Pickett Justice or Atrocity: Gen. George Pickett and the Kinston, NC Hangings.

Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
So this angle of yours, that lack of charges and prosecution proves that there was no atrocity.

Would you say that every person who committed an atrocity against anyone, be it against Native Americans, or Black Americans, or whoever, has always been charged and prosecuted? If not, then that angle is meaningless in determining whether this was an atrocity.
Again you revert to apples to oranges......

An atrocity and a crime are not synonymous at all....there are practices today I find rather atrocious yet entirely legal in the US.....I can separate the two, in they are not the same.

In part because ones personal morals and the majority responsible for laws, are not always exactly the same.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
The topic is "justice" or "atrocity."
Again they are not the same. I haven't taken issue with anyone considering it an atrocity at all, as that's ones personal veiw...

However justice in a legal sense is not individual, but a set standard.

To say it's an atrocity is as meaningless as proclaiming it good or bad.........people tend to interject morality to avoid an actual standard
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin

As this dialog meanders on it gets more and more bizarre. What is the claim these men were?
Have you read the posts in this thread?

Pickett's claim to authority over the fate of these men was that they were confederate deserters. If some of them had never entered confederate service, then Pickett exceeded his authority and it was murder. An atrocity.

The board of inquiry found that half of these men had deserted from state forces, and had never mustered into confederate service. Their former commander, Nethercutt, claimed that these men had enlisted under the state policies that ensured they would serve only in state service. Nethercutt claimed that the men were angry at the change of policies that violated their terms of enlistment. They deserted from state service, which was a state crime but one that did not warrant a death sentence.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
No the laws at the time are actually both relevant and factual to the topic.....as are the actual historical outcomes.....even if they don't fit some people's agendas, the fallacy would be some fantasy charges that never existed.

Personally would think anyone trying to be objective would prefer a set standard rather then some nebulous always changing one. I try to apply the same standard consistently to every side, as well as other wars. Otherwise it wouldn't be a standard.....
 
Last edited:

Waterloo50

Major
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Location
England
Have you read the posts in this thread?

Pickett's claim to authority over the fate of these men was that they were confederate deserters. If some of them had never entered confederate service, then Pickett exceeded his authority and it was murder. An atrocity.

The board of inquiry found that half of these men had deserted from state forces, and had never mustered into confederate service. Their former commander, Nethercutt, claimed that these men had enlisted under the state policies that ensured they would serve only in state service. Nethercutt claimed that the men were angry at the change of policies that violated their terms of enlistment. They deserted from state service, which was a state crime but one that did not warrant a death sentence.
I recall reading somewhere that the some of the men that were hung had never sworn an oath of allegiance and as such we’re not viewed as ever being officially enlisted in the confederate army. I’m just wondering if that should have been taken into account by Pickett.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Have you read the posts in this thread?

Pickett's claim to authority over the fate of these men was that they were confederate deserters. If some of them had never entered confederate service, then Pickett exceeded his authority and it was murder. An atrocity.

The board of inquiry found that half of these men had deserted from state forces, and had never mustered into confederate service. Their former commander, Nethercutt, claimed that these men had enlisted under the state policies that ensured they would serve only in state service. Nethercutt claimed that the men were angry at the change of policies that violated their terms of enlistment. They deserted from state service, which was a state crime but one that did not warrant a death sentence.

That's fine, but it backs up the claim that these men were never confederates.
Said who? Were the20th Maine or the 69th New York not americans or part of the u.s. army because they were state troops?

This is what Lefler and Newsome had to say: “North Carolina furnished about one-sixth or one-seventh of all Confederate soldiers. It furnished 111,000 offensive troops – organized into 72 regiments, 10,000 reserves organized into eight regiments; and 4,000 Home Guards-- a grand total of 125,000 men all volunteers except for about 19,000 conscripts, a larger number than the voting population.”
Hugh T. Lefler and Albert R. Newsome, North Carolina: The History of a Southern State, p.430.

Lefler and Newsome were two of North Carolina's foremost historians. If they say reserves and Home Guards were Confederates it's good enough for me.

.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
I recall reading somewhere that the some of the men that were hung had never sworn an oath of allegiance and as such we’re not viewed as ever being officially enlisted in the confederate army. I’m just wondering if that should have been taken into account by Pickett.
They wouldn't have been in the army if they didn't take an oath.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
I recall reading somewhere that the some of the men that were hung had never sworn an oath of allegiance and as such we’re not viewed as ever being officially enlisted in the confederate army. I’m just wondering if that should have been taken into account by Pickett.
Yes it should have been taken into account by Pickett. Because if it had, he would not have had the authority to impose a death penalty for desertion.

