Lincoln's Code

[wausaubob]

John Fabian Witt Free Press A Division of Simon and Schuster 2012.
"Yet there was an alternative approach to the end of war, one that had long been adopted in civil wars. In the seventeenth century, the English Civil War had closed with the execution of prominent royalists. Widespread executions and purposeful starvation marked the grim finale of the uprising in Scotland in 1745. A half century later, Lord Charles Cornwallis (seventeen years removed from his defeat at Yorktown, Virginia) executed thousands of defeated Irish rebels. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, Napoleon imposed terrible punishments on men caught up in guerilla insurgencies against the puppet governments, first in Calabria and then in Spain." p. 286
I believe the Russians did not take many prisoners during the French retreat from Moscow. And in the Franco/Prussian war, the German allies seemed to have shown little mercy to the French partisans.
It was Grant who created the parole terms, and after Booth shot Lincoln, it was Grant who was left to get over the initial shock, and cover the Confederate parolees against the rising tide demanding retribution.

 

[archieclement]

John Fabian Witt Free Press A Division of Simon and Schuster 2012.
"Yet there was an alternative approach to the end of war, one that had long been adopted in civil wars. In the seventeenth century, the English Civil War had closed with the execution of prominent royalists. Widespread executions and purposeful starvation marked the grim finale of the uprising in Scotland in 1745. A half century later, Lord Charles Cornwallis (seventeen years removed from his defeat at Yorktown, Virginia) executed thousands of defeated Irish rebels. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, Napoleon imposed terrible punishments on men caught up in guerilla insurgencies against the puppet governments, first in Calabria and then in Spain." p. 286
I believe the Russians did not take many prisoners during the French retreat from Moscow. And in the Franco/Prussian war, the German allies seemed to have shown little mercy to the French partisans.
It was Grant who created the parole terms, and after Booth shot Lincoln, it was Grant who was left to get over the initial shock, and cover the Confederate parolees against the rising tide demanding retribution.

 

[archieclement]

Is he making the point "with malice towards none, and with charity towards all" is what defines the US from most the world, including Europe?

 

[jackt62]

Is he making the point "with malice towards none, and with charity towards all" is what defines the US from most the world, including Europe?

Edward Everett (speaking before Lincoln's Gettysburg Address), contrasted the American civil war with the
vindictiveness that was so common in European wars:

"It would be quite easy to point out, in the recent military history of the leading European powers, acts of violence and cruelty, in the prosecution of their wars, to which no parallel can be found among us. In fact, when we consider the peculiar bitterness with which civil wars are almost invariably waged, we may justly boast of the manner in which the United States have carried on the contest. It is of course impossible to prevent the lawless acts of stragglers and deserters, or the occasional unwarrantable proceeding of subordinates on distant stations; but I do not believe there is, in all history, the record of a civil war of such gigantic dimensions where so little has been done in the spirit of vindictiveness as in this war, by the Government and commanders of the United States."

 

[RobertP]

How many of those foreign wars had prisoner exchanges, parolee camps and loyalty oaths? The pattern was established from the very beginning of the conflict. It's almost as if many thought the CS might just have a point in the Constitutional gray area that would be decided by the war.

 

[wausaubob]

Is he making the point "with malice towards none, and with charity towards all" is what defines the US from most the world, including Europe?

I don't know. But the subject was also treated cinematically in Ride With The Devil. The Jake Roedel character remains a moral being, despite the war. But the last time that movie was discussed @bdtex had to shut it down. And The Outlaw Josey Wales is similar, though the ending is more ambiguous.
So the question is, can the participants here remain moral beings?

 

[EHParks]

How many of those foreign wars had prisoner exchanges, parolee camps and loyalty oaths? The pattern was established from the very beginning of the conflict. It's almost as if many thought the CS might just have a point in the Constitutional gray area that would be decided by the war.

