and their support lines.

In combat many do things that are unthinkable in peaceful times, it is sad that today we are holding our own in prisonss for things they do in combat far away from home and family.

littlecanoe · « **Reply #7 on:** February 08, 2009, 03:37:14 PM »

GaW,

Your points are well taken. As I was reading through your second post I saw a glimpse of what could have been if Davis had been the next US president. I see the appeal of perseverance but still have to ask why these men felt so pushed to secede. We know that they did not make a rash decision. We understand that they travailed over this step. Still, they took that step and committed themselves to strong action. We can't look back and say that they should have or could have because they were the ones that were faced with those choices.

I agree that had Davis been US pres things would have been different. I believe that our nation would have entered an era of strengthening that would have been unprecedented as the constitution would have been honored and defended. We are left with the slow decline of freedom since that time.

Quote

But think for just a moment; our whole system of government was/is set up to work by compromise. Lincoln won the Presidency with only 37 % of the total vote, the Democrates played into his hand by splitting up their forces.

I know that this is true but I'm so black and white on issues that compromise is difficult. I believe that there is only one right. Unfortunately, mortals are making the decisions.

Does Davis ever look back and express thoughts on staying?

SBG, your next to the last post is a good synopsis. Those points are raised but are overshadowed by what the Union Armies did.

ironfoot · « **Reply #8 on:** February 08, 2009, 04:22:41 PM »

The South seceded in an attempt to preserve and expand slavery. The South claimed it was a cause to preserve liberty. What a crock.

Ga.windbreak · « **Reply #9 on:** February 08, 2009, 06:17:38 PM »

Quote from: ironfoot on February 08, 2009, 04:22:41 PM

The South seceded in an attempt to preserve and expand slavery. The South claimed it was a cause to preserve liberty. What a crock.

ironfoot this thread is not about slavery it is about Southern atrocities by southerners while in the north. I would think you, as someone who loves to point out our guilt would supply us with many of those acts if there were any. In point of fact I had you in mind when I started this post yet you again fail me with "Slavery" being your only answer in any post brought up. Frankly, with all due respect, do you have anyother points to add to any post on this forum but slavery? There have been many times I've agreed just to get you to expand on your statements but no you crawl back under the umbrella of slavery and stay there. Why?

I'm not trying to make you mad but I am trying to see if you can talk about anything other than slavery where it concerns this country's history. Can you?

Now please stay on topic. Thanks

Ga.windbreak · « **Reply #10 on:** February 08, 2009, 06:50:10 PM »

Quote from: billy_56081 on February 08, 2009, 09:17:35 AM

War is an atrocity as anyone who has ever been involved in one knows from the experience. There are no civilians in a war, only combatants and their support lines.

In combat many do things that are unthinkable in peaceful times, it is sad that today we are holding our own in prisons for things they do in combat far away from home and family.

Billy you are so right and while saying that let me play devils advocate here and point to our more resent past and the use of the Atom bomb on Japan. From our point of view we had every right to do so, FDR was so sly, but killing 200,000 civilians isn't something to brag about IMHO. And that doesn't take into the account of the fire bombing of Tokyo or the German cities all done in the name of winning a War.

We talk of Sherman but he only opened the door and you must remember he had two men above him who either agreed to it or at the very least looked the other way. There are no clean hands here they are all bloody.

lc that's why I brought up the fact about Davis and others staying and working thru this thing other than going the other way just because things were bad. Remember 4 years is just 4 years. As I said before there is always another road you can take.

No, Jeff Davis, to his credit never looked back and I don't think he should have, I admire him for that trait. Once he made up his mind he was true to his heart and always, to his dying day, knew he was right. He was, you know, secession was/is legal and by the North's lack of action to try President Davis (or anyone else for that matter) for treason proves its truth. The whole Andersonville trial was just a show to get Davis in a court on some other charge other than treason. The North didn't count on the fact that Capt. Wirz was a man of honor who would not sell his life and soul just to live. "There are things that knaw on a man worse than death!" May God rest his soul.

Now is there anyone out there who can give me an atrocity caused by Southerners. Surely we must have burnt a town or two down or raped and killed some northern women and sent them off never to be seen again? NO?

If not, it makes me glad to know that we took the high road.

Please let me make myself clear, secession is legal IMHO and on that point we did no wrong, the Constitution was usurped by Lincoln yet the Union was and is important in and of itself. Slavery was bad, we as southerners can hang our hat on the fact that most weren't mistreated and that the North helped to continue the process and their hands were/are just as dirty, but even one beating was one to many and that had to be stopped.

Contrary to ironfoots belief of slavery; this war was all about money and power and the masses were whipped up by the radicals on both sides when it could have been different IMHO.

My whole point in saying these things is that if we don't admit to the whole truth of what happened from 1860-1880 thus come out on the other side having learned more about not only our history but our Constitution and our liberties, and loss there of, this is only an exercise in futility. The only way we today can change what is happening to us now is by learning from the past what not to do and also know our Constitution so that when a President submits a law that is against the law, The patriot Act comes to mind, we can react as we did against the Bailout. If we don't know the law just how can we ever hope to keep the Federal monster from taking every liberty that we have? So to bring this full circle; ironfoot if we lose those last liberties you will see what real slavery is all about!

Ga.windbreak · « **Reply #11 on:** February 08, 2009, 07:48:07 PM »

Quote from: SouthernByGrace on February 08, 2009, 09:13:43 AM

"Of late there has been a decided shift to everything that the North did that was wrong, was not saving the Union a worthy cause also?"

What kind of "Union" can you have at the point of a bayonet? A Union, by its nature, MUST BE VOLUNTARY !
The Union died when Lincoln ordered the Invasion and the Destruction of the South. His complete hatred and disregard of the Constitution only helped kill it sooner.

