User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/29/2001 1:30:01 PM EDT
[#1]
IIRC, the ANV was a volunteer outfit at that time, whereas the Federal armies were drafted. Well over 2 million were drafted into the Federal armies by 1863 (with the attendant draft riots). I believe the South had just started a draft by then. That says a lot about the opinion of the soldiers about their leadership.
Grant was considered a butcher because he knew he could win by the weight of numbers. And he applied that principle to slowly grind the South to pieces. Most of the Union generals prior to Grant were unwilling to engage the South in such a fashion. It is a testimony to the will of the South and the skill of generals like Lee to last for 4 years when faced with an enemy with 4 times the numbers of troops and overwhelming superiority in cannon and other war materiel. In Shelby Foote's 3 volume book 'The Civil War', he explained that many slaves were willing to fight because the Union troops would plunder, rape, and burn the slave families and homes before going after the main residence. Wouldn't you fight for your home and family, no matter how meager the existence? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2001 2:04:47 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: IIRC, the ANV was a volunteer outfit at that time, whereas the Federal armies were drafted. Well over 2 million were drafted into the Federal armies by 1863 (with the attendant draft riots). I believe the South had just started a draft by then. That says a lot about the opinion of the soldiers about their leadership. Actually, the Confederacy instituted the first centrally administered conscription in April 1862, ahead of the Federals, who began their draft in July, 1862 (Hummel, p. 250-251) Grant was considered a butcher because he knew he could win by the weight of numbers. And he applied that principle to slowly grind the South to pieces. Most of the Union generals prior to Grant were unwilling to engage the South in such a fashion. It is a testimony to the will of the South and the skill of generals like Lee to last for 4 years when faced with an enemy with 4 times the numbers of troops and overwhelming superiority in cannon and other war materiel. If you read my posts above, you will discover sourced figures which should help dispel the Grant-as-butcher myth/slander. I'll expand if you wish. In Shelby Foote's 3 volume book 'The Civil War', he explained that many slaves were willing to fight because the Union troops would plunder, rape, and burn the slave families and homes before going after the main residence. Wouldn't you fight for your home and family, no matter how meager the existence? I suppose I would, especially given the fact that my home and family were effectively being held hostage for my good conduct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2001 4:53:35 PM EDT
[#3]
Thanks, [b]raf[/b] for the head's up on this thread being btt'd, but I still haven't seen a dang thing that would make me change my mind about Marse Robert.
Sorry! Maybe we should next discuss the North's inhumane treatment of captured Southerners and the fact that the topic is seldom if ever given a proper discussion. Eric The(ToMeItJustUnderscoresThe'Butcher'MentalityOfSome!)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2001 6:09:47 PM EDT
[#4]
Glad to. According to Hummel, p. 280, "Overall, 12% of 215,000 Southerners died while imprisoned in the North, which is only marginally beter than the CONSERVATIVE estimate of 16 per cent deaths among 195,000 Northern prisoners in the South". (emphasis mine)
Given the appalling state of the Medical art at the time, the dismal sanitation standards common to both sides, and the much harsher Northern climate, the North still managed to do better than the South in this area. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2001 6:27:58 PM EDT
[#5]
Sorry, [b]raf[/b], but Hummel's still an idiot on this one!
"There is no purpose in this history to recount the cruelties practiced during the great struggle of the South for independence, and hence no account will be given of the atrocities at Camp Douglas, Rock Island, Elmira, Point Lookout or anywhere perpetrated by Federal subordinates in charge of Confederate prisoners. There were sufferings in all prisons and brutalities perpetrated in this as in other wars, but the proofs furnished by the evidence of General Butler, by the orders of Federal military officers, by the orders and communications of General Grant, and by the reports of Secretary Stanton, all of which are of record, fix the responsibility of this uncivilized mode of war upon the Federal administration. [b]Secretary Stanton's report of July 19, 1866, shows that 26,246 Confederate soldiers died in Northern prisons, and 25,576 Union soldiers died in Southern prisons[/b]. [u]Twelve per cent[/u] of the Confederate prisoners who fell into Northern captivity died notwithstanding all the facilities for receiving food, clothing, medicines and healthful conditions which the United States unquestionably possessed, while in the absence of these requisites on the part of the Confederacy the astonishing fact appears that [u]less than nine per cent[/u] of the Union soldiers in Southern hands died in prisons. It is indisputably established that the Confederate authorities constantly pressed exchanges on equal terms, that they acceded to terms that were unequal for the sake of exchange, that they proposed many measures of relief which. were denied, that at length the most pitiable and unusual of all spectacles occurred when a deputation of Union soldiers appeared in Washington, sent by Mr. Davis to plead for release by fair exchange, and to plead in vain." Source: The Confederate Military History, Volume I, Chapter XX That's the facts, Jack, and it is incredible that with the North's overwhelming food supplies and medical services that the Southerners should have died at such a rate is unpardonable! The South was in ruins and the North untouched by the War, yet the Southerners shared what little they had with their unfortunate fellow former countrymen. And it was a calculated move on the part of the Northerners to have it this way! Eric The(NoWonderMyGreatGrandmotherFeltTheWaySheDid!)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2001 6:48:11 PM EDT
[#6]
LOL, Eric. First you criticize my ostensibly impartial and unbiased source (who is quite antipathetic to the Union's war aims, BTW) and then cite the CONFEDERATE War History!
