Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's say that we could identify the "true leaders" of an armed rebellion whose actions led to deaths of about 620,000 Americans
That is the problem....identifying the "true leaders." Where does one set the bar regarding leaders which makes one a "true" leader and others not?
Despite being a slave owner, General Robert E. Lee disliked the institution. Lee also believed that secession was a serious mistake. He was torn between his duty to the Federal government, and his duty to his family and neighbors in Virginia. It was a terrible choice to have to make, and Lee ultimately determined that he could never lead an invasion of his home because his primary loyalty was a regional one.
It would be hard to argue that Lee wasn't one of the "true" leaders of the rebellion since he fronted the South's major field army, but what would be gained by executing him after the war? He needed to be punished because he could not bring himself to kill family and friends?
Further, what rank must an officer of the Confederate army have held in order to have been a "true" leader? Generals? Colonels? Captains?
While it is easy to identify Jefferson Davis as a "true" leader of the rebellion, at what point do we cut off the line for serving politicians? Davis and his cabinet? All the governors of the rebellious states? All the governors and all the mayors of towns in the South?
And what about women? Don't you know that many southern women were as enthusiastic about the cause as the men who were leading it? Do we execute the ones who were most public and vocal in their support?
Fortunately there was no revenge bloodletting. Is America worse off for having allowed Davis to live? How would it have been better off had he been executed?
You seem to think southern corruption only started in the last 15 years. It is a long standing tradition that stems back to the Civil War. Southern aristocrats were, and are, the definition of privilege. When you have a group of people that are not subject to the rule of law, you have a serious social problem. For one brief moment we had that cancer on society dead to rights on a capital crime, and let them walk. A few hundred traitors killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, and we let them walk. It would have been a better country if that walk had been at the end of a short rope.
You seem bizarrely fixated on 'Southern corruption', as if it is a uniquely or disproportionately Southern thing. I'll leave you to that notion, save to note that you can't seem to decide why you pine for the Southern leaders to have been shot - because they were politically corrupt, of because they were treasonous.
It appears that you just want a certain end, and are casting about for any excuse convenient to that end. Which really makes it all about you and your wants, and not about prudent American policy in 1865.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell
As for the number of military officers in the south, don't get wrapped up in their phony military structure. Every rich kid with a squad of men got to be a lieutenant. It was a political ploy to generate support for the war, and many of them had the good grace to stand up and catch a bullet, or just **** themselves to death from dysentery. The South was full of colonels who never got closer to battle than a mint julep on the verandah, but were eager to send those stupid kids off to die in an insurrection.
As you've conveniently ignored, the officer corps of the Army of Northern Virginia suffered nearly 10,000 casualties, about a quarter of them deaths. They didn't suffer them drinking mint juleps. And that's just the ones who were wounded (not all that fought) from one army (to the exclusion of the rest of the Confederate Army) and one branch, albeit the largest. Aside from that, the idea that serving in uniform against the United States but not firing a rifle somehow isn't 'taking up arms' leaves me wondering if you actually understand treason, or if you're just disssembling in order to weasel out of your own words, which were: 'every military officer who fought against the Union'
Your words. It's not my fault that you made that statement. I could only respond to what you write, not what you retroactively wish you'd written.
Coming after your false claim that 'only a few dozen' legislators and/or delegates in each state supported secession, you're really not burnishing your credibility at all. Anyway, I'm not surprised you've completely dropped the issue of political leaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell
If you just limit the executions to the actual leaders of the treason, I doubt you would have had to hang more than a few thousand. The Army did shoot or hang a few immediately after the war, but that action ended far too soon, and was limited to disposing of troublesome fanatics.
If we'd just killed a small number of 'troublesome fanatics', then the masses of Southerners would have never formed the KKK, never enacted Jim Crow, never been corrupt again?
And that assertion actually makes sense to you?
Seriously? Or are you still just casting about for any semblance of a reason to support the retribution you wish had happened?
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Let's say that we could identify the "true leaders" of an armed rebellion whose actions led to deaths of about 620,000 Americans...which is, btw, roughly half of all Americans who have ever died in war. You're telling me that they should have suffered no consequences?
In 1865, President Lincoln should have cared about what happens from 1865 going forward. And he did.
You're so wrapped up in consequences. But what does that mean? Have there been any more secessions? If so, I must've missed them. The South was ravaged. Its economy destroyed. It was militarily beaten and subjugated. And yet, somehow, you think that it got off without repercussions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
If you can kill over half a million Americans and receive no consequences, then why do we today put people in prison who kill just one person?
