The Slave States Seceded to Protect Slavery--The Rest is Baloney

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
A perusal of US 18th and 19th-century history should convince the reader that the US government isn't in a strong position to talk about beams and splinters in anybody's eye.

"A meddling Yankee troubles himself about everybody's matters except his own and repents of everybody's sins except his own." -- General Daniel Harvey Hill
And a perusal of that same history will convince any reader that the United States is far better off without a slaveholding aristocracy denying freedom to slaves and poor whites alike.

"There was a right side and a wrong side..." Federick Douglass.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
And a perusal of that same history will convince any reader that the United States is far better off without a slaveholding aristocracy denying freedom to slaves and poor whites alike.

"There was a right side and a wrong side..." Federick Douglass.

I suspect the decerning reader would conclude the United States would be better off with a whole lot of its past history.

"A meddling Yankee troubles himself about everybody's matters except his own and repents of everybody's sins except his own." -- General Daniel Harvey Hill
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
I used Baltimore as an example because, Maryland wasn't part of the Confederacy. The fact that Mr Howard, & officials from Baltimore were pro-Confederate is irrelevant in my opinion. Speaking negatively about the government is not a crime. A media outlet writing negative articles about a President isn't illegal either. Even if it's 24/7. If it was, we wouldn't have a media anymore. Recent history has proven so.

I believe the first amendment is paramount to our Constitution, & our government. I believe the founders thought it pretty important too, which is why I believe it's the FIRST amendment in the Constitution. I believe freedom of speech, & freedom of the press is absolute (or should be). It wasn't added for speech we, or the government agrees with. Quite the opposite.

I've never been in favor of imprisoning people who haven't commit a crime. I've seen in my lifetime, lots of anti-government, & anti-president speech come from citizens, & media, even during wartime. I wasn't in favor of imprisoning any of them, just like I don't like what happened in Baltimore in the fall of 1861.

We all know that Baltimore had plenty of pro-Confederates and anti-American sentiment, so it is an odd reference to use for the point you are trying to make. Your point would have been duly noted if you used Pennsylvania or Delaware, but we all know those states were sold out for the Union. But using a Confederate haven is not convincing, at least not for the point you are trying to make. I think it is fair to say that if Baltimore was lost then D.C. had a lot of potential to be lost, which the war would have been lost for the USA.

Negative articles about a President during war time that can easily persuade citizens to rebel against the government to cause divisiveness. History has proved this to be true. It's irrelevant to you because you are pro-Confederate, I wouldn't expect it to be relevant to you. But common sense says it was relevant to Lincoln because he had to keep a lid on anti-American sentiment to keep the capital secure, because Baltimore was too close for comfort. I never said any of those things were illegal, but at that time they were not appropriate for the Union cause. I agree with the recent media statement, but I would like to add that back then it seems it wasn't worth much either in some places. Fake news is fake news no matter the era.

I agree that the founders thought the First Amendment and free speech were important, but during peace time, not war time. Here is excerpt about what the founders thought about free speech during the Revolutionary War.

The Revolutionary War era featured numerous restrictions on free speech and free press. Those who were considered loyal to the King of England – loyalists – were subject to a host of onerous restrictions by colonial leaders. Some colonies passed laws declaring it treasonous to support the British King. Even after the United States declared its independence from England, restrictions on speech continued. It is one of the great ironies of history, that many of the same political leaders that ratified the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) were the same leaders who passed the Sedition Act of 1798 – a law inimical to freedom of speech. The law and its companion Alien Acts were a product of the times – a silent war with France. The Sedition Act of 1798 criminalized the “writing, printing, uttering or publishing [of] any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings about the government of the United States.” The law was used by the Federalist Party to silence Democratic-Republic newspaper editors – men like Matthew Lyon, Benjamin Bache, and William Duane. As you can see the aforementioned excerpt clearly shows that the founders censored speech and the media during war time.

What about Jefferson Davis doing the same things Lincoln did, is that irrelevant? Here is an excerpt from various sources revealing the civil liberties Jeff Davis violated during his tenure as the Confederacy's president:

In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law Shortly after his inauguration as president of the Confederacy, an act of the Confederate Congress of February 27, 1862, was passed authorizing Davis to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and declare martial law "in such towns, cities, and military districts as shall, in his judgment, be in such danger of attack by the enemy." The Confederate Congress passed a limiting act two months to restrict the suspension of the writ "to arrests made by the authorities of the Confederate Government, or for offences against the same" and to add a sunset clause providing that authorization to suspend habeas corpus would expire 30 days after the next meeting of Congress.