As to the non-exchange of prisoners, wasn't that. at least in part, caused by the South's refusal to exchange Negro Union Soldiers, and the threat to execute their officers for participating in "servile insurrection"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2001 7:31:01 PM EDT
[#7]
Post from raf -
...and then cite the CONFEDERATE War History! Which cites the Union's own Secretary of War's report on prisoner deaths! That report might be the only thing Stanton ever said that I'd believe! [:D] And the South would have refused to exchange only blacks who were escaped slaves. That, I would think, is entirely understandable from their viewpoint. But are you certain that the Southerners died in such great numbers up North simply because of the harsh winters? Have you ever been in Central Georgia during the Winter? How come Gen. Sherman didn't take a detour on his dispicable Georgia Tour '64, to help out his comrades in Andersonville? A cynic would say that it was better to let the South suffer the costs of keeping these men alive. But [u]only[/u] a cynic, mind you. Eric The(AndYetTheyHangedPoorOldMajorHenryWirz!)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2001 7:47:30 PM EDT
[#8]
[b]raf[/b], here's one more unbelievably biased report from a CSA website on the Andersonville situation - [url]http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/andersonville.htm[/url]
Let me know what you think about it! Eric The(IReallyAmInterested,I'llTellYouWhyLater)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2001 7:52:13 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Post from raf - ...and then cite the CONFEDERATE War History! Which cites the Union's own Secretary of War's report on prisoner deaths! That report might be the only thing Stanton ever said that I'd believe! [:D] So, the ONE THING he says that supports your allegation is the ONE THING you choose to believe? Hmmmmm. That's very convenient. And the South would have refused to exchange only blacks who were escaped slaves. That, I would think, is entirely understandable from their viewpoint. Understandable only if one approves of slavery. But are you certain that the Southerners died in such great numbers up North simply because of the harsh winters? Have you ever been in Central Georgia during the Winter? I did not say "simply because of the Harsh winters" only. As I stated, there were other factors. Please carefully re-read my post. How come Gen. Sherman didn't take a detour on his dispicable Georgia Tour '64, to help out his comrades in Andersonville? Well, there was this little matter of an opposing enemy army that Sherman had to contend with first. A cynic would say that it was better to let the South suffer the costs of keeping these men alive. But [u]only[/u] a cynic, mind you. What "costs" did the South incur? Above you stated that the South had little to share with these starving prisoners. Since there was little shared, there was little cost to the South. Eric The(AndYetTheyHangedPoorOldMajorHenryWirz!)Hun[>]:)] Yes, just like we hanged the men who ran the prison camps in the Third Reich, and the Japanese officers who conducted the Bataan Death March. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2001 7:57:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: [b]raf[/b], here's one more unbelievably biased report from a CSA website on the Andersonville situation - [url]http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/andersonville.htm[/url] Let me know what you think about it! Eric The(IReallyAmInterested,I'llTellYouWhyLater)Hun[>]:)] I will tomorrow, Eric. I'm off to sleep now. Good-Night. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2001 8:42:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Post from raf -
So, the ONE THING he says that supports your allegation is the ONE THING you choose to believe? Hmmmmm. That's very convenient. No, that's very understandable. Understandable only if one approves of slavery. That's what the phrase 'their viewpoint' means! Besides, very, very few captured blacks were ever sent to prison camps, they were either returned to their former owners, or used in defense works, etc. I did not say "simply because of the Harsh winters" only. As I stated, there were other factors. Please carefully re-read my post. Yes, the other two factors were 'the appalling state of the Medical art at the time' and 'the dismal sanitation standards common to both sides.' I would guess that the North was quite a bit ahead of the South in both these areas. So why the disparity in the numbers? Well, there was this little matter of an opposing enemy army that Sherman had to contend with first. And what army would that have been, praytell? If your referring to Hood's, it was relegated to playing a hit and run delaying tactic sort of fight. Are you seriously saying that Sherman could not have gone anywhere he wished in Georgia at this time? Being the cynic that I am, I believe that Sherman simply was more desirous of going through the most wealthiest part of the State, and leaving those poor souls in Andersonville at the mercy of that monster Wirz! You know, the guy you likened to the Nazis and to the Japanese hoodlums! And yet we have considerable documentary evidence, that Wirz' attorney was not permitted to present at his courtmartial, that Wirz was constantly begging for more attention to be given his prisoners by Richmond! Wirz even sent a group of 5 Yankee prisoners to Washington with a petition signed by almost every prisoner in Andersonville requesting that the prisoner exchange program, agreed upon early in the War, be honored by President Lincoln. Ah, but to no avail. What "costs" did the South incur? Above you stated that the South had little to share with these starving prisoners. Since there was little shared, there was little cost to the South. What kinda crap is that? Well, it might not have been much 'costs' for the Federals, but the South [u]was[/u] sharing its meagre food and medicine with its prisoners. The amount of food given to the prisoners at Andersonville was but a little less than the Southern soldier received at this time. Can you say [b]that[/b] about the North? Hmmmm? Yes, just like we hanged the men who ran the prison camps in the Third Reich, and the Japanese officers who conducted the Bataan Death March. In all my born days, and througout my entire study of the War Between The States, you are the very first person I have ever heard that compared the situation at Andersonville with the Nazi death camps, or the 'Bataan Death March.' You're not noted for your subtlety, now, are you? So the Southerners were just a wee bit better than the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese, eh? Then what do you say about the Northern 'death camps' - who should have been hung there? Cause only a fiend from hell would deny starving men adequate food when it was so readily available! And you Yankees wonder why we Rebs are so mad after all these years! Eric The(Unbelievable!)