Why stop at half a million? By your logic, if you could kill one Union soldier in the Civil War and not pay a criminal penalty, then how can we imprison anyone who does so today? So we should have strung up every last Private Johnny Reb who felled a Union soldier. And we should have tried all of those who fired their weapons and missed. Or even those who merely served, as they were at least guilty of conspiracy to kill. All one million soldiers who fought for the Confederacy.
Right? After all, how can you imprison someone today for murder or attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder if someone got away with it in 1863? Right?
That's your logic applied.
You remind me of people who are convinced that Nixon should have been drawn and quartered. Or at least imprisoned. And to what end? No practical end, certainly. Just because they dislike Nixon, and it would make them feel better. Hell, I dislike Nixon. But it wouldn't make me feel better. But then, I care about outcomes and what is practical in justice, not in using the justice system to make people feel better.
Happily, it appears that President Lincoln (and President Ford) did as well.
I'm also reminded by this exchange of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Presumably Nelson Mandela was just another fool of a softie, because he supported the commission and its restorative justice, rather than a spate of bloody vengeance upon the architects of Apartheid. Right?
Unfortunately, it is too late to bring the traitors to justice, because they have all been dead for a century or more. America just missed a golden opportunity to lance an abscess that has continued to infect the body of the nation for even longer.
Unfortunately, it is too late to bring the traitors to justice, because they have all been dead for a century or more. America just missed a golden opportunity to lance an abscess that has continued to infect the body of the nation for even longer.
It's not too late to learn from the mistakes of our ancestors. Worshipping our ancestors by memorializing their mistakes is not helpful.
There is no comparison to criminals, unless you are saying prisoners of war are equivalent to Charles Manson types. Leaders guilty of war crimes maybe (the confederate officer that ran the infamous Andersonville was put to death). Stop with the silly comparisons as once again you are trying to fit different concepts to a particular instance that has no match. I discussed that mistake in the consideration of history earlier in the thread. Just stop it.
Lincoln had a choice - seek retribution and let the scares linger, or move on the rebuild the country. He chose to rebuild the country. Once again read these words: "With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds."
No. I said the main leaders. Not everyday POWs. So you stop with the silly comparisons.
And so, in your estimation, the scars just healed up rather quickly? I think not. Are you as concerned with the scars of the slaves?
That is the problem....identifying the "true leaders." Where does one set the bar regarding leaders which makes one a "true" leader and others not?
Despite being a slave owner, General Robert E. Lee disliked the institution. Lee also believed that secession was a serious mistake. He was torn between his duty to the Federal government, and his duty to his family and neighbors in Virginia. It was a terrible choice to have to make, and Lee ultimately determined that he could never lead an invasion of his home because his primary loyalty was a regional one.
It would be hard to argue that Lee wasn't one of the "true" leaders of the rebellion since he fronted the South's major field army, but what would be gained by executing him after the war? He needed to be punished because he could not bring himself to kill family and friends?
Further, what rank must an officer of the Confederate army have held in order to have been a "true" leader? Generals? Colonels? Captains?
While it is easy to identify Jefferson Davis as a "true" leader of the rebellion, at what point do we cut off the line for serving politicians? Davis and his cabinet? All the governors of the rebellious states? All the governors and all the mayors of towns in the South?
And what about women? Don't you know that many southern women were as enthusiastic about the cause as the men who were leading it? Do we execute the ones who were most public and vocal in their support?
Fortunately there was no revenge bloodletting. Is America worse off for having allowed Davis to live? How would it have been better off had he been executed?
I appreciate that you are taking the discussion seriously, and I think you ask a very good question.
It's not an easy answer. Before retiring, I was a school principal. Sometimes I was a leader, meaning that I initiated programs and policies. Other times I was a follower who passed on orders from the Board Of Education and the various superintendents. But here's my question. Just because it is a difficult decision on where to draw the line, is that a reason to not take action? Because to be honest with you, it's my belief that in running a government there are few (if any) easy decisions; but yet we don't give up and do nothing. Life is about making decisions, all the time, every day, and many of those decisions are difficult...but we still make them. Sometimes our decision making process is wise, and sometimes it's not. But the decisions still need to be made.
I've laughed (sometimes out loud) about assertions that have been made in a number of threads that slavery was "winding down" anyway (the evidence does not show that at all). But the other day I got to thinking -- what if Southern states had passed a series of laws to treat slaves more humanely, while not outlawing slavery? It would have been much more difficult for Northerners and even abolitionists to so vehemently criticize the practice of slavery. But did the South take any such actions? Not that I'm aware of. Did they agree that slavery was not practical in the long term? Not that I'm aware of. They wanted it all.
