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.
I cannot believe that you learned gentlemen have allowed me to get away with comparing Union force activity in the Trans-Mississippi / Frontier with the goings on in the Eastern Theater, but since you did .....
"Nits make Lice!"
What part of duty and honor does that constitute? How do you good fellows justify such outrage directed against Gen. Forrest for the alledged autrocity at Fort Pillow, Tennesse?
Er, US policy for indians was expulsion, asimulation, extermination, these were all tried at different times with varied results, not because the US were bad people, but politics is a practical profesion and problem solving is what it does, and the above s of action all solved the problem. Solutions to problem tend to be reused untill better solutions are found to work, and the nations mil does not set policy, it meerly executes it, and is duty bound to do so.
__________________ "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
.....the nations mil does not set policy, it merely executes it, and is duty bound to do so.
Is this some sort of justification for genocide?
"I was just following orders!" is not a good defense. Even if we permit this type of defense, on behalf of the blue devils who bayoneted women and children, what part of the burden falls upon Gen. Pope? What part falls upon his excellency the tyrant, Lincoln?
I read in your response, as well as the lack of response by those with 3000 plus posts on a forum dedicated to discovering truth about the American Civil War, some sort of passive / aggressive form of justification. Do you gentlemen really believe that it is wrong for Gen. Forrest to ORDER the execution of ALL enemy combatants inside Fort Pillow and at the same time ignore Yankee actions against helpless women and children along the frontier?
Duty. Honor. Not hardly.
What say you Johan_Steele? If I miss my guess, you are a product of some of that atrocity. How do you feel about somebody suggesting that YOUR ancestors might have been just a little bit too zealous on behalf of the Union? Had we ought to forgive and forget? Cover it up? Purge it from the Official Record and never mention it again? Or not even discuss it when someone else brings it up?
Last edited by OldGreyWolf; 06-03-2008 at 11:20 AM.
"I was just following orders!" is not a good defense.
Hence the practice of the US Military teaching it is not a good defense, hence there are times when such orders are to be disobeyed per the UCMJ.
Even if we permit this type of defense, on behalf of the blue devils who bayoneted women and children, what part of the burden falls upon Gen. Pope? What part falls upon his excellency the tyrant, Lincoln?
Are you of the opinion that Union troops commonly practiced such tactics? If such actions took place, a commander is ALWAYS responsible for the actions of his troops, as is part of his oath, his sworn duty and as is custom and tradition in the US military.
What part of Abbu Grau in Iraq fell upon President Bush and is he also a tyrant in your opinion?
I read in your response, as well as the lack of response by those with 3000 plus posts on a forum dedicated to discovering truth about the American Civil War, some sort of passive / aggressive form of justification. Do you gentlemen really believe that it is wrong for Gen. Forrest to ORDER the execution of ALL enemy combatants inside Fort Pillow and at the same time ignore Yankee actions against helpless women and children along the frontier?
I myself believe Gen. Forrest as a military commander on the scene, is responsible for ALL actions of the soldiers under his command. His duty and his honor compel this. I am also of the opinion the Gen. Forrest did not order the execution of all enemy combatants inside Fort Pillow, based on the available historical record. I have yet to personally see any historical evidence that Union forces commonaly practiced the tactics you describe above. I would welcome any historical evidence you could provide on the subject.
Duty. Honor. Not hardly.
Debatable, Yes.
What say you Johan_Steele? If I miss my guess, you are a product of some of that atrocity. How do you feel about somebody suggesting that YOUR ancestors might have been just a little bit too zealous on behalf of the Union? Had we ought to forgive and forget? Cover it up? Purge it from the Official Record and never mention it again? Or not even discuss it when someone else brings it up?
I am of the opinion that when emotion overtakes reason and we begin the pointing of fingers to vent frustration, we lose sight of what we came to this forum for.
If you have evidence in the form of historical sources and reports that can be verified, no one should have any problems admitting they did take place.
The problem, from my point-of-view, is not that we have taken a certain viewpoint or stance concerning certain aspects of the war, no problem there. My problem is what we have come to base that stance or viewpoint on.
Do we claim a source because it is based in historical fact and can be proven as such? Or to we take a viewpoint because it SOUNDS so right, so good, and fits so closely to our own view, we care not where it comes from?
It is again, my own opinion that the murder of southern civilians by Union troops in any large numbers or that they were directed by their leaders, military or civilian, come nowhere close to what is being alluded to here.
If you can provide such to counter my opinion and prove to me this was a widespread practice, I promise to examine it, weigh it, and compare it with other sources and get back to you.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
You know, before visiting this board, I had never seriously considered the possibility that the southern cause was morally bankrupt with nothing to recommend it.
It is again, my own opinion that the murder of southern civilians by Union troops in any large numbers or that they were directed by their leaders, military or civilian, come nowhere close to what is being alluded to here.
Well, that is always the problem with war, there are always innocent victims....you even see it with WWII, ie. they bombed Germany, there were infants on the ground.
nope, i gave you the USA policy for indians, (expuslionh, asimulation extermination)genocide was not a word i used, because it as a word with a definition did not exist untill 1944 whem lemkin invents the word and what it means, the US ratifys the Un genocide laws, which are retroactive and have never been charged with any act of genicide against the native american indians.