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 5:02:48 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Post from raf - So, the ONE THING he says that supports your allegation is the ONE THING you choose to believe? Hmmmmm. That's very convenient. No, that's very understandable. Well, I take my facts as they are, I don't pick and choose to suit the moment. YMMV. Understandable only if one approves of slavery. That's what the phrase 'their viewpoint' means! Besides, very, very few captured blacks were ever sent to prison camps, they were either returned to their former owners, or used in defense works, etc. You ignore the threat to execute their white officers. Also, this statement would seem to excuse the enslavement of not only former slaves, but free blacks as well. I did not say "simply because of the Harsh winters" only. As I stated, there were other factors. Please carefully re-read my post. Yes, the other two factors were 'the appalling state of the Medical art at the time' and 'the dismal sanitation standards common to both sides.' I would guess that the North was quite a bit ahead of the South in both these areas. So why the disparity in the numbers? Now we come to the crux of the matter. At [url]http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~south1/prisons.htm[/url] I gleaned the following info: The Elmira, NY Union camp was in use for 2 years. It was designed to hold 5,000 prisoners, and held at most 9,400. During its existence, 3,000 prisoners died. Compare that with Andersonville, Ga. It was built to hold 10,000, but 32,000 were crammed in. During its ONE year of use, 12,919 prisoners died. That is an annual inmate death rate EIGHT TIMES GREATER than that of the worst Union prison camp. And you are trying to equate the two? IMHO, the causes of deaths at the camps were, in descending order, Poor sanitation and disease caused by overcrowding, lack of adequate medical treatment, and poor diet. There is no evidence that Union medical personnel were any more knowledgeable than their Rebel counterparts. May I remind you that among field armies, non-battle deaths were usually considerably greater than battle deaths over a given period of time? Well, there was this little matter of an opposing enemy army that Sherman had to contend with first. And what army would that have been, praytell? If your referring to Hood's, it was relegated to playing a hit and run delaying tactic sort of fight. Hood's questionable generalship aside, yes, that's the one. Actually, the numbers were 100,000 Union and 64,000 Confederate. As the Confederates were defending, this was actually a favorable ratio for the Confederates, a 3-1 advantage for the attacker being considered required to assure success. Are you seriously saying that Sherman could not have gone anywhere he wished in Georgia at this time? Sherman went precisely where military necessity and his orders told him to go: to Atlanta, and thus back into communication and supply via the Union Navy. CONTINUED |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 5:11:33 AM EDT
[#13]
Ah, but [b]raf[/b], Hood was defending what? He would have to know Sherman's intentions and then go build a defensive position in front of his line of march. Not very simple in those days, at least for Hood's rag-tag army.
So Sherman could go wheresoever he desired, he could have wound up in Mobile or Pensacola, if he so desired. And carrying with his army the 33,000 poor souls from Andersonville! Eric The(HeHadOrders?FromLincoln?Hmmmm)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 5:14:46 AM EDT
[#14]
Part of Sherman's job was to keep Hood from reinforcing Lee, thus the cat-and-mouse game.
Now if you'let me finish my response to your previous message, PUHLEEZ! [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 5:45:06 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Being the cynic that I am, I believe that Sherman simply was more desirous of going through the most wealthiest part of the State, and leaving those poor souls in Andersonville at the mercy of that monster Wirz! You know, the guy you likened to the Nazis and to the Japanese hoodlums! No, I merely said that they were all hanged alike. Please refrain from unwarranted inferences. And yet we have considerable documentary evidence, that Wirz' attorney was not permitted to present at his courtmartial, that Wirz was constantly begging for more attention to be given his prisoners by Richmond! No doubt Wirz was tried at least in part, because his deceased superior, who openly boasted about how many men his camps were killing, was unavailable. Yet Wirz, after his unsuccessful attempt at succoring his charges, had but two honorable alternatives: Asking for relief, or resignation. He did neither, and is thus complicit. Wirz even sent a group of 5 Yankee prisoners to Washington with a petition signed by almost every prisoner in Andersonville requesting that the prisoner exchange program, agreed upon early in the War, be honored by President Lincoln. Ah, but to no avail. If the South had not still been intransigent on the issue of exchange of Negro Union Soldiers, the exchanges would have been ongoing, and this whole problem avoided. Clearly, to a fair observer, the South was in the wrong on this issue, and bears the ultimate blame for all the consequences, camps included. What "costs" did the South incur? Above you stated that the South had little to share with these starving prisoners. Since there was little shared, there was little cost to the South. What kinda crap is that? Well, it might not have been much 'costs' for the Federals, but the South [u]was[/u] sharing its meagre food and medicine with its prisoners. The amount of food given to the prisoners at Andersonville was but a little less than the Southern soldier received at this time. Can you say [b]that[/b] about the North? Hmmmm? Please provide me with evidence from