As for the "wrongs" done by the South? If somebody comes after me with the sole purpose of destroying me, I'm gonna get back at 'em in any way I can.
There are those that seem to forget that WE WERE invaded. WE were not the aggressors. WE did not commit murder in order to "Save The Confederacy." And NOBODY who didn't want to be a part of the Confederacy was ever kept there by Force!

Didn't mean to get you riled up

but I was asking the question in reference to changing things before they got outa hand. Secession had been talked about and almost acted on before; several times. Yet always before cooler heads stepped up to the plate and saved the day. I don't disagree that we had the right and took it but I'm not really convinced that it was the proper course to have taken. Remember the vote on secession itself, save in just two states was a very close call and up until Lincoln's forced firing on FS only 6 states had left. Virginia's first vote was against if I remember correctly. So my original question about the Union was from the point of view that before the face had been slapped by the glove and the gauntlet thrown down I believe the Union could/should have been saved. If you disagree tell me why?

It can't be about slavery because we both know Lincoln couldn't touch that if we stayed. The tariff was bad but so was the one before that Andy Jackson had us under and SC started it's nullification act and SC was the only one to do so then. So please let me know why, I'm not saying you are wrong I just looking for answers after the fact. Kinda like the mule is already in the corn field; you can't change it but at least you can go catch him and stop any more damage.

Or are you of the opinion that we should secede again?

littlecanoe · « **Reply #12 on:** February 09, 2009, 01:52:41 AM »

GaW,

I'm a bit pessimistic. Your points are very well made and shed a light of truth that we need to "knaw" on. My counter would be simple. Throughout history, have the people ever taken back their liberties without force?

Ga.windbreak · « **Reply #13 on:** February 09, 2009, 08:08:48 AM »

Quote from: littlecanoe on February 09, 2009, 01:52:41 AM

GaW,

I'm a bit pessimistic. Your points are very well made and shed a light of truth that we need to "knaw" on. My counter would be simple. Throughout history, have the people ever taken back their liberties without force?

Good question lc. I would point to both Britain and France, mostly Britain, almost all of their other colonies have been turned over to the locals and are only considered part of the empire but the Queen is only a figure head and has no power and neither does the British Parliment anymore. As for France, WWII was their down fall, after they lost in Indochina they pretty much pulled their horns all the way in. If I'm wrong here please someone step in and correct me. One other thing that I'm sure will surprise you is that we are the only country in the world that fought a war where black slavery was one of the stated causes. The last country to free its slaves was Brazil in 1870 or 80 and without any blood shed.

littlecanoe · « **Reply #14 on:** February 09, 2009, 03:52:36 PM »

Did the new freedom that the French and English accomplished improve their liberty?

Ga.windbreak · « **Reply #15 on:** February 09, 2009, 08:54:06 PM »

Quote from: littlecanoe on February 09, 2009, 03:52:36 PM

Did the new freedom that the French and English accomplished improve their liberty?

Well now, You've stumped me. My guess is that you'll have to ask them. One note on that though; the Ausses have been losing their gun rights (right and left) so in my mind it only goes to show that Jefferson was right. No matter the kind of government when it gets big it takes over. And it really doesn't matter what kind we talk about ALL governments by their very nature want to take over.

I know this is OT but if you'll bare with me: Vietnam is an example of what I'm saying; we look at their form of government and say "No way; no freedom" but it works for them. IMHO we should have NEVER gone over there, as it was a waste of 60,000 American lives and for what, most of those people didn't want or understand our form of government. Remember different doesn't mean less or worse or better; it just means different.

With all due respect we say we are the light of the world, maybe to us it might seem that way, but really we can't keep our own house in order! Everyone here knows thats true; jusy look at the mess we are in right now!

Ok, sorry bout that no more OT for me either.

littlecanoe · « **Reply #16 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:06:32 AM »

We can agree that the Founding fathers had the best idea yet to balance Government and Liberty.

How does the Antebellem South and North compare on freedoms? Is there evidence that Northerners had begun to lose or give up freedoms prior to the conflict?

We may have an example of this idea unfold over the next few years as we watch Iraq. Will the taste of freedom they've had be enough to fight to keep it?

WHERE are the rebel atrocities?

Ga.windbreak · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:34:11 AM »

Quote from: littlecanoe

WHERE are the rebel atrocities?

There you go lc. I guess there were none.

As a side note lc why don't we pick this up in the political forum? If you are willing ( or SBG or any others) I'm going over and start a thread called which is the best form of federal government? I'll see you there.

Gary G · « **Reply #18 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:23:28 PM »

GW, I don't suppose this is entirely off topic, but perhaps you might know a little more about this type thing. My g-uncle told me a story about his grandfather who fought in Va. He was from Chestnut Flat, GA. near Chicamauga. The story goes that while He and his brothers were off at war some men (he called them cut-throats) came and robbed their parents house. Only some women were at home. He said that these were ruthless men who did not go to the war. I have wondered if the home guard did some of this? Anyway, the story is about how my gg-grandfather, after returning from the war, was able to get the things back that were stolen. Was this common and have you heard the term cut-throat used in conjunction with such men?

Ga.windbreak · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2009, 12:14:46 AM »

Yes I've heard the term (and used that way). I don't believe it was common but there are always people that will take advantage of weaker persons during a time of turmoil. The South wasn't free of that kind of people. As small as those towns were I'm also sure the women knew just who those people were and why your gg-grandfather was able to get the things back. Wouldn't you like to have been able to see their faces when he showed up on their door step!!

crustaceous · « **Reply #20 on:** February 16, 2009, 07:02:50 AM »

I'm sure there were atrocities on both sides but when thinking about the South one comes to mind. Andersonville/ Camp Sumter was an atrocity and the commandant Wirz was the only Confederate hung for war crimes.