How did duty and honor compel us into this awful war?

[OldGreyWolf]

Originally Posted by ole

With a join date in May, you could be considered a newcomer.

This'd be anothern.

Revolutionary War Records VIRGINIA
SECTION II "18" [DOCUMENT No. 44] "18" LIST OF NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS OF THE VIRGINIA LINE ON CONTINENTAL ESTABLISHMENT, WHOSE NAMES APPEAR ON THE ARMY REGISTER AND WHO HAVE NOT RECEIVED BOUNTY LAND, RICHMOND, 1835.

Burgher, Nicholas, Soldier, Inf.

Did anybody say Happy Father's Day!

[ole]

My apologies ole. I think this Internet thingy is for having a little fun. I guess some take it a lot more seriously though.

I'm the first in the line to have fun. We all break each other up with quips now and then. But I don't think you would refer to your wife as "the old bat." That's a light remark, but not to her.

I might have been the only one to object to "newcomers and foreigners," but I doubt it. No telling how many newcomers and foreigners will never again revisit this board. As this board depends on amity and understanding disagreement, it would be nice if we could keep it that way.

And don't apologize to me. Ever.

ole

[ole]

That'd be my ggg...Grand Father, sir.

Obviously, you're not a newcomer. My ggfather came over in 1852. Paternal grandfather in 1905. Dear One's parents came over not much before 1920. So. What and when is the cutoff for not being a newcomer?

ole

[OldGreyWolf]

I don't mean no offense. It being Father's Day Weekend and all, I thought I'd pitch them two old boys up there for you all to chew on a bit. They're mine. For sure!

I reckon these boys wished they'd built a fence to keep the newcomers out.

[ole]

That's the exact poster I was looking for! The Original National Security Force! Thanks for bringing that back up.

ole

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by ole

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

No, art 14 is what the OC usses as his authority to give an order that includes a no pows will be taken, regardless of cirmastances, in 74, this was changed so that circamstances did make a difference.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by ole

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
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.

Lieber repalced the articles of war and were the laws used by the USA from then on, it did not clify, it replaced the rules of war with another set, Congress writes laws, on insurection, but lieber repalces thoise laws, with another intpretation. clerarly this is unconstitional.

Laws to cover everything Liber covered already existed in US articles of war. They existed, but were difficult to interpret and implement.

Then how come the CSA managed to operate them from start to finish?.

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.

Your mistake here is to type in first geneva convention and look at what wikki tells you is its date, the geneva conventions were in place and used before Lieber, but as wikki describes achieved a large ratification at a later date.

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.

Halleck did not request it, Lincoln did, and as i expalined, Lincoln requested Liber write a code of laws to repalce the articles of war.

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.

I expalined that the 6 southern states gov all told POTUS his request to provide militia was ilegal and unconstitional and resulted in them setting up secesion from the Union, ill post the 6 gov statement for you since your unaware of them.

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 ...

then the 6 state gaov who are clear, will provide you with you first evidence of his fabrication etc, and me with another to add to the many others.

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.

Just like pushing peoploe into ovens is the best way to end the problem with what to do with them.

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.

No Lilcolon removed him from command of the AoTP twice.

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.

yes i know, and no liber repalced, not clarified the laws.

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.

You are not at war, with any portion of the Union, nor is any part of it in insurection, and no the pres is not using the war powers act, and Petraeus is not at war either.

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.

You mean like those things statnaton enumuarted gave him more power than did the king of england had in his expalanation of his authoritys?, since he knew waht they were, i knew because i read what he expalined to be be, how come you dont know?. Another example of you asking for that which is common knowedge, like in the sepecificatios of Davis treason trial, and posting comments on it, and being asked to support your posistion, only to have to refuse to do so after posting you will. thats who you are, and untill you do yourself waht you ask from me, i meerly refuse to act in a manner you yourself dont think proper to do.

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?

look, he asked a quation and got the answer, if im not to be the judge of what i find acuarte, based on what is popsted and what my knowedge is, then your wasteing everyones time. The only relavent point is that you and he want others to think as you do, and as Lincoln expalined he was ready to use force to compell others who did not do so.