In various proclamations and orders beginning in 1862, Davis suspended the writ and declared martial law in parts of Virginia (including the Confederate capital of Richmond, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Petersburg, and elsewhere). Davis also suspended the writ in East Tennessee; in this region, Thomas A.R. Nelson was arrested by the Confederate military and held as a political prisoner before being released on the condition that he cease criticizing the Confederate government. Suspensions of civil process in the confederacy were used against suspected Unionists, particularly in border states. Historian Barton A. Myers notes that after the Confederacy imposed nationwide conscription, "the difference between arrest for political dissidence and conscription into the military became largely semantic, as anyone accused of Unionism was almost always first taken to a training camp where they were monitored and hazed under guard."

Davis also suspended the writ in North Carolina (June 1862) and in Atlanta (in September 1862).The Confederate Congress passed re-authorizing legislation twice more, in October 1862 and February 1864. Davis suspended habeas corpus in Arkansas and the Indian territory in January 1863.

At least 2,672 civilians were subject to military arrest in the Confederacy over the course of its history, although this is likely an undercount given the incompleteness of records. Civil War historian Mark E Neely, suggests that "there seems to be no difference in the arrest rate in those periods when the Confederate Congress refuse to authorization suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and those periods was authorized.... civilian prisoners trickled into Confederate military prisons whether the writ of habeas corpus was suspended or not."

The last suspension lapsed in August 1864, amid deep domestic opposition to the suspension, including from the Confederate vice president Alexander H. Stephens Davis's political rival. Citing "discontent, disaffection, and disloyalty", Davis made entreaties in late 1864 and 1865 about the necessity of suspension.
I have about 10 sources, if you wish to see them let me know.

Nevertheless, you stated this: I wasn't in favor of imprisoning any of them, just like I don't like what happened in Baltimore in the fall of 1861. So you wouldn't be in favor of what Jefferson Davis did or what the founders did during the Revolutionary War? There's no two ways about it.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
We all know that Baltimore had plenty of pro-Confederates and anti-American sentiment, so it is an odd reference to use for the point you are trying to make. Your point would have been duly noted if you used Pennsylvania or Delaware, but we all know those states were sold out for the Union. But using a Confederate haven is not convincing, at least not for the point you are trying to make. I think it is fair to say that if Baltimore was lost then D.C. had a lot of potential to be lost, which the war would have been lost for the USA.

Negative articles about a President during war time that can easily persuade citizens to rebel against the government to cause divisiveness. History has proved this to be true. It's irrelevant to you because you are pro-Confederate, I wouldn't expect it to be relevant to you. But common sense says it was relevant to Lincoln because he had to keep a lid on anti-American sentiment to keep the capital secure, because Baltimore was too close for comfort. I never said any of those things were illegal, but at that time they were not appropriate for the Union cause. I agree with the recent media statement, but I would like to add that back then it seems it wasn't worth much either in some places. Fake news is fake news no matter the era.

I agree that the founders thought the First Amendment and free speech were important, but during peace time, not war time. Here is excerpt about what the founders thought about free speech during the Revolutionary War.

The Revolutionary War era featured numerous restrictions on free speech and free press. Those who were considered loyal to the King of England – loyalists – were subject to a host of onerous restrictions by colonial leaders. Some colonies passed laws declaring it treasonous to support the British King. Even after the United States declared its independence from England, restrictions on speech continued. It is one of the great ironies of history, that many of the same political leaders that ratified the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) were the same leaders who passed the Sedition Act of 1798 – a law inimical to freedom of speech. The law and its companion Alien Acts were a product of the times – a silent war with France. The Sedition Act of 1798 criminalized the “writing, printing, uttering or publishing [of] any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings about the government of the United States.” The law was used by the Federalist Party to silence Democratic-Republic newspaper editors – men like Matthew Lyon, Benjamin Bache, and William Duane. As you can see the aforementioned excerpt clearly shows that the founders censored speech and the media during war time.