Interestingly enough the state of Virginia had set an earlier precedence vis a vis rebellion and treason. Virginia v. John Brown. Those southern governments who seceded were never viewed as legitimate bodies once they began the war against Federal troops but the war was still conducted in a much different way than any rebellion or resurrection in the past (or you could argue, how the US fought rebellions in the future -with violence and displacement of entire communities).

 

[wausaubob]

How many of those foreign wars had prisoner exchanges, parolee camps and loyalty oaths? The pattern was established from the very beginning of the conflict. It's almost as if many thought the CS might just have a point in the Constitutional gray area that would be decided by the war.

That's not very likely. At Fort Donelson, Grant demanded unconditional surrender, but the exchange protocols were working and officers like Buckner were back in action in a few months.
At Vicksburg time was of the essence. Granting parole sped up the time in which Grant could reinforce Sherman, support Banks and release troops transferred to his command from Arkansas and Kentucky. Elsewhere in his book Witt makes the point that men who consider death or enslavement will be the outcome of a losing battle are not likely to surrender. Disbursing 30,000 hungry soldiers from Vicksburg who then knew that surrender did not mean death, was the beginning of implementing the pragmatic benefit of humanity.
The outcome was the parole agreement at Appomattox. Lee accepted it as generous and fair, and that went a long way to establishing an imperfect, but lasting peace.

 

[archieclement]

I don't know. But the subject was also treated cinematically in Ride With The Devil. The Jake Roedel character remains a moral being, despite the war. But the last time that movie was discussed @bdtex had to shut it down. And The Outlaw Josey Wales is similar, though the ending is more ambiguous.
So the question is, can the participants here remain moral beings?

You would have to be a little more specific as to what you allude to, as it seems rather an ambiguous riddle.

I suppose your referring to posters who commonly resort to name calling? Terms such as lost causer or pro confederate for simply noting actual historical laws or policy? Or posters who seemingly yearn for some European style bloodletting postwar a century and half later?

 

[DanSBHawk]

You would have to be a little more specific as to what you allude to, as it seems rather an ambiguous riddle.

I suppose your referring to posters who commonly resort to name calling? Terms such as lost causer or pro confederate for simply noting actual historical laws or policy? Or posters who seemingly yearn for some European style bloodletting postwar a century and half later?

"Pro-confederate" is name-calling? I thought some southerners still felt pride about the confederacy.

When has anyone here expressed a yearning for a post-war bloodletting? That seems a bit melodramatic.

 

[archieclement]

"Pro-confederate" is name-calling? I thought some southerners still felt pride about the confederacy.

When has anyone here expressed a yearning for a post-war bloodletting? That seems a bit melodramatic.

It certaintly is when they aren't pro confederate. Apparently those who do the name calling don't realize the Confederacy doesnt exist..

There's several threads where people have said they wish people had been executed, which seems odd as people like Davis or Lee don't seem to have been problems postwar. Such wishes might indeed be considered overly melodramatic over 150 years after the issues have been resolved.

Indeed would think people would take pride in the views and policies expressed by Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, and others is what defines us from most the rest of the world. As well as our legal/justice system.

 

[DanSBHawk]

There's several threads where people have said they wish people had been executed, which seems odd as people like Davis or Lee don't seem to have been problems postwar.

So Davis and Lee behaved post-war, and thus the hundreds of thousands of deaths during the war don't matter.

No one has ever proposed a bloodletting. Holding the leaders of a rebellion responsible is not a bloodletting.

It amazes me that people can defend lynch-mob 'justice' and yet think that leaders of a rebellion should be let off scot-free.

 

[archieclement]

So Davis and Lee behaved post-war, and thus the hundreds of thousands of deaths during the war don't matter.

No one has ever proposed a bloodletting. Holding the leaders of a rebellion responsible is not a bloodletting.

It amazes me that people can defend lynch-mob 'justice' and yet think that leaders of a rebellion should be let off scot-free.

Noting the reality of historical events is neither pro or defending anything. That would been the actual people of the era. The same as it was the actual people of the era who elected to not prosecute.