an impartial source that shows that the North purposely and systematically starved its Confederate prisoners. Yes, just like we hanged the men who ran the prison camps in the Third Reich, and the Japanese officers who conducted the Bataan Death March. In all my born days, and througout my entire study of the War Between The States, you are the very first person I have ever heard that compared the situation at Andersonville with the Nazi death camps, or the 'Bataan Death March.' You're not noted for your subtlety, now, are you? Actually, Ken Burns, as quoted in YOUR CITATION, beat me to it by a long shot. [;)] So the Southerners were just a wee bit better than the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese, eh? I'm re-evaluating. Prior to this thread, I did not equate the Axis powers and the Confederacy. I'm seeing now that both parties not only brutalized their prisoners, but also practiced slavery as well. While there are still differences between the two, the moral gap has narrowed in my eyes, at least. CONTINUED |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 5:53:59 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Then what do you say about the Northern 'death camps' - who should have been hung there? Cause only a fiend from hell would deny starving men adequate food when it was so readily available! Please see my request above for evidence to support your allegation. The worst Union camp, Elmira, had an annual prisoner death rate less than ONE EIGHTH that of Andersonville. No doubt the prisoners at Andersonville would have leaped at the chance to be similarly "mistreated". And you Yankees wonder why we Rebs are so mad after all these years! Eric The(Unbelievable!)Hun[>]:)] Careful, there, Eric! The above sounds analogous to the Colin Ferguson "Black Rage" defense. And we all know how far that defense got him! [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 6:49:24 AM EDT
[#17]
Post from raf -
Part of Sherman's job was to keep Hood from reinforcing Lee, thus the cat-and-mouse game. Far be it from me to question Sherman's tactics, but I would think a swing South after Atlanta would have kept Hood and his weakened army even [b]further[/b] away from Virginia and Lee's armies. Or is my geography [u]that[/u] messed up? Eric The(ShermanWasSatanIncarnateIMHO)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 6:53:11 AM EDT
[#18]
No, at that point in time, after re-supply, reinforcement, and shipping out his casualties, Sherman was needed to help break the Siege of Petersburg. A turn south might have well extended the war and its attendant bloodshed.
By that time, Hood's army was no longer in a position to help Lee, as it was exhausted, and because Sherman adroitly interposed his own army between the remnants of Hood's army and Lee. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 6:57:41 AM EDT
[#19]
Post from raf -
No, I merely said that they were all hanged alike. Please refrain from unwarranted inferences. No sir, no sir! You'll not get away with that little pirouette! When you say 'just like' in connection with Major Henry Wirz and the Nazis and the Japanese Imperial army and the way they ran their 'death camps' you have equated the two! Words have meanings my friend, and as well versed as you appear to be in Civil War history, you are well aware of the significance of what you are saying! Eric The(MightilyPissed)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 7:08:44 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Eric The(AndYetTheyHangedPoorOldMajorHenryWirz!)Hun[>]:)] Yes, just like we hanged the men who ran the prison camps in the Third Reich, and the Japanese officers who conducted the Bataan Death March. Here's my original statement, Eric. I see no equation in my statement between Wirz and the Axis, other than the penalties suffered by the individuals mentioned. For the record, I do not equate the conduct of Wirz with the conduct of the Nazis who ran the concentration camps, or the Japanese who conducted the Death March. Simply the penalty suffered. I apologize if I offended your sensibilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 7:28:31 AM EDT
[#21]
yo My-pet-fish-Eric OT
We shoudl get together sometime and discuss my time in the 14th Louisiana.......I love the smell of cannons in the morning.... also I will find a story that has Edgar A. Poe as a Southron General....woohoo |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 9:14:20 AM EDT
[#22]
Post from raf -
For the record, I do not equate the conduct of Wirz with the conduct of the Nazis who ran the concentration camps, or the Japanese who conducted the Death March. Simply the penalty suffered. Thank you Sir. I suffer from the occasional bout of insufferableness. So pardon my regrettable anger over my misinterpretation of your remarks. I, as a good Southern Gentleman (so I've been led to believe), will now edit my remarks to erase all memory of the unfortunate misunderstanding. Eric The(YourOb'tServant)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 9:27:25 AM EDT
[#23]
Post from raf -
You ignore the threat to execute their white officers. Also, this statement would seem to excuse the enslavement of not only former slaves, but free blacks as well. Well, tell me were any such officers executed? How many times did Lincoln threaten to have captured soldiers shot as reprisals? How many times did Jefferson Davis? See what I mean? There was never the same issue with free blacks being sent back to their previous owners, but there was simply no claim made until after the war that the South's refusal to exchange black prisoners for white prisoners influenced the North's decision to forego the exchange agreement! You did read the article I cited didn't you? It included writings by a Yankee prisoner from Andersonville after all! Eric The(TheNorthRealizedThatTheyWouldLoseTheWarIfTheyContinuedThePrisonerExchange-ItWasABrutallyColdDecisionOnTheirPart,NotOurs)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 10:45:39 AM EDT
[#24]
It's very interersting to see how this thread has evolved. It starts as a debate about Lee's competence. Commpetent or not - he was always a positive rallying influence for the South. Then the dabate turns into a discussion of moral issues -slavery and treatment of POWs, etc. Funny thing - with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, slavery would have likely been rendered obsolete within a generation of that war.