What about Jefferson Davis doing the same things Lincoln did, is that irrelevant? Here is an excerpt from various sources revealing the civil liberties Jeff Davis violated during his tenure as the Confederacy's president:

In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law Shortly after his inauguration as president of the Confederacy, an act of the Confederate Congress of February 27, 1862, was passed authorizing Davis to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and declare martial law "in such towns, cities, and military districts as shall, in his judgment, be in such danger of attack by the enemy." The Confederate Congress passed a limiting act two months to restrict the suspension of the writ "to arrests made by the authorities of the Confederate Government, or for offences against the same" and to add a sunset clause providing that authorization to suspend habeas corpus would expire 30 days after the next meeting of Congress.

In various proclamations and orders beginning in 1862, Davis suspended the writ and declared martial law in parts of Virginia (including the Confederate capital of Richmond, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Petersburg, and elsewhere). Davis also suspended the writ in East Tennessee; in this region, Thomas A.R. Nelson was arrested by the Confederate military and held as a political prisoner before being released on the condition that he cease criticizing the Confederate government. Suspensions of civil process in the confederacy were used against suspected Unionists, particularly in border states. Historian Barton A. Myers notes that after the Confederacy imposed nationwide conscription, "the difference between arrest for political dissidence and conscription into the military became largely semantic, as anyone accused of Unionism was almost always first taken to a training camp where they were monitored and hazed under guard."

Davis also suspended the writ in North Carolina (June 1862) and in Atlanta (in September 1862).The Confederate Congress passed re-authorizing legislation twice more, in October 1862 and February 1864. Davis suspended habeas corpus in Arkansas and the Indian territory in January 1863.

At least 2,672 civilians were subject to military arrest in the Confederacy over the course of its history, although this is likely an undercount given the incompleteness of records. Civil War historian Mark E Neely, suggests that "there seems to be no difference in the arrest rate in those periods when the Confederate Congress refuse to authorization suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and those periods was authorized.... civilian prisoners trickled into Confederate military prisons whether the writ of habeas corpus was suspended or not."

The last suspension lapsed in August 1864, amid deep domestic opposition to the suspension, including from the Confederate vice president Alexander H. Stephens Davis's political rival. Citing "discontent, disaffection, and disloyalty", Davis made entreaties in late 1864 and 1865 about the necessity of suspension.
I have about 10 sources, if you wish to see them let me know.

Nevertheless, you stated this: I wasn't in favor of imprisoning any of them, just like I don't like what happened in Baltimore in the fall of 1861. So you wouldn't be in favor of what Jefferson Davis did or what the founders did during the Revolutionary War? There's no two ways about it.
I'm not in favor of suspending the 1st amendment for anyone, regardless of who did it, or does it. The idea, freedom of speech, (press, assembly, etc.) are one of the single most important things, that separates us from the rest of the world. I'm not in favor of the government restricting who can say what, & when. Ever.

I'm one of those radicals who believes, the Constitution's purpose, especially the Bill of Rights, is to protect us from the government, not the other way around. I feel that way when discussing any time period since it's inception. I despise Lincoln for it, same as Davis, & every other President, or government official since. Without freedom, we don't have much. Sometimes freedom permits folks to say or do, dumb things. In the big picture, it's better than the alternative. At least in my opinion.
 
I'm not in favor of suspending the 1st amendment for anyone, regardless of who did it, or does it. The idea, freedom of speech, (press, assembly, etc.) are one of the single most important things, that separates us from the rest of the world. I'm not in favor of the government restricting who can say what, & when. Ever.

I'm one of those radicals who believes, the Constitution's purpose, especially the Bill of Rights, is to protect us from the government, not the other way around. I feel that way when discussing any time period since it's inception. I despise Lincoln for it, same as Davis, & every other President, or government official since. Without freedom, we don't have much. Sometimes freedom permits folks to say or do, dumb things. In the big picture, it's better than the alternative. At least in my opinion.

I believe that there were no United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment freedom of speech until 1919 (Schenck v. United States) (Frohwerk v. United States) (Abrams v. United States) (Debs v. United States). It would not be until 1931 that SCOTUS would hear and rule on a case involving the freedom of the press (Near v. Minnesota).

AFAIK, the only Federal case prior to these was an 1800 Federal Circuit case known as United States v. Thomas Cooper where Federal Justice Samuel Chase found Thomas Copper guilty of violating the 1798 Sedition Act and sentenced him to a fine and 6 months in jail. Two excerpts from Justice Chase in that case:

"Gentlemen of the jury: When men are found rash enough to commit an offence such as the traverser is charged with, it becomes the duty of the government to take care that they should not pass with impunity. It is my duty to state to you the law on which this indictment is preferred, and the substance of the accusation and defence. Thomas Cooper, the traverser, stands charged with having published a false, scandalous and malicious libel against the president of the United States, in his official character as president. There is no civilized country that I know of, that does not punish such offences; and it is necessary to the peace and welfare of this country, that these offences should meet with their proper punishment, since ours is a government founded on the opinions and confidence of the people."