Quote:
"I was just following orders!" is not a good defense.
At the time of Nurmeburg, under German mil law, there no law that allowed any protection of i was following orders, but the Nazis were not tried under german law, there were tried under UK and US Mil law, which did allow that defence. So, it was Allied mil law the germans used, one denied to them under German mil law.
secondly and rather more importantly, the american indian wars were prosecuted under laws that required the us soldier to follow orders, further the US mil law made all males over age 7 mil combatents, and could be denied any and all rights as they were people who any laws apploied to. Even when the SC rulled tribes who applied to have the protection of law won there case (Standing Bear V Crook), sherman appied that strictly to those bringing suit, and exterminated all others after issueing a no prisoners of any hostiles order.
Quote:
Even if we permit this type of defense, on behalf of the blue devils who bayoneted women and children, what part of the burden falls upon Gen. Pope? What part falls upon his excellency the tyrant, Lincoln?
The western allies were the only ones with such a law in ww2, but i dont see the relavence, and changed it post Nuremburg, intrestigly the Nazi attempted to use the pre emtive self defense US law to claim that the invasion of scandanavia and the SU were not wars of agresion, but ones of prte emtive self defense, and had the mil intel to show this to be the case the the SU was prepareing to invade, as were the allies etc. Struck down by Shawcraws UK, and Jackosn US, after consultion with PM and Pres who said, such actions were war crimes of agresion, penatly for wich is death.
Pope?, example please.
Lincoln, granted blanket imunity to mil and public figures from all civil prosection for ther duration of the war, an extreme measure but since congress passed the law, it was legal.
Quote:
I read in your response, as well as the lack of response by those with 3000 plus posts on a forum dedicated to discovering truth about the American Civil War, some sort of passive / aggressive form of justification. Do you gentlemen really believe that it is wrong for Gen. Forrest to ORDER the execution of ALL enemy combatants inside Fort Pillow and at the same time ignore Yankee actions against helpless women and children along the frontier?
I ignored it as much as possible because a) Forrest did not do as you suggest, and B, the yankee reference to doing the same as fabrication, c), i dislike counter made up arguments of no historical acuracy.
Quote:
Duty. Honor. Not hardly.
Duty is to follow legal orders, if they conflict with yopur honour, feel free to resign and take your court.
__________________ "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
Duty is to follow legal orders, if they conflict with yopur honour, feel free to resign and take your court.
I have to agree with others regarding your logic, spelling and grammar. You would benefit from remedial reading and writing instruction. I suggest you apply yourself to some attention to details. This is a forum for intelligent discussion regarding the late great unpleasantness. Lord knows, I suffer from my own fat fingers from time to time, I've been know to misspell a few four letter words and I am often times not grammatically correct, but dang, you might as well be writing in Greek.
Gen. Forrest most certainly did order his men to kill everyone in Fort Pillow. Anyone that knows anything about him knows he did, too. And rightly so. He demonstrated in front of the fort. He gave the occupants an opportunity to capitualate with full military honors. They refused. They forced him to make a frontal assualt. He was well within his right to order the deaths of every living soul inside of Fort Pillow. Black, White, even those with pick pokadots. There is 5000 plus years of precedece to justify his actions too.
Gen. Pope and Colonels Sibley and Chivington on the other hand ......
Did not.
Last edited by OldGreyWolf; 06-06-2008 at 01:11 PM.
Gen. Forrest most certainly did order his men to kill everyone in Fort Pillow. Anyone that knows anything about him knows he did, too. And rightly so. He demonstrated in front of the fort. He gave the occupants an opportunity to capitualate with full military honors. They refused. They forced him to make a frontal assualt. He was well within his right to order the deaths of every living soul inside of Fort Pillow. Black, White, even those with pick pokadots. There is 5000 plus years of precedece to justify his actions too.
Gen. Pope and Colonels Sibley and Chivington on the other hand ......
Did not.
The deliberate killing of surrendering troops is murder.
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
What part of Abbu Grau in Iraq fell upon President Bush and is he also a tyrant in your opinion?
Yes. It is my opinion that President Bush is a tyrant. He is more like the rag doll puppet of a tyrant, but a tyrant none the less. He is a disgrace. He has betrayed us all. He has not done his duty and he has no honor. He is not worthy of tar and feathers.
The deliberate killing of surrendering troops is murder.
That is just wrong.
5000 years of military precedence dicates that razing a fort and putting its occupants under the axe is perfectly legitmate.
Forrest demonstrated in front of Fort Pillow. He offered them terms. They refused. He was within his rights to kill every single one of them.
What would Alexander have done? What would Ceasar have done?
My point is NOT to defend Gen. Forrest's actions at Fort Pillow. My point is to use the so called "Fort Pillow Massacer" to demostrate how new age abolitionist reconstructionsists continue to harp on that Devil Forrest while turning a blind eye to the autrocities of their blue clad soldiers.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
