Did the moderators of the ABC debate give Obama and Clinton as much time to talk as they gave Lincoln? Seems he almost had a chance to say what was on his mind.

Very well done, btw. I mean it's fucking sad, but I think it's dead on.

And I disagree with Marcos who said on Maher that Americans do want to know the issues and it's detached media people who *think* they know what Americans want but are wrong.

Capitalism is democratic in it's own sort of way. If Americans wanted news instead of fluff then the checkout counters would have newsweek, time, et al instead of Us, People and all the other tabloids.

Same goes for what's on TV. There used to be real news on tv and it's gone the way the rating dictate - not the other way around. But if the news media had any integrity they would show the news in spite of that.

brilliant!

Much too kind. Were this the 1858 debate, people would have been questioning the born-in-a-slave-state Lincoln's loyalty and his fitness for office for being nothing but a hick lawyer, and also his actions of treason for opposing the landgrab against both Mexico and American aborigines in the 1840s. Were the Democrats then what the Republicans are now, they would not only have dredged up his aforementioned slave-state background, they would have raised his "mental instability" (manic-depressive), his "poor family life" and his "hatred of the American dream" (opposition to Manifest Destiny (i.e. kill the Mexies and the redskins, they don't need our land." Georgie Porgie Stephanopolous would have asked those questions.

I saw, at YouTube, some people describing themselves as "more American" than others. It came from a comment about Hillary being "more American" than Barack Obama. Is this how the presidency will be decided? (Looks like, eh?)

And... good one Danny C. [at1] -->"Enough apples to choke the both of you…fristy"

PS I did ask what it meant to be "more American."

About that flag-pin question…
By: Steve Benen @ 6:00 PM - PDT
April 18, 2008

One more thing about Wednesday night’s Democratic debate and then I’ll let it go....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let it go.

This cartoon sums it up:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/mikeluckovich;_ylt=AoNINciukhMIXGHfIFLQ...

Hilarious.

To cut the ABC a tiny bit of slack, I wonder if they weren't trying to keep the debate at the level of Fox thinking that's about as deep as most voters want to go.

When polled, they'll tell the pollster that they're deeply concerned about Iraq, healthcare, the two tiered economy, but deep down inside it's that flag pin. These are people who think supporting the military means having a yellow magnet on the back of their Chevy Suburban which they use to get to Mall Wart to buy a bunch of cheap plastic crap made by prison labor in China.

yellow dog @ 15:

Hilarious.

To cut the ABC a tiny bit of slack, I wonder if they weren't trying to keep the debate at the level of Fox thinking that's about as deep as most voters want to go.

When polled, they'll tell the pollster that they're deeply concerned about Iraq, healthcare, the two tiered economy, but deep down inside it's that flag pin. These are people who think supporting the military means having a yellow magnet on the back of their Chevy Suburban which they use to get to Mall Wart to buy a bunch of cheap plastic crap made by prison labor in China.

Exactly...I am amazed...flabbergasted even by the seemingly willful ignorance of some Americans...a conversation I had the other day with a republican friend...he didn't even want to hear about anything that didn't go along with his POV...very frustrating...it seems impossible to get through to these people.

I think the whole ABC debate flap simply illustrates my oft-repeated assertion that the major media are not engaging in journalism, but marketing. The same corporations that own Congress and profit off of our military misadventures in Iraq also own ABC, Fox, et al. These corporations do not engage in journalism, they engage in sales and marketing - of the war, of the status quo, and of the point of view of the ultra-wealthy.

Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolis were not acting as journalists or moderators, they were acting as marketing representatives.

When you view the MSM in this way, everything makes perfect sense and we can all stop pretending to be appalled.

James @ 20:

This is close enough to an open thread to allow this topic I suppose.
Being a military member for the past 15 plus years; I've had the honor and privilege of being assigned color guard duties and raising the American ensign aboard naval vessels, as well as shore facilities.
The flag lapel issue is becoming an annoyance.
If those on the right and even some of those on the left wish to treat a $2.00 trinket made in Taiwan as if it were as important as an actual US flag, then let them actually treat it as such.
If you're going to wear a flag pin on your lapel, you're going to have to follow the traditions the flag deserves.
You must give a 5 minute advance notice that you will be affixing the pin at 0800 in the morning. A recorded notice may be used if you can't play the bugle or other appropriate instrument.
You must stand ceremoniously near your jacket in silence awaiting 0800 to arrive.
At 0800 you will affix the pin in a ceremonious fashion with quick, precise movements.
Throughout the day you must never allow the flag pin to touch the ground or be subjected to anything that could bring shame upon you while you wear it.
At 5 minutes prior to sunset you must once again provide a call to colors.
At sunset; wherever you are and whatever you're doing, you must ceremoniously remove the pin and stow it in a respectful manner until the next day.
If the president or Governor of the state which you are in has the flag lowered to half mast to honor a certain day, then you must wear the pin on the lower pocket of your jacket or another suitable location below the lapel.
Try to get any military member who passes you throughout the day to salute your pin.
I won't even get into the long list of other ways in which a national ensign is required to be handled....but you get the idea.
Leave it to right to turn a $2.00 trinket more than likely manufactured in another country (communist even?) into a nationalistic BS issue. I really wish more people knew the difference between patriotism and nationalism.