"All governments which I have ever read or heard of punish libels against themselves. If a man attempts to destroy the confidence of the people in their officers, their supreme magistrate, and their legislature, he effectually saps the foundation of the government. A republican government can only be destroyed in two ways: the introduction of luxury, or the licentiousness of the press."
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I'm not in favor of suspending the 1st amendment for anyone, regardless of who did it, or does it. The idea, freedom of speech, (press, assembly, etc.) are one of the single most important things, that separates us from the rest of the world. I'm not in favor of the government restricting who can say what, & when. Ever.

I'm one of those radicals who believes, the Constitution's purpose, especially the Bill of Rights, is to protect us from the government, not the other way around. I feel that way when discussing any time period since it's inception. I despise Lincoln for it, same as Davis, & every other President, or government official since. Without freedom, we don't have much. Sometimes freedom permits folks to say or do, dumb things. In the big picture, it's better than the alternative. At least in my opinion.
There are exceptions, mostly I would think in time of war, even civil war.

I can't go with the idea the the laws are the same in peace time as they are in war time.

I agree that without freedom, we don't have much.

But in dire times, during emergencies and periods of danger to the nation, sometimes extraordinary requirements are needed in extraordinary times.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
"Gentlemen of the jury: When men are found rash enough to commit an offence such as the traverser is charged with, it becomes the duty of the government to take care that they should not pass with impunity. It is my duty to state to you the law on which this indictment is preferred, and the substance of the accusation and defence. Thomas Cooper, the traverser, stands charged with having published a false, scandalous and malicious libel against the president of the United States, in his official character as president. There is no civilized country that I know of, that does not punish such offences; and it is necessary to the peace and welfare of this country, that these offences should meet with their proper punishment, since ours is a government founded on the opinions and confidence of the people."

"All governments which I have ever read or heard of punish libels against themselves. If a man attempts to destroy the confidence of the people in their officers, their supreme magistrate, and their legislature, he effectually saps the foundation of the government. A republican government can only be destroyed in two ways: the introduction of luxury, or the licentiousness of the press."
If this standard was applied in the 21st century, our prisons would be filled with "journalists", & media types.

There are exceptions, mostly I would think in time of war, even civil war.

I can't go with the idea the the laws are the same in peace time as they are in war time.

I agree that without freedom, we don't have much.

But in dire times, during emergencies and periods of danger to the nation, sometimes extraordinary requirements are needed in extraordinary times.
It's okay for us to disagree. I respect your opinion. I'm just not in favor of the government imprisoning people for speech. Lots of people say, or write, things I don't like. I support their right to do so.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
It's okay for us to disagree. I respect your opinion. I'm just not in favor of the government imprisoning people for speech. Lots of people say, or write, things I don't like. I support their right to do so.
@Viper21 ,

I agree that it is OK for us to disagree. :smile: As for respecting your opinion on subjects and topics here, that goes without saying.

You are one of those posters who require thought and consideration when replying/disagreeing to/with. I'm glad we both can do such during our conversations.

As for supporting the right of people to free speech and saying ort writing things I don't like, I am reminded of that one Supreme Court Justice who said something like, "The right of free speech does not give one the right to cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater."

Unless there really IS a fire. :wink:
 

Cycom

Private
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Location
Los Angeles, California
It is most illogical. You conflate 'The North' with criminals who were violating Federal Law and being suppressed by the very Federal military action 'the North' (actually the USA) was taking against them. That is wrong. Individuals violating federal law are not 'the North'. That is most illogical.

I understand from whence the need for this conflation originates. I understand the motivation to try and spread the guilt for slavery, even upon those who opposed it, outlawed it, and fought against spreading it. But let me suggest a more logical approach. The existence and long perpetuation of slavery in the history of the United States is the one of the great collective sins of our nation. At any number of critical historical junctures, key players could have fought harder, pushed longer, or stood more resolute in their efforts against this sin. For myriad reasons, they did not. That is a national failure - and was paid for in horrible bloodshed and a century more of oppression. All Americans may not share the blame equally - but we all share it collectively.
No living American shares in -any- of the blame, equally or otherwise. It’s not a “sin” either, as this calls to the concept of original sin, in which all are collectively “guilty.” I’m not, and no one breathing is. Sins of the father and all that.
 

