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.
Hanny, the "Lieber Code" of 1863 was the first written attempt to codify these matters in modern world history.
It replaced thye USA articles of war and hallecks instyruction both of which covered the laws of war.
Quote:
You cannot redefine what has not yet been defined. It predates the Geneva Conventions, for example, and The Hague Convention, and all the others.
Laws to cover everything Liber covered already existed in US articles of war.
geneva convention pre dates the 1863 lieber code, it helps to actual know what yopur posting about sonny.
The
Quote:
whole reason for the "Lieber Code" was that the military wanted guidance on these matters; it was actually requested by the head of the Army at the time.
Mac wrote to Lincoln telling him on what grounds teh war was to be prosecuted, using the existing Aricles of war, Lincoln took note and replaced both in time.
Quote:
Completely wrong.
an yet remain factually correct, yopu only hav eto read MO, Va etc Gov reasons for secesion and the unconstitional acts of teh pres that compel their secesion.
Quote:
I have, by the way, discussed this matter with several West Point graduates (only three of them relatives) at various times over the years. Their opinion is opposed to yours.
So what?, since the hsitorical recrord of those state gov written explantion is all that is required to read, all i can say is either youv fabricated the convversations or they also are unflaliar with US historical texts.
There is no third option.
Quote:
There were certainly men opposed to McClellan and Buell, but they were not relieved for fighting "soft" war.
yet all saft war proponents, were removed.
Quote:
McClellan's relief was primarily caused by McClellan's failure to be a good commander, as well as his obnoxious personal behavior (which many military men would consider insubordination and some might call borderline treason). Buell suffered much the same, but to a lesser degree: while his operations are generally sound, he had no skill at dealing with civilian Volunteers and so failed.
Twice removed, Mac caused the loss of more CS A members that anyone else, since thats what war requires, it makes him a highly sucesful mil commander. Since he advised the AoTP not to commit treason by supporting himn when removed, your again makeing up history that does not fit the evidence.
Quote:
Actually, nowadays it is carefully explained to soldiers in our Army. Then it was more informal -- but in 1860 the laws of war had not yet been codified or made the subject of international agreements, nor had we passed through the Nurnberg trials.
You are, once again, wrong on this. I suggest you refrain from commenting on how US law works until you understand the fundamental relationship of the Constitution to everything that is done by the American government.
No i am correct. You are not at war. In 1863 you were, the pres war powers directed through pres delration have different force of law.
Quote:
Stanton could say a lot of things. Truth is that in the long run all of our government is subject to the Constitution. Getting that done, of course, can require a great deal of turmoil and personal sacrifice.
Fact is Stanton could do, and did do, things not granted in the constition.
Quote:
Since you are setting yourself up as a judge here, what are your qualifications? For myself, I only took one course in US Constitutional Law. Others you have derided here I believe are actually attorneys in the US, and undoubtedly know more than I on the subject -- and probably more than you.
Tim
My ability to judge, is based on what you post. Acurate and means what you claim it to men, acurate but does not mean what you think it means or inacurate and does not mean what you claim it to mean.
thats all the qualification i need, what you post and nwhat i know and can show to be whatever i can show it to be.
__________________ "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
Last edited by ole; 06-13-2008 at 11:19 AM.
Reason: Removed offensive language. ole
Lieber himslef on no pows order, "Troops could refuse to give quarter "only by [order of] the commander in great straits making encumberment by prisoners impossible." This look hole was changed in 1874. You should also note that Liber does not require pow exchange.
This appears to contradict your contention that Article 14 of the Lieber Code gives permission to execute POWs at will. Lieber treated POWs in a different article; Article 14 concerned itself with strategic and tactical objectives.
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
Laws to cover everything Liber covered already existed in US articles of war.
geneva convention pre dates the 1863 lieber code, it helps to actual know what yopur posting about sonny.
The First Geneva Convention ("Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" was adopted in 1864. If I remember right, the signed it on August 22nd. They studied the written "Lieber Code" of 1863 in their deliberations before drafting and signing it. How then can you honestly claim that the Geneva Convention pre-dates the Lieber code of 1863?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanny
My ability to judge, is based on what you post, its either twaddle, acurate and means what you claim it to men, acurate but does not mean what you think it means or inacurate and does not mean what you claim it to mean.
thats all the qualification i need, what you post and nwhat i know and can show to be whatever i can show it to be.
No, Hanny. You have shown often enough that you are wrong on these matters and unwilling to examine your own mistakes objectively. Your first reaction to the slightest difference of opinion is to insult the other side. That makes you a bad choice for a judge. I think you do not even understand the concept of objectivity, but that's merely IMHO.
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.
It replaced thye USA articles of war and hallecks instyruction both of which covered the laws of war. It did not replace them; It was written to clarify them.
Laws to cover everything Liber covered already existed in US articles of war. They existed, but were difficult to interpret and implement.
geneva convention pre dates the 1863 lieber code, it helps to actual know what yopur posting about sonny. Double-check your dates on the real Geneva Convention.