Truly punishing the real leaders is no different, really, than what the Allied Powers tried to do with Nazis after World War II.
Punishing the true leaders didn't have to mean the death penalty. It could have been life in prison or for a substantial period of time.
Robert E. Lee is a problem. I lived most of my adult life in Virginia, and Lee is the one Southern leader I have some admiration for. But, it's also easy to whitewash that Lee was also responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands.
There are no easy answers, and people ought to stop pretending there are.
In 1865, President Lincoln should have cared about what happens from 1865 going forward. And he did.
You're so wrapped up in consequences. But what does that mean? Have there been any more secessions? If so, I must've missed them. The South was ravaged. Its economy destroyed. It was militarily beaten and subjugated. And yet, somehow, you think that it got off without repercussions.
Why stop at half a million? By your logic, if you could kill one Union soldier in the Civil War and not pay a criminal penalty, then how can we imprison anyone who does so today? So we should have strung up every last Private Johnny Reb who felled a Union soldier. And we should have tried all of those who fired their weapons and missed. Or even those who merely served, as they were at least guilty of conspiracy to kill. All one million soldiers who fought for the Confederacy.
Right? After all, how can you imprison someone today for murder or attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder if someone got away with it in 1863? Right?
That's your logic applied.
You remind me of people who are convinced that Nixon should have been drawn and quartered. Or at least imprisoned. And to what end? No practical end, certainly. Just because they dislike Nixon, and it would make them feel better. Hell, I dislike Nixon. But it wouldn't make me feel better. But then, I care about outcomes and what is practical in justice, not in using the justice system to make people feel better.
Happily, it appears that President Lincoln (and President Ford) did as well.
I'm also reminded by this exchange of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Presumably Nelson Mandela was just another fool of a softie, because he supported the commission and its restorative justice, rather than a spate of bloody vengeance upon the architects of Apartheid. Right?
I usually think of you as being a pretty good poster. But not this time.
The South's economy was ravaged, and even by the time I was a kid it had not fully recovered. But the ravaging of that economy was not a punishment inflicted on them by others, it was as a result of their own actions.
No where I have I suggested "stringing up" every Johnny Reb. I have talked about punishment for the "true leaders". I'd appreciate it if you'd be honest in these discussions.
Nixon is irrelevant to this discussion, so I'm not going to comment on that part of your post, other than to say you have no friggin idea what my views are about Nixon.
I'm not versed enough about South African history to discuss that, and it doesn't matter, because this thread is about a totally different aspect of history.
Truly punishing the real leaders is no different, really, than what the Allied Powers tried to do with Nazis after World War II.
Winston Churchill noted that the lesson of Nuremberg was "make sure we win the next war."
Quote:
....what if Southern states had passed a series of laws to treat slaves more humanely, while not outlawing slavery? It would have been much more difficult for Northerners and even abolitionists to so vehemently criticize the practice of slavery. But did the South take any such actions? Not that I'm aware of
I think that the chances for something like the above taking place, evaporated after the 1831 Nat Turner rebellion. That event really put the scare into the slave owners and their response was twofold. First they crafted a series of laws which severely restricted travel by slaves, and they also made teaching a slave to read a crime. The environment was all wrong for proposing more humane laws, only laws which made it impossible for slaves to repeat the rebellion.
The second response was a gradual redefining of the institution as a benevolent and necessary one, a message which was taken up by southern churches and echoed from the pulpits. It was the natural order that the whites must have control over the blacks. Slavery morphed from necessary evil into a positive benefit for those enslaved, lifting them out of their primitive condition and introducing them to Christianity.
Since it was now being marketed this way by its defenders, no new humane laws were required, the slaves were already receiving a benefit just by being slaves.
What does that even mean?
Just like your previous statements "the holocaust was a minor action" do you just post stuff for the sake of controversy?
What part of "treason" do you not understand? You kill traitors, you don't powder their asses.
I don't recall ever posting that the holocaust was a minor action. Either that was someone else setting up a straw man argument, or it was taken way out of context.
In any case, it is too late to execute the ringleaders in the treason because they have all been dead for decades, if not a century. It's just sad that Lincoln was such a wussie. As soon as the conflict was over, he acted to preserve the aristocracy. We're still suffering under the same cronyism today. You notice that in the last recession, Bernie Madoff was the only one who ended up in prison, because he ripped off the privileged class. Many more successful criminals are still pulling down 6-figure and 7-figure paychecks instead of stamping out license plates.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