"War is a Racket" by that most highly decorated marine of all time, Smedley "Darling" Butler should be required reading for everybody ya'll! You can still be patriotic and serve your country even if you realize wars are never fought for the reasons the government gives the people.

Have a great day everybody.

Hells yeah!

James @ 20:

This is close enough to an open thread to allow this topic I suppose.
Being a military member for the past 15 plus years; I've had the honor and privilege of being assigned color guard duties and raising the American ensign aboard naval vessels, as well as shore facilities.
The flag lapel issue is becoming an annoyance.
If those on the right and even some of those on the left wish to treat a $2.00 trinket made in Taiwan as if it were as important as an actual US flag, then let them actually treat it as such.
If you're going to wear a flag pin on your lapel, you're going to have to follow the traditions the flag deserves.
You must give a 5 minute advance notice that you will be affixing the pin at 0800 in the morning. A recorded notice may be used if you can't play the bugle or other appropriate instrument.
You must stand ceremoniously near your jacket in silence awaiting 0800 to arrive.
At 0800 you will affix the pin in a ceremonious fashion with quick, precise movements.
Throughout the day you must never allow the flag pin to touch the ground or be subjected to anything that could bring shame upon you while you wear it.
At 5 minutes prior to sunset you must once again provide a call to colors.
At sunset; wherever you are and whatever you're doing, you must ceremoniously remove the pin and stow it in a respectful manner until the next day.
If the president or Governor of the state which you are in has the flag lowered to half mast to honor a certain day, then you must wear the pin on the lower pocket of your jacket or another suitable location below the lapel.
Try to get any military member who passes you throughout the day to salute your pin.
I won't even get into the long list of other ways in which a national ensign is required to be handled....but you get the idea.
Leave it to right to turn a $2.00 trinket more than likely manufactured in another country (communist even?) into a nationalistic BS issue. I really wish more people knew the difference between patriotism and nationalism.

"War is a Racket" by that most highly decorated marine of all time, Smedley "Darling" Butler should be required reading for everybody ya'll! You can still be patriotic and serve your country even if you realize wars are never fought for the reasons the government gives the people.

Have a great day everybody.

Right on James!

CafeenMan @ 2:

Did the moderators of the ABC debate give Obama and Clinton as much time to talk as they gave Lincoln? Seems he almost had a chance to say what was on his mind.

Very well done, btw. I mean it's fucking sad, but I think it's dead on.

And I disagree with Marcos who said on Maher that Americans do want to know the issues and it's detached media people who *think* they know what Americans want but are wrong.

Capitalism is democratic in it's own sort of way. If Americans wanted news instead of fluff then the checkout counters would have newsweek, time, et al instead of Us, People and all the other tabloids.

Same goes for what's on TV. There used to be real news on tv and it's gone the way the rating dictate - not the other way around. But if the news media had any integrity they would show the news in spite of that.

What makes you think Time and Newsweek are any different than the broadcast news?

honestly this charade cannot be allowed to just "fade" away. it must be brought to the forefront at every opportunity. it illustrates rather blatantly what mainstream media is all about. They diverted attention from real issues of the day to "who loves America more, and Why are you not wearing an American flag lapel pin, and why haven't you disowned the preacher who made the disparaging remarks about america.

I feel strongly that rather than being "played" by these little people portraying news casters and "debate" moderators, BOTH HILLARY AND OBAMA should have opted to walk out of the debate. How excellent would it have been for both of them to make a statement to the american public that they would not play this game. How each would have grown in this courageous act in the eyes of the savvy voters.

as it was, could it have turned out any worse. this was the voters' last opportunity to see what separates the two candidates and the moderates chose to focus on "trivial" issues. They should have walked.