Mac wrote to Lincoln telling him on what grounds teh war was to be prosecuted, using the existing Aricles of war, Lincoln took note and replaced both in time. Again with the replacement? And Mac was replaced one year before the Lieber Code was written at the request of Halleck.
an yet remain factually correct, yopu only hav eto read MO, Va etc Gov reasons for secesion and the unconstitional acts of teh pres that compel their secesion. Saying that Lincoln's call for militia was unconstitutional doesn't make it so. After all, many governors considered secession to be legal.
So what?, since the hsitorical recrord of those state gov written explantion is all that is required to read, all i can say is either youv fabricated the convversations or they also are unflaliar with US historical texts. Never known Trice to fabricate or dissemble. On the other hand ...
yet all saft war proponents, were removed. Seems to be a condemnation of Lincoln. Wars are fought to be won, and the sooner the better.
Twice removed, Mac caused the loss of more CS A members that anyone else, since thats what war requires, it makes him a highly sucesful mil commander. Since he advised the AoTP not to commit treason by supporting himn when removed, your again makeing up history that does not fit the evidence. Mac was not twice removed -- just once. You're probably referring to the time Mac was bottled up on the peninsula and Lincoln ordered some of his army to report to General Pope's army. The advice to the AoTP is evidence of his inflated ego and possibly to what is expected of an officer and a gentleman -- nothing more. And you make up evidence to support your version of history.
The UCMJ was not in place but all the rules required to wage war were already in place.http://www.usregulars.com/Regulations%20Home.html This is a link to the "Revised" UCMJ. As mentioned, the Lieber Code was written to clarify the rules, not to replace them.
No i am correct. You are not at war. In 1863 you were, the pres war powers directed through pres delration have different force of law. General Petraeus will be pleased to hear that.
Fact is Stanton could do, and did do, things not granted in the constition. You might want to provide some examples of the things he did.
My ability to judge, is based on what you post. Acurate and means what you claim it to men, acurate but does not mean what you think it means or inacurate and does not mean what you claim it to mean. Pot calling the kettle black?
thats all the qualification i need, what you post and nwhat i know and can show to be whatever i can show it to be.
Start showing.
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
Mac wrote to Lincoln telling him on what grounds teh war was to be prosecuted, using the existing Aricles of war, Lincoln took note and replaced both in time.
Hanny, McClellan did many things that would get a soldier up on charges if he were not powerfully placed and politically connected.
He treated the President and Secretary of War with great disrespect: that's a sure-fire way to the doghouse, if nothing else. Some would call it insubordination.
He conversed openly with other officers in a way that showed his derision for the Commander-in-Chief. Conduct unbecoming an officer, to say the least. Upsetting to discipline, some might say.
He was a subordinate no commander could want, having things like this to say about Scott in 1861: "Genl Scott is the great obstacle—he will not comprehend the danger & is either a traitor, or an incompetent. I have to fight my way against him." Granted, a private letter to his wife, but is this really how you think a general should talk about his superior?
In August of 1861, his private letters to his wife, and his official coorespondence, give rise to the belief he wished General Pope would be badly beaten by General Lee so that he, McClellan, could once again rise to complete command of the Union forces. There are even passages that indicate he wanted his generals to move slowly to the relief of Pope at 2nd Bull Run. Is that how you think a general should act, hoping for the defeat of his nation's forces? (Granted, again, much of that is from private letters -- but it was McClellan's estate that published them after the war.)
We can go on and on about McClellan; there are lots of sides to that debate. But Lincoln had lots of reasons to remove him, from poor performance to insubordination to simple preference for a different policy. McClellan's letter attempting to dictate policy to his C-inC is merely more of the same.
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.
Thanks you for your lack of reply to my prior post and demonstarting for certain that my centention was correct as to your ability to do so.
I ain't your academic type Ah-merican Civil War student. I'm for killin' 'em all and lettin' God sort 'em out. Lawyers, politicians, bankers and university professors to the front of the line please.
You'd be advised to temper your remarks as well sir. We're gettin' fed up with newcomers and foriegners stickin' there noses in places where they don't belong. Fact is, we got a special line all set up for them and it leads to a long drop on a short rope.
Could be considered over the line Wolf. With a join date in May, you could be considered a newcomer.
And please consider that you are in a minority when you use the sweeping "we."
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
With a join date in May, you could be considered a newcomer.
Hey there ole ....
Quote:
We whos names are hereunto subscribed do swear that we renounce & refuse all Allegiance to George the third King of Great Britain, his heirs & successors & that I will be faithfull & bear True Allegiance to the commonwealth of Virginia as a free & independent state, & that I will not at any time do or cause to be done any matter or thing that will be prejudicial or injurious to the freedom & independence thereof as declared by congress & also that I will discover & make known to some one justice of the peace for the said state all treasons or traitorous conspiracies which I know or hereafter shall know to be formed against this or any of the united states of America
So help me God
Benjamin WHEELER
Cemetery: Stratfield Cem
Location: Stratfield CT 78
Reference: Abstract of Graves of Revolutionary Patriots, Vol.4
That'd be my ggg...Grand Father, sir.
I could be a newcomer, but I'm not.
Last edited by OldGreyWolf; 06-13-2008 at 05:44 PM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
