Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
...
His authority to do this comes from the provisions in lieber, and that comes from a pres order, and overides all Constitional an UScodes of law, mil and civil, and is beyond any censure except POTUS, and thats why it was a very bad piece of law, but a very efective means of winning the war.
Most of what you've been saying here on this topic is reasonable, but this particular sentence is simply wrong. Nothing in the US is above the Constitution. While any US military officer is bound to obey his commander-in-chief, he is also honor-bound to disobey him if he issues an order that, in the officer's opinion, he cannot obey. A President who issues such an order can be over-ridden; he can be brought down and removed from office; he can go to jail or -- in an extremity -- be executed for his crimes.
All that depends, of course, on the honor and integrity of the people in the military, as well as their strength of character and will. I've known some military officers who I would believe would stand up to that test. Not all of them, but definitely some of them.
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Sherman expaining how he operated under Lieber, to his own troops.
"When teh Rebels ventured their all in their efforst to destroy our government, they pledged their lives , their fourtunes and their sacred honour to that cause. The goverment acepted their wager of battle. Hence when we conquuered, we by conmquest, gained all that they had . Their prperty bcomes ours by conquest. Thuis they lost their slaves, their mules,and their horses, their cotton their all., evenm their lives and personalliberty , thrown by them into the issue, where theirs only by our forbearence and and celency. So soldiers,when we marched through and conquered the terr of the rebels, we became the owners of all they had, and i dont wantyou to be troubled in your conssciences for takeing, while on the march, the property of the conquered rebels.They forfieted their right to it, an i being an agent iof the governmnet to which they belonged, gave you full authority to keep all the CMs could take or did not want.
His authority to do this comes from the provisions in lieber, and that comes from a pres order, and overides all Constitional an UScodes of law, mil and civil, and is beyond any censure except POTUS, and thats why it was a very bad piece of law, but a very efective means of winning the war.
I'ba gonna havta disagree with youn'z on dis'n here. Dat jus ain't how tings is done round here. Let me axe you dis one mo question. Is you foe sure you want da gov'ment folks havin' all dat power and authority over you and your's?
Art 14 means that if the mil commander deems mil necissity requires it, a no prisoner order can be issued.
Art. 14. Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war.
Nowhere in here do I see a right to murder prisoners of war.
Now,I do see a sideways result of a no prisoner order, to mean not keeping POW's as they would slow you down, therefor, a no prisoner order would entail a Paroling of prisoners. A group you don't have to carry on a campaign with you using your food, and your troops to keep them out of any further fighting, at least until properly exchanged.
To murder captives?? Art. 14 absolutely does not allow any such thing.
Sherman expaining how he operated under Lieber, to his own troops.
"When teh Rebels ventured their all in their efforst to destroy our government, they pledged their lives , their fourtunes and their sacred honour to that cause. The goverment acepted their wager of battle. Hence when we conquuered, we by conmquest, gained all that they had . Their prperty bcomes ours by conquest. Thuis they lost their slaves, their mules,and their horses, their cotton their all., evenm their lives and personalliberty , thrown by them into the issue, where theirs only by our forbearence and and celency. So soldiers,when we marched through and conquered the terr of the rebels, we became the owners of all they had, and i dont wantyou to be troubled in your conssciences for takeing, while on the march, the property of the conquered rebels.They forfieted their right to it, an i being an agent iof the governmnet to which they belonged, gave you full authority to keep all the CMs could take or did not want.
Is this a specific quote from Sherman, or only Your personal version of what you Think Sherman Might have said to his men. Another thing, when was this Supposed to have been said?? At Atlanta, Before the Atlanta campaign, before or during the *******n Campaign?? Or is that supposed comment a composite from during the War.
Chuck
I would like the source for the Sherman quote as well.
OldGreyWolf, what is the dialect you are attempting? And why?
I would be surprised if there was any official policy saying you could shoot prisoners from a captured fort. If there was, it certainly was never applied very widely. Atrocities in the CW were usually ad hoc crimes committed in the heat of battle, and thankfully, quite rare.