Don't forget, ABC was a Nixon & Vietnam cheerleader back in the 70s.

no longer a proud american @ 27:

honestly this charade cannot be allowed to just "fade" away. it must be brought to the forefront at every opportunity. it illustrates rather blatantly what mainstream media is all about. They diverted attention from real issues of the day to "who loves America more, and Why are you not wearing an American flag lapel pin, and why haven't you disowned the preacher who made the disparaging remarks about america.

I feel strongly that rather than being "played" by these little people portraying news casters and "debate" moderators, BOTH HILLARY AND OBAMA should have opted to walk out of the debate. How excellent would it have been for both of them to make a statement to the american public that they would not play this game. How each would have grown in this courageous act in the eyes of the savvy voters.

You are an idiot, we have had 20+ debates with the candidates spewing their policy "ideas" that they cannot not deliver on. Finally we had a debate that looked into Obama's character and he folded like a cheap lawn chair. Face it you socialists have two unelectable candidates, either one will be crushed come November.

as it was, could it have turned out any worse. this was the voters' last opportunity to see what separates the two candidates and the moderates chose to focus on "trivial" issues. They should have walked.

LOL!! Didn't get past the 3rd line!

that is brilliant

ABC asked questions about the same crap that all media has been talking about for what seems an eternity in this primary. The only difference is that most of media like CNN (Cafferty, Blitzer, Candy the Cow, etc) MSNBC (Olbermann, Tweety, Maddow, etc) have been discussing these same issues but always with an apologetic bias for Obama and an accusing and degrading bias for Hillary. That's been perfectly acceptable until Obama had to stand there and take it and didn't handle the pressure well. Now you all want to storm the ABC Offices and shut them down? This isn't going to hurt Obama - his free pass has taken him too far in the process now for anything to make an impact. Likely he will get the nomination but I have my doubts that he will win the general. In a sane and enlightened country he should be the victor but, unfortunately, we don't live in a sane and enlightened country.

ABC chose not to do any of the journalistic legwork necessary to put on a good debate. In a violation of journalistic ethics, they chose Stephanopoulos as their co-host, without informing the audience that he owed his career to the Clintons. They found the same person, McCabe, that the NYT had already interviewed, because it was easy. It also had the added bonus of giving the flag lapel pin BS new legs--to create controversy where none existed. ABC believed they could manufacture the news and decide what was an "issue."

The bias and shoddy journalism were obvious, the questions inappropriate and unrelated to anything the audience wanted to know. That's why viewers were so angry. It didn't matter whether the audience was Republican, Democrat, an Obama supporter or a Clinton supporter. The overriding feeling I got reading through dozens of comments left on ABC's website was: Viewers felt they'd been had. They had tuned in to hear the issues presented and debated. What they got instead was a big f**k you from ABC.

ABC has to answer to the public now. They abused the public airwaves, they violated journalistic ethics, they showed a total disregard for the facts, a disrespect for the electoral process and for their viewing audience. The public can't afford to let this go.

ABC needs to tell the public why they attempted to interfere with the election process?

Leslie @ 40

So when NBC and Timmeh did the hit job on Hillary at that debate, were you outraged enough to protest the NBC offices? Was anyone?

"ABC needs to tell the public why they attempted to interfere with the elections process"? Are you kidding?

This entire election process has been interfered with by EVERY media outlet and our own Democratic Party that insisted on giving us our "first" and making everyone else invisible.

Jack @ 43:

Boy what a bunch of cry baby liberals. Oh Charlie and Georgie were mean to me! The asked me tough, ugly questions. Boo Hoo... Maher thinks Catholics are a cult, Bill Moyers is a disgrace. Like an East Texas George Soros (without the money or intellect). It's hard to believe that from my home town both Y.A. Title and Bill Moyers were born there.

And Lincoln, he did not end slavery. Read the emancipation proclamation.

True, Lincoln did not end slavery, the 13th Amendment did. Lincoln ended slavery in the Confederacy where he had no power to do anything about it. Regardless of Lincoln's views on the matter, you no longer own, buy, sell, and use and abuse black people as chattel property.

End of discussion.

Jack @ 43:

Stephanopoulis and Gibson didn't ask tough ugly questions, merely insubstantial ones

Moyer's does shows deals with substance like hunger in America,

Therefore your comment is without substance

And by extension you yourself is without substance.

Moyer’s does shows filled with substance like hunger in America...

Interesting thing about the Emancipation Proclemation is that Lincoln was essentially making it economically unviable for the South to continue the war, especially if slaves escaped.