What has not been made clear is that all sides really lost as a result of the Civil War. The loss the South endured was rather obvious, as the devastation of the land and the "Reconstruction" was excessively harsh. The Federal government used the Constitution as tiolet paper and consolidated power for itself, a process that continues to this day. Bear in mind that the Federal government had no legal authority to invade the South, whereas the states had the right to secede under the 10th Amendment. I guess Lincoln didn't want the breakup of the Union to be a part of his legacy - typical liberal. Regardless, the end result is that state and individual rights was and are forever diminished - trampled under Federal brogans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 11:12:21 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Post from raf - For the record, I do not equate the conduct of Wirz with the conduct of the Nazis who ran the concentration camps, or the Japanese who conducted the Death March. Simply the penalty suffered. Thank you Sir. I suffer from the occasional bout of insufferableness. So pardon my regrettable anger over my misinterpretation of your remarks. Such a misunderstanding could happen to any one of us. It is past, let us speak of it no more. I, as a good Southern Gentleman (so I've been led to believe), will now edit my remarks to erase all memory of the unfortunate misunderstanding. Eric The(YourOb'tServant)Hun[>]:)] And I thank you for the consideration. And now back to the discussion... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 11:20:37 AM EDT
[#26]
[b]raf[/b] Here's a little reasoning behind the decision by the North not to continue the prisoner exchange cartel -
"On 10 August [1864], the Confederate government offered to exchange officer for officer and man for man, accompanying the proposal with a statement on conditions at Andersonville. This offer induced General Grant to reveal his real reason for refusing any further exchanges. 'Every man we hold, when released on parole or otherwise,' Grant reported to Washington, 'becomes an active soldier against us at once either directly or indirectly. If we commence a system of exchange which liberates all prisoners taken, we will have to fight on until the whole South is exterminated. If we hold those caught they amount to no more than dead men. At this particular time to release all rebel prisoners North would insure Sherman's defeat and would compromise our safety here.'" (Rhodes, pp499-500) Also - "The best known of all the Civil War camps today is Andersonville. Officially designated Camp Sumter, the prison stockade was located in south-central Georgia, about 20 miles from Plains. More than 45 000 Union soldiers were confined there between February 1864, when the first prisoners arrived, and April 1865, when it was captured. Of these, 12 912 died, about [b]28 percent of the total[/b], and were buried on the camp grounds, now a National Cemetery." (Baker, p10) Now, let's see your figures for Elmira were 9,400 Southern prisoners of whom 3,000 died. Hmmm. I may have attended the 'Jethro Bodine School of Ciphering', but it appears that the death rate for Elmira was just a shade under [b]32% mortality rate[/b]. Since it is not apparent when these prisoners died in either camp, 'annual' rates are inconsequential! So, tell me, was the camp commandant at Elmira hung [u]before[/u] or [u]after[/u] hapless Major Wirz? Eric The(OrWasHe,AsIsMoreLikely,GivenTheCongressionalMedalOfHonorAndSomeSeriousPromotions?)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 11:26:57 AM EDT
[#27]
Post from raf -
I'm re-evaluating. Prior to this thread, I did not equate the Axis powers and the Confederacy. I'm seeing now that both parties not only brutalized their prisoners, but also practiced slavery as well. While there are still differences between the two, the moral gap has narrowed in my eyes, at least. Uh-oh! Are we backsliding again, dear friend, into some sort of 'moral equivalency' routine of equating the South with the Nazis, et al.! Whoa, stop again, before you tell me that the 'moral gap has narrowed' in your eyes! Eric The(The'Narrowing'MayAllBeInYourMind,Hehe)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 11:28:18 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Post from raf - You ignore the threat to execute their white officers. Also, this statement would seem to excuse the enslavement of not only former slaves, but free blacks as well. Well, tell me were any such officers executed? How many times did Lincoln threaten to have captured soldiers shot as reprisals? How many times did Jefferson Davis? See what I mean? Credible threats all. Any one of which could have been carried out at the stroke of a pen. There was never the same issue with free blacks being sent back to their previous owners, but there was simply no claim made until after the war that the South's refusal to exchange black prisoners for white prisoners influenced the North's decision to forego the exchange agreement! IIRC, the non-exchange of Negro Union Soldiers WAS raised at the time, along with other reasons which I have not cited, as the non-exchange issue by itself is sufficient for my purposes. You did read the article I cited didn't you? It included writings by a Yankee prisoner from Andersonville after all! Yes, I did, hence the above observation concerning Ken Burns. Interesting that out of over 30,000 prisoners, ONLY ONE sought fit to write an apologia for the camp authorities. I would hope that if you or I were known by over 30,000 people for a year we could expect a somewhat larger number of people speaking up on our behalf. Eric The(TheNorthRealizedThatTheyWouldLoseTheWarIfTheyContinuedThePrisonerExchange-ItWasABrutallyColdDecisionOnTheirPart,NotOurs)Hun[>]:)] "War is all Hell. You cannot refine it" Gen. W.T. Sherman, USA. I do not accept your allegation that the Union was solely responsible for the non-exchange of prisoners, for the reasons stated above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 11:34:35 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: It's very interersting to see how this thread has evolved. It starts as a debate about Lee's competence. Commpetent or not - he was always a positive rallying influence for the South. Then the dabate turns into a discussion of moral issues -slavery and treatment of POWs, etc. Funny thing - with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, slavery would have likely been rendered obsolete within a generation of that war. What has not been made clear is that all sides really lost as a result of the Civil War. The loss the South endured was rather obvious, as the devastation of the land and the "Reconstruction" was excessively harsh. The Federal government used the Constitution as tiolet paper and consolidated power for itself, a process that continues to this day. Bear in mind that the Federal government had no legal authority to invade the South, whereas the states had the right to secede under the 10th Amendment. I guess Lincoln didn't want the breakup of the Union to be a part of his legacy - typical liberal. Regardless, the end result is that state and individual rights was and are forever diminished - trampled under Federal brogans. Rich raises a enormously important point here. It is central to understanding the current state of our Nation. Well said, sir. I daresay that the sentiments expressed by rich could be echoed by many of us, myself included. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 11:36:01 AM EDT