Dead Parrott

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
No living American shares in -any- of the blame, equally or otherwise. It’s not a “sin” either, as this calls to the concept of original sin, in which all are collectively “guilty.” I’m not, and no one breathing is. Sins of the father and all that.

You misunderstand.

(and for the record, if folks feel this is too far from the OP topic, we can desist).

No living person shares any personal individual blame for anything that happened before they were born - there is no 'Corruption of Blood' to use the archaic legal term.

But any individual who is part of an ongoing entity carries the on the collective obligations which that entity collectively accumulated.
When my father dies, I do not owe his debts. But if I inherit ownership of my father's company, any and all debts and errors or violations, any miscreant acts of that company are still owed by the company, of which I am now part. Collectively, as part of the company, I am financially obligated as per their contracts, legally obligated as per rulings, and morally obligated as per their actions. As to what any ultimate remedies may be, there will be a wide range of possibilities, and whatever are decided, they will be met collectively.

I was born in 1958. I did not have a vote in US decisions until 1976. So personally and individually, I am not responsible for any decisions, debts or obligations that US accrued during any time before that. But as a US citizen, I am still bound by any and all collective responsibilities owed by the US. When the US compensates Japanese Americans for internment during WWII, I bear no individual guilt. But I cannot withhold a percentage\share of my tax dollars because of that. I bear the collective responsibility. We all do.

This is what you are failing to understand. WE own our national history - good and bad, magnificent and heinous. We need to acknowledge all parts of it, all of its glory and its shame, as equal parts of our National Heritage.

And as for Slavery, it was indeed the nation's original sin ... carried through generations, and only ultimately expunged through a sacrifice of blood.

We disagree.
 

Cycom

Private
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Location
Los Angeles, California
I was born in 1958. I did not have a vote in US decisions until 1976. So personally and individually, I am not responsible for any decisions, debts or obligations that US accrued during any time before that. But as a US citizen, I am still bound by any and all collective responsibilities owed by the US. When the US compensates Japanese Americans for internment during WWII, I bear no individual guilt. But I cannot withhold a percentage\share of my tax dollars because of that. I bear the collective responsibility. We all do.
The federal government gives out reparations, not the individual. Paying taxes is a civil responsibility. The idea that Americans have any collective responsibility in the realm of slavery and its postbellum effects is exactly that, an idea. Not sure how I, in any way whatsoever, could be bound to anything that’s tied to something that transpired that long ago.
This is what you are failing to understand. WE own our national history - good and bad, magnificent and heinous. We need to acknowledge all parts of it, all of its glory and its shame, as equal parts of our National Heritage.
Respectfully, I’m not failing to understand anything, unless you can demonstrate how either I or anyone in the thread has -not- acknowledged the good & bad of our national history? Are you looking for more beyond this?

Yes, nations have history, good and bad. Acknowledging this history does not make its citizens culpable, individually or collectively. Honestly, I’m unsure as to what else you expect one to say beyond acknowledging the facts of history.
And as for Slavery, it was indeed the nation's original sin ... carried through generations, and only ultimately expunged through a sacrifice of blood.
I mean, if you are insistent on using this analogy, ok, but...

- slavery ended a few lifetimes ago.
- ditto for the lives lost in the conflict
- Jim Crow ended before I was born

This rhetoric (which is popular these days), unfortunately places guilt on one and all. It really takes away from the value of the individual in order to paint a false narrative of collective guilt.

@Dead Parrott hope you don’t take my response as combative. It’s clear we disagree but hope we continue to do so civilly.

All the best.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
"There was a right side and a wrong side..." Federick Douglass.
Which side is that...

Union Death Squads in Middle Tennessee:

"...execution without trial had become commonplace in occupied Middle Tennessee. Not content with capturing and defeating various bushwhacker gangs, [General] Milroy still felt that the civilian base of support for such bands needed to be destroyed. He believed that his policy of 'fire and blood' was the best way to accomplish such a task. Milroy found allies among those individuals who had been affected by Hood's return to Tennessee in November and December 1864.

Moses Pitman was one of the pro-Union men who had been attacked by guerillas during the absence of Union troops from Tullahoma. His list of stolen and lost goods included several weapons, horses, and household goods. Pitman provided Milroy with a list of goods for which he was seeking restitution as well as a list of his neighbors who he felt deserved punishment for 'disloyal' actions.