This is talking about combat between armies. Certainly the guerilla war in Missouri and eastern Tennessee was a different story.
Is this a specific quote from Sherman, or only Your personal version of what you Think Sherman Might have said to his men. Another thing, when was this Supposed to have been said?? At Atlanta, Before the Atlanta campaign, before or during the *******n Campaign?? Or is that supposed comment a composite from during the War.
Chuck
This is to be found in Edward A. Pollard's The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates, published in 1868. Pollard was, of course, a pre-war secessionist and Fire-Eater who was an editor for one of the Richmond papers during the war, and the creator of the "Lost Cause" theme after the war. His book is very much slanted towards that goal.
In his book, he says that Sherman said this at a post-war "soldier's festival in the State of Ohio". I see no footnote or citation beyond that.
An 1871 book called History of the Working and Burgher Classes By Adolphe Granier de Cassagnac says the festival was a picnic on August 30, 1865 in Lancaster, Ohio, and references the Washington Chronicle. However, this version shows two more paragraphs in the middle of what Hanny and Pollard quoted, dealing with Ohio being conquered from the Shawnees, the French, and the British.
After that, I have never seen any reference to it. That is often a hallmark of something that turned out to be more rumor and hype than fact: it vanishes because it can't be shown to be true, or it is not really as it is portrayed.
Sherman liked giving bombastic speeches -- but his bark was usually much worse than his bite. For a post-war speech to a bunch of veterans at a picnic, it wouldn't be too surprising to find Sherman actually said something much like this.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Sherman liked giving bombastic speeches -- but his bark was usually much worse than his bite. For a post-war speech to a bunch of veterans at a picnic, it wouldn't be too surprising to find Sherman actually said something much like this.
I wouldn't be surprised either; he was a big talker and overflowing with advice for everyone with whom he was in contact. At least the probable indication points to a bragadocious post-war talk.
Got to admit, though, that I'd not heard of that one.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The last quote in his memoirs that were published as Marching Through Georgia is as follows: [He is writing about his exit from Savannah.]
"On January 19 [1865], I made the first general orders for the move. It was to me manifest that the soldiers and people of the South entertained an undue fear of our Western men, and, like children, they had invented such ghostlike stories of our prowess in Georgia, that they were scared by their own inventions. Still, this was a power, and I intended to utilize it. Having accomplished all that seemed necessary, on the 21st of January, with my entire headquarters, officers, clerks, orderlies, etc., with wagons and horses, I embarked in a steamer for Beaufort, South Carolina."
Sounds like a rather strong and rational constitution to me.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
Sounds like a rather strong and rational constitution to me.
Me too.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Most of what you've been saying here on this topic is reasonable, but this particular sentence is simply wrong. Nothing in the US is above the Constitution. While any US military officer is bound to obey his commander-in-chief, he is also honor-bound to disobey him if he issues an order that, in the officer's opinion, he cannot obey. A President who issues such an order can be over-ridden; he can be brought down and removed from office; he can go to jail or -- in an extremity -- be executed for his crimes.
In the WBTS the pres orders, which is what Lieber is, was beyond the constition, just as the mil could and did kill civilains in collective punishment, under liebver, without fear of punishment from the US courts, as they were operating under a pres order that teh courts had no say in or over. The whole point of Liber wa sto alow that who wopuld prosecute a hard war to do so, and those who woulod not to continue to not do so, this gave the North its Hunter in the Valley, wanton murder and destruction of civilan property beyond the norms of mil need, EWing in Mo, ethnic cleasing, and so on.
Quote:
All that depends, of course, on the honor and integrity of the people in the military, as well as their strength of character and will. I've known some military officers who I would believe would stand up to that test. Not all of them, but definitely some of them.
Thats the other point, Lieber devolved authority downwards to those who were illsuited to be judge and jury, and self regulate themsleves, a recipe for excess.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