[#30]
Post from RichinCM -
Regardless, the end result is that state and individual rights was and are forever diminished - trampled under Federal brogans. Tell me, RichinCM, if this unfortunate war were to break out all over again, would you fight for Uncle Sam in DC, or Cousin Jeff in Richmond? One of the characters in the recent film 'Ride With the Devil' said in responding to the question of which side would win the war, that the Yankees would win! 'Why', he was asked? 'Because they won't quit fighting until everybody thinks the way they do' was his reply! Eric The(NoDoubtHere-'I'llTakeMyStandInDixie')Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 11:50:56 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Post from raf - I'm re-evaluating. Prior to this thread, I did not equate the Axis powers and the Confederacy. I'm seeing now that both parties not only brutalized their prisoners, but also practiced slavery as well. While there are still differences between the two, the moral gap has narrowed in my eyes, at least. Uh-oh! Are we backsliding again, dear friend, into some sort of 'moral equivalency' routine of equating the South with the Nazis, et al.! Whoa, stop again, before you tell me that the 'moral gap has narrowed' in your eyes! Eric The(The'Narrowing'MayAllBeInYourMind,Hehe)Hun[>]:)] As noted in my above post, there are clear differences between the Confederacy and the Nazis, et al. Pointing out certain similarities does not equate the various groups. The "narrowing of your mind" comment in your sig line is, frankly, beneath you, and offensive. As for your next-to-last post, I am sorry that our sourced figures do not agree. I do not see how, at this writing, to resolve that particular dispute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 11:53:30 AM EDT
[#32]
Just as I thought [b]raf[/b], check this out!
"The prisoners received the same daily ration as the guards: one and one-fourth pound of corn meal and either one pound of beef or one-third pound of bacon. The meager diet was only occasionally supplemented with beans, rice, peas or molasses. Northern soldiers were unused to this ration. But Southern troopers had fought long and hard on the usual fare of 'hog and hominy.'" from [u]The Civil War Concentration Camps[/u], by Mark Weber, published by [i]Institute for Historical Review[/i]. Eric The(TheseFolksWereAlmost'Nazi'-likeInTheirTreatmentOfPrisoners?)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 12:02:21 PM EDT
[#33]
Sorry, [b]raf[/b], but that 'pointing out certain similarities does not equate the various groups' is a dog that won't hunt! At least not in this part of the country.
In what ways were the Southerners 'similar' to the Nazis? Hmmmmm? That is the reason behind my 'narrowing of the mind' quip, which is quite defensible if you can't support your charge of similarities between, you know, Jeff Davis and Herr Hitler! I would have thought better of you by now, but you may be able to convince me yet that Andersonville was nothing but a foreshadowing of Dachau or Auschwitz! Lord, but you Yankees are, at times,....well, the precise word escapes me.... Eric The(Like,Hell)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 12:08:32 PM EDT
[#34]
And in conclusion to the issue of prisoner death rates, let me use a Yankee's writings to possibly settle the matter -
"The best and most reliable estimate available seems to be the one provided by Adjutant General F.C. Ainsworth in 1903 to the eminent historian James F. Rhodes. The Chief of the Record and Pension Office stated that the best information obtainable from both Union and Confederate records showed that the North held 214 865 Southern soldiers, of whom 25 976 died in captivity, while the South held 193 743 Union men, of whom 30 218 died in captivity. Rhodes concluded that slightly over [b]12[/b] percent of the prisoners held by the Union perished, while [b]15.5[/b] percent died in Southern camps. [u]But Rhodes felt that given the superior hospitals medicines, and abudance of food, mortality in the Northern prisons should have been lower[/u]. "All things considered," Rhodes concluded, "the statistics show no reason why the North should reproach the South. If we add to one side of the account the refusal to exchange the prisoners and the greater resources, and to the other the distress of the Confederacy, the balance struck will not be far from even. Certain it is that no deliberate intention existed either in Richmond or Washington to inflict suffering on captives more than inevitably accompanied their confinement." (Rhodes, p508) Eric The(ThankYouVeryMuch,DriveSafely,AndDon'tForgetToTipYourWaiters)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 1:31:32 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Just as I thought [b]raf[/b], check this out! "The prisoners received the same daily ration as the guards: one and one-fourth pound of corn meal and either one pound of beef or one-third pound of bacon. The meager diet was only occasionally supplemented with beans, rice, peas or molasses. Northern soldiers were unused to this ration. But Southern troopers had fought long and hard on the usual fare of 'hog and hominy.'" from [u]The Civil War Concentration Camps[/u], by Mark Weber, published by [i]Institute for Historical Review[/i]. Eric The(TheseFolksWereAlmost'Nazi'-likeInTheirTreatmentOfPrisoners?)Hun[>]:)] As I stated above, the primary cause of death in the camps was overcrowding, disease, and poor sanitation, the worst example of which was undoubtedly Andersonville. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 1:50:31 PM EDT
[#36]
Well Eric,