Names of some disloyal citizens of the Fourth district Franklin County Tenn.
A narration of their crimes and the orders of Maj. Gen'l Milroy as to what
punishment they shall suffer for said crimes....

Joel Cunningham- He is a leader of a gang of bushwhackers 75 to 100 strong.
[Milroy's instructions:] Kill

Wesley Davis- Harbors bushwhackers.
Clean out [-confiscate property that can be removed and burn the rest]

Green Denison- A bushwhacker with Hays.
Kill

Jane Lipscum- A widow. Harbors bushwhackers.
Clean out

Curtis McCullum- Harbors bushwhackers and instigated his son and three others to murder in cold blood a Union man named Samuel Kennedy on Oct 15, 1864....
Hang and burn

Cynthia McCullum- Wife of the above and also instigated her son to murder Kennedy, the same remarks that apply to her husband apply also to her with double force. She is a very bad and a very dangerous woman.
Shoot if you can make it look an accident

Charlotte McCullum- An unmarried sister of the above and is almost as bad as her mother.
Burn everything

The list goes on for a total of 58 names....

Leroy Moore, Thomas Saunders, and William Saunders were three of the men that had been ordered to be executed...Leroy Moore was described as 'an old, white haired man' while Thomas Saunders was 'over 50 years of age,' and William Saunders was only 14. When the detail from the 42nd Missouri reached the Saunders house Moore was found to be visiting them. All three had their hands tied behind their backs and were forced to wade into a mill pond at Huffers Mill. They were then shot in the back and their corpses were guarded for three days before the families were allowed to remove them from the water. The method of their execution was the same as that styled 'barbaric' by General Slocum and General Thomas when three of their men were murdered at Mulberry in 1863. The three are still buried on the banks of the mill pond." -With Blood and Fire, pp. 115-117, 120

Maj-Gen-Robert-Milroy.jpg

General Robert H. Milroy
Library of Congress
 
Last edited:

Cycom

Private
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Location
Los Angeles, California
Which side is that...

Union Death Squads in Middle Tennessee:

"...execution without trial had become commonplace in occupied Middle Tennessee. Not content with capturing and defeating various bushwhacker gangs, [General] Milroy still felt that the civilian base of support for such bands needed to be destroyed. He believed that his policy of 'fire and blood' was the best way to accomplish such a task. Milroy found allies among those individuals who had been affected by Hood's return to Tennessee in November and December 1864.

Moses Pitman was one of the pro-Union men who had been attacked by guerillas during the absence of Union troops from Tullahoma. His list of stolen and lost goods included several weapons, horses, and household goods. Pitman provided Milroy with a list of goods for which he was seeking restitution as well as a list of his neighbors who he felt deserved punishment for 'disloyal' actions.

Names of some disloyal citizens of the Fourth district Franklin County Tenn.
A narration of their crimes and the orders of Maj. Gen'l Milroy as to what
punishment they shall suffer for said crimes....

Joel Cunningham- He is a leader of a gang of bushwhackers 75 to 100 strong.
[Milroy's instructions:] Kill

Wesley Davis- Harbors bushwhackers.
Clean out [-confiscate property that can be removed and burn the rest]

Green Denison- A bushwhacker with Hays.
Kill

Jane Lipscum- A widow. Harbors bushwhackers.
Clean out

Curtis McCullum- Harbors bushwhackers and instigated his son and three others to murder in cold blood a Union man named Samuel Kennedy on Oct 15, 1864....
Hang and burn

Cynthia McCullum- Wife of the above and also instigated her son to murder Kennedy, the same remarks that apply to her husband apply also to her with double force. She is a very bad and a very dangerous woman.
Shoot if you can make it look an accident

Charlotte McCullum- An unmarried sister of the above and is almost as bad as her mother.
Burn everything

The list goes on for a total of 58 names....

Leroy Moore, Thomas Saunders, and William Saunders were three of the men that had been ordered to be executed...Leroy Moore was described as 'an old, white haired man' while Thomas Saunders was 'over 50 years of age,' and William Saunders was only 14. When the detail from the 42nd Missouri reached the Saunders house Moore was found to be visiting them. All three had their hands tied behind their backs and were forced to wade into a mill pond at Huffers Mill. They were then shot in the back and their corpses were guarded for three days before the families were allowed to remove them from the water. The method of their execution was the same as that styled 'barbaric' by General Slocum and General Thomas when three of their men were murdered at Mulberry in 1863. The three are still buried on the banks of the mill pond." -With Blood and Fire, pp. 115-117, 120

View attachment 398352
General Robert H. Milroy
Library of Congress
Never heard about this general. Thanks for sharing.