Its not a hard distinction to make, nor is it hard to note the actual actions of the people of the era's, as its what study of history does.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Noting the reality of historical events is neither pro or defending anything. That would been the actual people of the era. The same as it was the actual people of the era who elected to not prosecute.

Its not a hard distinction to make, nor is it hard to note the actual actions of the people of the era's, as its what study of history does.

Then perhaps you shouldn't criticize the decisions of those people regarding Reconstruction or civil rights or wartime measures in Missouri. If you're suggesting that no one today should pass judgment on past events, then set an example.

 

[archieclement]

Then perhaps you shouldn't criticize the decisions of those people regarding Reconstruction or civil rights or wartime measures in Missouri. If you're suggesting that no one today should pass judgment on past events, then set an example.

Indeed if one views postwar reconstruction a success they woudn't.

If one considers reconstruction a failure, they would note the policies were a failure.....failed policy are indeed then the responsibility of those who pursued the failed policies.

I however don't view reconciliation a failure, the United States was rather successfully restored. And without any barbaric European style bloodlettings noted in the OP.

Reconstruction seems generally acknowledged as a failure.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Indeed if one reconstruction a success they woudn't.

If one considers reconstruction a failure, they would note the policies were a failure.....failed policy are indeed then the responsibility of those who pursued the failed policies.

I however don't view reconciliation a failure, the United Stated was restored.
Reconstruction seems generally acknowledged as a failure.

The "actual people of the era" chose to implement Reconstruction.

You may feel that Reconstruction was a failure. Others may feel that refraining from prosecuting the leaders of the rebellion was a failure.

You seem to have a double standard about judging historical events.

 

[archieclement]

The "actual people of the era" chose to implement Reconstruction.

You may feel that Reconstruction was a failure. Others may feel that refraining from prosecuting the leaders of the rebellion was a failure.

You seem to have a double standard about judging historical events.

The actual people of the era rejected reconstruction, why it failed. Why its abandoned. Successful policy by necessity has to stay within what the people will accept.

Not at all, as there's been no demonstration at all, that not prosecuting was a failure. Did Lincoln/Johnson not have authority to set presidential policy? Certainly prosecutors have discretion as to prosecute or not. Nothing failed.

 

[DanSBHawk]

The actual people of the era rejected reconstruction, why its failed.

So you're claiming that reconstruction never happened.

I'm not going to do the ridiculous tit-for-tat thing. Your complaints about other posters is nonsense. Anyone who has engaged with you on this forum knows your bias, regardless of whether you wish to admit it.

No one here has ever called for a bloodletting. That's just melodramatic hyperbole.

 

[archieclement]

So you're claiming that reconstruction never happened?

I'm not going to do the ridiculous tit-for-tat thing. Your complaints about other posters is nonsense. Anyone who has engaged with you on this forum knows your bias, regardless of whether you wish to admit it.

No one here has ever called for a bloodletting. That's just melodramatic hyperbole.

The actual OP describes bloodlettings. And presented them as alternative.

No I admit reconstruction certainly happened, it failed, and consequently was abandoned. Why I would consider it a failure.

And frankly you implying anyone else is biased is rather ridiculous. As its you who continually resorts to calling others "biased" or other ridiculous things, which simply demonstrates your own partisanship.

 

[RobertP]

You would have to be a little more specific as to what you allude to, as it seems rather an ambiguous riddle.

I suppose your referring to posters who commonly resort to name calling? Terms such as lost causer or pro confederate for simply noting actual historical laws or policy? Or posters who seemingly yearn for some European style bloodletting postwar a century and half later?

Fortunately most of those posters are gone for one reason or another. But every now and then I still hear those derogatories and wonder if Lincoln ever called his wife and his in-laws "slavers" or if Grant referred to his wife and her family the same way. Did he call Julia a Lost Causer during Reconstruction? How about Sherman who developed many friendships in the pre-war South. Did he call them slavers and Lost Causers? Would any of these men have called their spouses or their Southern friends Nazis, had actual Nazis been around at the time? Do you think any of them used the term "wh*te supremac*st" to describe their wives and friends?

Something to ponder.