I would daresay that given the political conduct of the war, the South would be the correct side to choose. Most of my research on the Civil War was to understand the political issues. The South permitted free expression and dissent in consideration of their fellow men. The North suppressed dissent among their own, often ruthlessly. Being a man of principle, I would have to fight on the side that respected principle. Besides, my ancestors would spin in their graves if I wore blue... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 1:51:13 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Sorry, [b]raf[/b], but that 'pointing out certain similarities does not equate the various groups' is a dog that won't hunt! At least not in this part of the country. The similarities in question, Slave labor and mistreatment of captives, have been documented by me above. Your refusal to acknowledge these facts alters and diminishes nothing. In what ways were the Southerners 'similar' to the Nazis? Hmmmmm? Specifically, the two reasons cited above. Will you deny that slavery existed in the South and the Third Reich? Were not prisoners mistreated in Grossdeutchland and Andersonville? That is the reason behind my 'narrowing of the mind' quip, which is quite defensible if you can't support your charge of similarities between, you know, Jeff Davis and Herr Hitler! Some similarities come to mind readily, such as egoism, inflexibility, and an ever-increasing tendency towards poor judgement in military and political matters. There may well be more. I would have thought better of you by now, but you may be able to convince me yet that Andersonville was nothing but a foreshadowing of Dachau or Auschwitz! I had not started out to do this, but now that you mention it, the photographs of surviving prisoners do bear an uncanny resemblance. Lord, but you Yankees are, at times,....well, the precise word escapes me.... Eric The(Like,Hell)Hun[>]:)] Perhaps it will come to you while you are training your dog. He needs it, as he seems to not see the obvious. [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 2:09:49 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: And in conclusion to the issue of prisoner death rates, let me use a Yankee's writings to possibly settle the matter - "The best and most reliable estimate available seems to be the one provided by Adjutant General F.C. Ainsworth in 1903 to the eminent historian James F. Rhodes. The Chief of the Record and Pension Office stated that the best information obtainable from both Union and Confederate records showed that the North held 214 865 Southern soldiers, of whom 25 976 died in captivity, while the South held 193 743 Union men, of whom 30 218 died in captivity. Rhodes concluded that slightly over [b]12[/b] percent of the prisoners held by the Union perished, while [b]15.5[/b] percent died in Southern camps. [u]But Rhodes felt that given the superior hospitals medicines, and abudance of food, mortality in the Northern prisons should have been lower[/u]. Hmmm. This first paragraph, which is at least seemingly based on some kind of objective data, would seem to support my original contention, and refute yours, Eric. Thank you. "All things considered," Rhodes concluded, "the statistics show no reason why the North should reproach the South. If we add to one side of the account the refusal to exchange the prisoners and the greater resources, and to the other the distress of the Confederacy, the balance struck will not be far from even. Certain it is that no deliberate intention existed either in Richmond or Washington to inflict suffering on captives more than inevitably accompanied their confinement." (Rhodes, p508) However, this second paragraph is mere speculation by a man who wasn't there, commenting on events 40 years afterward. Not nearly as solid as the first para, Eric. Eric The(ThankYouVeryMuch,DriveSafely,AndDon'tForgetToTipYourWaiters)Hun[>]:)] No, It is I who should thank you! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 2:12:54 PM EDT
[#39]
I strongly disagree with the camparison of the Rebels to Nazis. The Nazis used the concentration camps to rid themselves of citizens they considered 'inferior' or dangerous to their regime - a deliberate act of genocide. The South merely captured combatants in war and lacked the resources to care for them - negligence at worst. Bseides, the South couldn't help that the Yankees were so willing to surrender....
As noted on the Andersonville National Park website: "The daily ration for the prisoners was the same as for the guards: one and one-fourth pound of corn meal and either one pound of beef or 1/3 pound of bacon. This sparse diet was only occasionally supplemented with beans, peas, rice, or molasses." [url]http://www.cr.nps.gov/seac/andecon.htm[/url] The guards ate the same as the prisoners. There was no deliberate effort to starve prisoners. Many of the emaciated soldiers can be attributed to disease, like dysentery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 2:19:34 PM EDT
[#40]
And now, having replied to your latest post, and with my bedtime approaching, I think it best to end this discussion.
It is apparent that neither of is likely to persuade the other to abandon their original viewpoints, but that at least was never my primary objective. I thank you for a lively and informative discussion, and bid you a good night until anon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2001 4:28:20 PM EDT
[#41]
Post from raf -
And now, having replied to your latest post, and with my bedtime approaching, I think it best to end this discussion. It is apparent that neither of is likely to persuade the other to abandon their original viewpoints, but that at least was never my primary objective. I thank you for a lively and informative discussion, and bid you a good night until anon. And my response to you, dear man, is to go hump yourself! [:D] Eric The(ButIMeanThatInTheMostSincereWay!)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2001 10:28:45 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Post from raf - And now, having replied to your latest post, and with my bedtime approaching, I think it best to end this discussion. It is apparent that neither of is likely to persuade the other to abandon their original viewpoints, but that at least was never my primary objective. I thank you for a lively and informative discussion, and bid you a good night until anon. And my response to you, dear man, is to go hump yourself! [:D] Eric The(ButIMeanThatInTheMostSincereWay!)Hun[>]:)] Yep. Saw this coming awhile back. Still, too bad when things degenerate to this level. Eric, as a Christian, do you think that Jesus would make a comment like yours? Do you think that He would approve of your comment? No reply from you is required, I think we both know the answer. RAF |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2001 1:25:31 PM EDT
[#43]
Post from raf -
Yep. Saw this coming awhile back. Still, too bad when things degenerate to this level. Eric, as a Christian, do you think that Jesus would make a comment like yours? Do you think that He would approve of your comment? No reply from you is required, I think we both know the answer. RAF Yep, I saw it coming too, the first time you made your cockamamie statement, which you then clarified, only to repeat the same crap in an even more insulting tone! I had hoped that it might be different, but my great grandmother warned me about folks like you![:D] Why would you want to involve Jesus in this? I think that (1) Jesus would wait to see if you repented before He took any stronger steps, and (2) He is always faithful to forgive! Eric The(LookToYourOwnSoul,Yank!)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2001 1:37:46 PM EDT
[#44]
Eric, no personal insult intentionally given or intended. However, I stand by my comments as amended. If my comments are unclear in any way, I will be glad to re-phrase.