One of the accused, named Cox, was lucky because a former commander intervened and testified that Cox was never enlisted as a confederate. He was only ever enlisted as a NC state troop. His life was spared from the noose, but he died shortly after in a POW camp.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Said who? Were the20th Maine or the 69th New York not americans or part of the u.s. army because they were state troops?

This is what Lefler and Newsome had to say: “North Carolina furnished about one-sixth or one-seventh of all Confederate soldiers. It furnished 111,000 offensive troops – organized into 72 regiments, 10,000 reserves organized into eight regiments; and 4,000 Home Guards-- a grand total of 125,000 men all volunteers except for about 19,000 conscripts, a larger number than the voting population.”
Hugh T. Lefler and Albert R. Newsome, North Carolina: The History of a Southern State, p.430.

Lefler and Newsome were two of North Carolina's foremost historians. If they say reserves and Home Guards were Confederates it's good enough for me.

.
I've already furnished the policy from the NC governors office twice. Not going to do it again.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
They wouldn't have been in the army if they didn't take an oath.
Plus the account I linked mentioned they had indeed taken an oath, and that the very act being formed under the partisan ranger act would also have made them Confederate. And the reason the Confederacy kept transferring them around.

Dan seems to be strengthening the case there was no crime by saying when it could be proven that one hadn't, they also didn't sentence to them to death. So there goes the "mickey mouse" claim, it would seem they were indeed judging by guilt or innocence. That would be called justice.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Plus the account I linked mentioned they had indeed taken an oath, and that the very act being formed under the partisan ranger act would also have made them Confederate. And the reason the Confederacy kept transferring them around.

Dan seems to be strengthening the case there was no crime by saying when it could be proven that one hadn't, they also didn't sentence to them to death. So there goes the "mickey mouse" claim, it would seem they were indeed judging by guilt or innocence. That would be called justice.
As I said, I already posted the state policy. Read it rather than making your own assumptions about them being confederate.

As to your second claim, if I understand it, you're talking about Cox. He was lucky to have an officer intervene, but if you remember, the rest were not allowed witnesses or counsel. So yes, a mickey mouse sham of a trial.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
As I said, I already posted the state policy. Read it rather than making your own assumptions about them being confederate.

As to your second claim, if I understand it, you're talking about Cox. He was lucky to have an officer intervene, but if you remember, the rest were not allowed witnesses or counsel. So yes, a mickey mouse sham of a trial.
No you haven't posted state policy at all, other then admitting NC saw no criminal action in the events....

And I would presume you know military trials are not the same as civil. Likewise one frequently encounters Union military trials here...often in the field, where the accused was allowed no witness or counsel as well. Are you saying they would be "mickey mouse shams of a trial" as well? If so lots of Union officers should have been tried postwar......
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
No you haven't posted state policy at all, other then admitting NC saw no criminal action in the events....

And I would presume you know military trials are not the same as civil. Likewise one frequently encounters Union military trials here...often in the field, where the accused was allowed no witness or counsel as well. Are you saying they would be "mickey mouse shams of a trial" as well?
Yes I posted the 1865 letter from the governors office concerning state policy. Twice.

This discussion is just getting lame and repetitive.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Yes I posted the 1865 letter from the governors office concerning state policy. Twice.

This discussion is just getting lame and repetitive.
Yes it is, as you are referring a postwar letter of one individual, who raised no such as issue at all while actually a Confederate state official and proffered no charges at all as well.........so your argument of some official state policy of the Confederate state of NC seems rather non existent.....
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Yes it is, as you are referring a postwar letter of one individual, who raised no such as issue at all while actually a Confederate state official and proffered no charges at all as well.........so your argument of some official state policy of the Confederate state of NC seems rather non existent.....
Provide evidence that the individual was aware of the men's situation and made a decision not to charge. Provide evidence that the letter from the governors office was wrong.

The only thing non-existent here is evidence that supports your allegations.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Provide evidence that the individual was aware of the men's situation and made a decision not to charge. Provide evidence that the letter from the governors office was wrongn.

The only thing non-existent here is evidence that supports your allegations.
Again it was your assertion it was "official policy of the Confederate state of NC" not mine, and you have provided nothing that indicates so, nor that NC viewed the Confederate court martials a crime during the war......

I suppose you find it easier to falsely attack me personally then provide any evidence of your own assertions.........which appear baseless from lack of support.

Again this is pointless as long as you make baseless assertions with no evidence......then attack others for simply pointing out you are actually providing nothing to prove you thesis.

I don't need to disprove something that never has been proven at all. As the actual historical record is Confederate NC never charged or accused anyone of some crime for the court martials........nor the USA........nor the CSA.........There is no need to disprove Bigfoot, UFO's, ghosts, or a shooter on the grassy knoll either, you simply note there is little basis for such claims, which I have done.
 
Last edited:
Top