Seems like he was a proper murdering scumbag. Excellent picture, though.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
The side that didn't betray their country for slavery and plunge their country into a tragic civil war, would be the "right side."
I've read of guerillas being shown no quarter or hung after being given some sort of trial, but I've never come across a death list - officers given a order to go out and execute civilians including women and children.

Milroy: "I started Lt. Col. Stauber of the 42nd Mo. V. I. with an expedition of 300 men today to evangelize the country between Elk and Tennessee Rivers in Guerilla Missouri style -- that is by fire and blood. I have by experience become a firm believer in the doctrine that 'There is no salvation except by blood.' There is nothing like it for the poison of treason which brought on bushwhacking, robbing, murdering, thieving, etc. I find fire and blood properly administered to be the perfect balance."
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I've read of guerillas being shown no quarter or hung after being given some sort of trial, but I've never come across a death list - officers given a order to go out and execute civilians including women and children.

Milroy: "I started Lt. Col. Stauber of the 42nd Mo. V. I. with an expedition of 300 men today to evangelize the country between Elk and Tennessee Rivers in Guerilla Missouri style -- that is by fire and blood. I have by experience become a firm believer in the doctrine that 'There is no salvation except by blood.' There is nothing like it for the poison of treason which brought on bushwhacking, robbing, murdering, thieving, etc. I find fire and blood properly administered to be the perfect balance."
There's no denying terrible, horrible, things happened during this period, events conducted by both sides. I'm sure if I tried, I could find Confederate examples of such despicable actions.

The point, for me at least, when you start a war over something as horrible as maintaining the institution of slavery along with the idea of protecting it, even expanding it, you have to take responsibility for what comes along with a civil war. Does this excuse the action of Milroy in your post above? No, not in any way, shape or form.

But who brought him into play? Who gave him the opportunity to commit such acts? The situation, the war, the complete arrogance of Southern, Confederate leaders who bragged the war would not even produce enough blood to fill a hankerchief.

Those who more than likely didn't even break a sweat during the entire conflict and escaped any serious punishment for their mistaken beliefs, these I hold responsible for men like Milroy, who should also be held responsible for his acts, but more than likely slipped back into the historical background.

War is he**. Think hard about that for a moment. The worst fate that can await people on this earth is war. The emotions and excuses for the harm inflicted simply because some say they can win or they can lick 5 men for every one of theirs, etc., is the most stupid idea ever to escape a man's mouth.

Milroy's actions were a sympton of the disease which infected the nation on the firing of Ft. Sumter.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
I've read of guerillas being shown no quarter or hung after being given some sort of trial, but I've never come across a death list - officers given a order to go out and execute civilians including women and children.

Milroy: "I started Lt. Col. Stauber of the 42nd Mo. V. I. with an expedition of 300 men today to evangelize the country between Elk and Tennessee Rivers in Guerilla Missouri style -- that is by fire and blood. I have by experience become a firm believer in the doctrine that 'There is no salvation except by blood.' There is nothing like it for the poison of treason which brought on bushwhacking, robbing, murdering, thieving, etc. I find fire and blood properly administered to be the perfect balance."
It's a tragic situation when a civilian population turns into a bloodthirsty criminal mob during a war. Neighbors murdering each other for their differing loyalties. Some areas of the south had more problems with it than other areas.

But yes, Milroy was overly harsh, and eventually relieved.

A month or so later, the Indiana delegation asked Lincoln that Milroy be given a command. Lincoln acceded, and wrote Grant: Milroy, he said, “is not a difficult man to satisfy… Believing in our cause, and wanting to fight in it, is the whole matter with him.” But Grant would not have him; or Meade, or Sherman. Although Milroy eventually found a place in the Western Theater, he served chiefly, and unhappily, in an administrative capacity. There was, however, one more round of furious letter-writing in him: when ordered to offer, post-bellum, amnesty to guerillas, he fired off so many indignant and insubordinate letters to his superiors, that he was sent back to Indiana in July, and mustered out, at last.​
 
Last edited:
Top