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.

ole

[Hanny]

examples of Lincoln actions that are in contradiction with the constition, makeing him a criminal and subject to impeachment.
Suspending HC, SC, Marshall, had rulled and Congress had created the law, that only Congress could suspend it, Lincoln simply eded HC and the rule of law.

declaration of a blockade, only congress can do this.
Calling forth the militia to supress insurection, only when directed by the state legilsture that an insurection exists by part of a stste aginst the stste itself, that the entire legal description of what constitutes insurection, in calling upmilitia under the 1795 to support the marshal in circmastnces, the posse comitas prevents using the mil against the civilian population and no marshal was being prevented from doing his duty, unlike the federal marshals trying to enforce SCOTUS in Meryman, who were denied by the mil, and tanney would write "The people of the US are no longer living in a government of laws, but every citizen holds his life liberty and propery at the will and pleasure of the mill officer in whose district he finds may happen to be found." Marshal said the same in Ex parte Bollman and swartwout, and further the 1795 act requires a period of notice to the rioters to disband befopre the militia can be called into service. That Lincoln did which was ilegal and unconstitionla was expalined by 6 state governments who would all then put into motion acts of secesion against the ilegal pres proclamations.
Lincom orderd 5 Man of war on April 27, an act of apropriations that require congresional aproval before the act, on May 3 he called by more state milita, again only congress can do this, he also directed the Dept of the Tresury to pay $2 million to contractor to supply mil equipment, for the increased federal Army he increased by pres order, again both actions are those of congress not POTUS.
Linoln expalined himself to congress "that POTUS had the right to suspend the constition in order to save it".
Sept 61 in Marlyand, "If necesasary all or any part of the legilsture must be arrested", Gn Banks found it military necesasary to comply with Lincolns order and arrest the US Congresional rep H May, and the entire legislature and detain them without trial and time period, on the crime of, maybe they will and maybe they wont pass an ordinace for secession. In Nov the legislative elections were held Gen Banks recieved the followoing order, "arrest and hold in confinement till the election passes all disunionists.", so at that time election day you picked a colored slip to show who you voted for, post war the secret hidden swedish system was adopted, and the first 13000 voters who attempted to vote the wrong way, by holding blue slips, were arrested for ther crime of polluting the ballot box were detained. It would have been more but Banks expalined he ran out of facilitys to hold them, but had detained suffiecent to make the election come as out wanted. Again free elections are about as basic a right as you can get, electing your own represenatives is gaurenteed to the seperate states in the constition, so again, impeachment for treason is the legal answer.
Scotus expalined back to POTUS in EX Parte Milligan
If true, the republican ogevernment is a failure and there is an end to liberty regulated by law. Martial law, established on such a basis, destroys every gaurentee of the constition and effectivly renders the mil indep[endednt of and superior to the civil powers. civillibertys and this kind of martial law cannot endure together, the antogonsim is irroconcialiable and in the conflict, one or the other must perish. Martial rule can never exist where teh courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed excercise of their jurisdiction.
But this was post war, but the point was that in the war, every state in the Unionn was technicly under martial law and subject to Liber code and all that entailled, all the mil usage of liber to inflict marshal law and act undr its own authority to adminster the lieber code, ie execute anyone by mil court or even summary execution in the expectation that the end justified the means and was mil neccissity to win the war and was legal and beyond the courts, even post war they could not change what had happened, and the aurthority behind the pres order haveing ended and reverted to the rule of constitional law.
July 13 1861 Congress enacted a statute "Approving and legalising and makeing valid all acts, proclamations and orders off the president, as if they been done under the express authority and direction of the conghress of the United states. Just as would the German courts make it legal to line up people for genocide after being told what the new law and constition ment, some with more balls than sense refused and went into the camps, in the Us those with balls and sense left the Union that would degenerate into a dictatorship.
As Sc Justice noted, the ojection to this ratification, that it is ex post facto, and therfore unconstitional, and might possible carry weight in atrial of inditement in an criminal court", thats impeachemnet of the president for high crimes and misdomeners he was writing about, but was outvoted by the court stacked with new lincoln appointees, just like the new Gertman courts that enacted the new race laws.
lastly pres order recognised that any state that 10% of the 1860 census took the new loalty oath, would be recognised as the actual satte and empowered to act as that state, or to put it with Liber, any stste can be directed as being in insurection and placed under martial law, its citizens summarily executed, because 10% of it deems the 90% rest to be traitors, just where in the constition does this authority come from to do this?.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by OldGreyWolf

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.

Clearly you are not an academic, nor are you intelegent, which kinda makes your post about what this boards is for contradictory. Nice to note you carefree murdering attitide, year zero or the Nazi policy to Poland means nothing to you right?.

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.

Threats of violence to board members, i request this poster be banned for doing what is clearly a threat to use voilence, how he intends to inforce it is another matter, but is another indicator of his level of IQ, and again an inability to counter any point put, and consider uS history to belomng only to the US, which would be ok, but in general, you cant be trusted with teh littel history you do have. How amany of you knew befopre reading this that Trenton and washingtons orders regarding the takeing of and treatment of pows is the first codiefied US regs on pows?, thats why i get a hard time here, because few of you know your own history.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by trice

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

Your anti Mac, and distort his comments, he acuratly predicted what would happen to Pope, and his own return to command and save the Union, Lincoln would actually ask Mac to save the Union when what Mac predicted came to pass, no wonder he thought as he did.