War Between the States

[texag57]

Moderator's note: This thread consists, to post #15, of posts taken from Victor's Injustice http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/show...?t=9620&page=3. Further discussion within the broad scope of the thread title is up to members, but this is not the place for detailed discussion of specific battles, specific weapons etc but rather the broader issues involved in the War Between the States. Rising Sun*

Unfortunately, the winners always apply the international laws after the shooting is over. There were someof the punishments meted out at Nuremburg that I do not feel were right. There were some of those that I felt were deserved. Punishments deserved by leaders of the winning sides have to be dealt out by their own courts of military justice. If they let them slide, then there is little that can be done. Otherwise, Northern commanders such as W.T. Sherman go scott free for their behavior and the behavior of some of his men during the War of Southern Independence.

[Wizard]

Unfortunately, the winners always apply the international laws after the shooting is over. There were someof the punishments meted out at Nuremburg that I do not feel were right. There were some of those that I felt were deserved. Punishments deserved by leaders of the winning sides have to be dealt out by their own courts of military justice. If they let them slide, then there is little that can be done. Otherwise, Northern commanders such as W.T. Sherman go scott free for their behavior and the behavior of some of his men during the War of Southern Independence.

It's a sad fact that the Northern military commanders broke no laws in the War of Northern Aggression because there were no laws, international or otherwise, which were in effect in the jurisdictions in which they were operating. Lincoln may have (probably did) violated the Federal Constitution in that he pursued an aggressive war in the absence of any Constitutional justification, but that is more a political matter to be adjudicated in the US Supreme Court. No Federal laws governed actions in the States until the advent of the 14th Amendment after the Civil war, and no international Conventions on War existed until 1864 (and at any rate, weren't ratified by the US until 1882).

That is not to say there was no precedent (The first war crimes trial was held in 1474, the defendant was Peter von Hagenbach, and he was convicted and executed after claiming to just following orders) for a trial of some Union commanders, but nothing was binding on them. There was something called the Lieber Code which imposed criminal liability on troop commanders for ordering or encouraging their men to wound or kill troops who had ceased resisting. This apparently was a protocol attached to Lincoln's declaration of martial law, which was of questionable legality in itself.

[texag57]

Thanks for your response, Wizard. The Union did find a way to prosecute and hang at least one Confederate Officer, the unfortunate Wirtz, commander of the infamous Andersonville Prison. Perhaps he deserved it, but I'm not sure of that. I have also read of very similar conditions in at least one of the Northern POW camps. Sounds like another example of "Victor's Injustice" right in our own nation. There are other examples that occurred during the Indian Wars as well. Victor's Injustice has been around a long time, and not just in WWII.

[Nickdfresh]

Um, didn't the Confederate States of America open fire on Fort Sumter? And as for legality, it was the South that seized federal assets with no negotiations...

[texag57]

[I][COLOR="DarkRed"]Yes they did. Only after requests for removal of Federals in the confines of a soverign state. Lincoln was set on re-supplying them, rather than removing them. South Carolina had adopted the Ordinances of Secession. This was a right that had not been forbidden to States by the U.S. Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the Federal Government to suppress a seceding state, but that proposal was rejected after James Madison said,

"A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound".1

Instead of honoring the spirit of the Constitutional Convention, Lincoln seemed determined to provoke a war, instead of recognizing the rights of the States.

Respectfully,


1.Max Farrand,ed, The Records of the Federal Convention, vol.1(New Haven, Conn.(Yale University Press,1911),p.47


[/COLOR][/I]

[texag57]

By the way, Nickdfresh, I notice you are from New York. I have seen in my reading about the War for Southern Independence, that New Yorkers, in general, were friendly to Southrons, and I appreciate that. Perhaps we too, can be friends and just agree to disagree on some things. Long Live the South!

[Nickdfresh]

By the way, Nickdfresh, I notice you are from New York. I have seen in my reading about the War for Southern Independence, that New Yorkers, in general, were friendly to Southrons, and I appreciate that. Perhaps we too, can be friends and just agree to disagree on some things. Long Live the South!

Texag,

I admit that I am not all that well-read on the American Civil War. I do recall something in history class of certain mixed sympathies that resided in both the Northern and Southern regions. There were of course those northerners who had a pipe-dream of one day owning a Southern plantation, some that favored the notion of "states rights," and many were immigrants from places like Ireland that objected to being conscripted to fight in a war after fleeing the travails of their homelands, which resulted in a surge of draft riots in the City. All understandable, but I doubt there was a significant groundswell of sympathy for secession here, and many New Yorkers bled into the hallowed battlefields...

Long live everyone!

Regards

[texag57]

Agreed, "long live everyone" and the USA.

[Rising Sun*]

And peace breaks out just when I thought we were going to see the start of American Civil War II.

More seriously, what I know about the Civil War would fit on the head of a pin. Is there a readily obtainable and fairly concise book any of you Civil War buffs would recommend as giving a fair view?

[Nickdfresh]

I dunno, I'm still stuck in the under-read portion of the War of 1812 and The American Revolution...

Unfortunately, I've been stuck on some other interests and have gotten away from wars a bit...

[Nickdfresh]

This might make a nice thread in the Civil War forum though, no?

[texag57]

Rising Sun, I can't think of a single edition, except perhaps the American Heritage single edition if it is still available. Look for anything by Bruce Catton, or Douglas Southall Freeman. Freeman has written several volumes of "Lee's Lieutenants". Any one of them would be a good read.
If I think of more, I'll let you know.

[texag57]

Rising Sun,

The books I mentioned previously were published years ago, But I read one recently that I thought was really interesting. The name is The Jewish Confederates.It came out just a couple of years ago, and gives some insight into the War for Southern Independence (Civil War to the Unionists). It also gives interesting information of the contributions made by Jewish Statesmen, military officers, and just plain fighting men. I really enjoyed it

[Rising Sun*]

texag57

Thanks. I'll see if I can find any locally.

[texag57]

My pleasure. The war was such a hugh part of our history, that it is difficult to find one book that would do it justice. I'll keep looking through what I have and let you know when I come up with something recent.