I mentioned Jesus in order to contrast your behavior to His, knowing that you are a devout Christian. BTW, You continue to ASSume that I am a Yankee, do doubt on account of my State of posting. Need I remind you that many service personnel from all areas of the country have settled in RI, on account of the Navy facilities here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2001 6:00:25 PM EDT
[#45]
Post from raf -
BTW, You continue to ASSume that I am a Yankee, do doubt on account of my State of posting. Need I remind you that many service personnel from all areas of the country have settled in RI, on account of the Navy facilities here? So, let me guess, you're a Southern Boy born and bred, who just happens to be able to use the phrase 'Confederate States of America' and 'Nazi Germany' in the same sentence without the least amount of difficulty? And to state that there are 'similarities' between the two, especially so after looking at the pictures of inmates from Andersonville who look remarkably similar to those from Dachau? If you are Southern, what sort of Southern Heritage did they try to teach you in your school? 'Cause whatever it was, it sure didn't take! Well, I take this subject way too seriously to engage in such a discussion with someone who simply doesn't understand the difference between the South and Nazi Germany. Or finds way too many similarities between the two! That's not just foolishness, that's arrogant, unforgiveable foolishness! Eric The(StillPissedAfterLoTheseManyHours)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2001 10:37:16 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Post from raf - BTW, You continue to ASSume that I am a Yankee, do doubt on account of my State of posting. Need I remind you that many service personnel from all areas of the country have settled in RI, on account of the Navy facilities here? So, let me guess, you're a Southern Boy born and bred, who just happens to be able to use the phrase 'Confederate States of America' and 'Nazi Germany' in the same sentence without the least amount of difficulty? Leaving my origin aside, for it is irrelevant to the discussion, I have no problem using the words CSA, Third Reich and slave labor in the same sentence. And to state that there are 'similarities' between the two, especially so after looking at the pictures of inmates from Andersonville who look remarkably similar to those from Dachau? For the record, I consider the deplorable situation at Anderson to be an exception to the generally correct treatment given Union prisoners by the South. If you are Southern, what sort of Southern Heritage did they try to teach you in your school? 'Cause whatever it was, it sure didn't take! I've been a sceptic since my father showed to me how one of my fourth grade teachers outright lied to me in the fourth grade. I am HIGHLY skeptical of the various "heritage" courses offered, as all I've taken have been brazen attempts at brainwashing. Well, I take this subject way too seriously to engage in such a discussion with someone who simply doesn't understand the difference between the South and Nazi Germany. Or finds way too many similarities between the two! For the record, I consider the institution of slavery to be the only significant similarity between the CSA and the Third Reich. If there are any other similarities, they are coincidental, and pale in comparison. That's not just foolishness, that's arrogant, unforgiveable foolishness! You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Eric The(StillPissedAfterLoTheseManyHours)Hun[>]:)] Let's see if we can lower your blood pressure, Eric. I'll tell you something that may surprise you. I have NO way of proving that I am sincere, so I will ask you to take me at my word. First off, in my layman's opinion, the South, or ANY state for that matter, had/has the perfect right to secede from the Union. Period. If not for the issue of chattel slavery, I believe I would have supported the South in it's struggle. Surprised? If you knew me, you would not be. However, the issue of slavery, to me, trumps all others. That is my opinion, and I will hold it until my death. And so I am torn about the War for Southern Independence. On the one hand, I believe they were legally in the right, and I honor the bravery of the men who fought for the Cause. All that notwithstanding, I cannot, in all good conscience, ignore the (IMHO) over-arching evil of slavery. We could debate whether or not the War Between the States would have started absent the institution of slavery. Both North and South had other grievances, as you and I know. Still, had the South seceded, and slavery not been an issue, the European nations would likely have intervened, and the South succeeded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2001 10:59:40 AM EDT
[#47]
This is the double tragedy of the Civil War, for not only was slavery a cause of the war, but also a cause of the defeat of a noble cause, Southern Independence.
These are things that I have come to believe, and I stand by them. I invite you to examine any and all of my posts in this forum. Nothing I have said above is inconsistent with any of my previous posts in the least. Again I thank you for a valuable learning experience. Sincerely, RAF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2001 12:37:35 PM EDT
[#48]
I guess the fact that I am a blood descendant of Gen. Robert E. Lee that I would be way to biased in this thread. Lets just say I would have LOVED to see Lee working with the likes of Gen. Patton in WWII and Swartzkoff in the gulf.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2001 4:53:21 PM EDT
[#49]
I think he just might have been watching over our boys....just maybe....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2001 7:02:52 AM EDT
[#50]
btt
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