Since only peasants had to do the actual fighting it's hurting each other's economic viability to wage war that has traditionally ended wars.

boosh is destroying our economic viability for the terrorists by essentially atrophying the Nation's wealth to continue indefinitely, with no definition of what a victory is.

ysbaddaden @ 50:

Interesting thing about the Emancipation Proclemation is that Lincoln was essentially making it economically unviable for the South to continue the war, especially if slaves escaped.

Since only peasants had to do the actual fighting it's hurting each other's economic viability to wage war that has traditionally ended wars.

boosh is destroying our economic viability for the terrorists by essentially atrophying the Nation's wealth to continue indefinitely, with no definition of what a victory is.

Lincoln did bring the war to an early close by enlisting in the aid of War Criminal Gen. Sherman. During the Civil War, General Grant insisted that the defeat of Confederate armies was the first and foremost objective of Union strategy. Disobeying this policy, General Sherman set forth on a march to Savannah and the sea on November 15, 1864. He led his Union troops away from every Confederate army camp or stronghold. Instead, his army proceeded through the soft belly of the South, burning and destroying the civilians, their homes, their property, their farms, their food, their entire countryside. They murdered the children and the elderly, raped the women and then shot them, and stole every valuable they could get their hands on.

Jack @ 53:

ysbaddaden @ 48:

Moyer’s does shows filled with substance like hunger in America...

Moyers is the poster child for the elite media who would much rather utilize rumor and utter speculation, based on strictly anecdotal information, to arrive at their twisted and extreme conclusions.

He has no credibility beyond the left wing few who reside in academia, the wannabe's in the entertainment industry, and his media enablers.

Why someone who shows such laziness in gathering facts still gets a forum to spew forth is well past my ability to comprehend.

Thanks to Chris Wallace, he is furher confirmed as a maroon extraordinaire.

Jack @ 52:

ysbaddaden @ 50:

Interesting thing about the Emancipation Proclemation is that Lincoln was essentially making it economically unviable for the South to continue the war, especially if slaves escaped.

Since only peasants had to do the actual fighting it's hurting each other's economic viability to wage war that has traditionally ended wars.

boosh is destroying our economic viability for the terrorists by essentially atrophying the Nation's wealth to continue indefinitely, with no definition of what a victory is.

Lincoln did bring the war to an early close by enlisting in the aid of War Criminal Gen. Sherman. During the Civil War, General Grant insisted that the defeat of Confederate armies was the first and foremost objective of Union strategy. Disobeying this policy, General Sherman set forth on a march to Savannah and the sea on November 15, 1864. He led his Union troops away from every Confederate army camp or stronghold. Instead, his army proceeded through the soft belly of the South, burning and destroying the civilians, their homes, their property, their farms, their food, their entire countryside. They murdered the children and the elderly, raped the women and then shot them, and stole every valuable they could get their hands on.

O.o

No, Sherman's boys never did that. Destroyed property, yes. That's war.

But rape? In 19th Century America? When Ben Butler issued his general order he achieved infamy. There are no records in either Union or Rebel records of mass rape and murder in Sherman's campaign. And it wasn't a war crime. The U.S. didn't enter the Geneva convention until after the Second World War. If Sherman's campaign was some sort of Taiping-ish mass slaughter and destruction, it would be much more remembered in the South than it is. It wasn't. Sherman simply shortened a fratricidal conflict that was all too long.

And dude, I don't know who Bill Moyers is, nor do I care. If you condemn him like this, he must be good.

Andy K Jong Il @ 55:

Jesus, Jack, read your history. Start with Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson. It's an all-encompassing book that focuses much less on the battles of the Civil War, and much more on the politics and economics of it.

READ? Why, that's too much like work Andy. Jack just likes to troll left leaning sites and pontificate. As if his opinion=fact.

Expecting him to read is a bit much...

Andy K Jong Il @ 57:

miss_kitty @ 56:

Andy K Jong Il @ 55:

Jesus, Jack, read your history. Start with Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson. It's an all-encompassing book that focuses much less on the battles of the Civil War, and much more on the politics and economics of it.

READ? Why, that's too much like work Andy. Jack just likes to troll left leaning sites and pontificate. As if his opinion=fact.

Expecting him to read is a bit much...

Oh, ye of little faith...

Haven't I told you about my new edumacation program? I call it No Troll Left Behind. And it's free to everyone but Amato, who pays for the bandwidth. :D

You can lead a troll to edumacation, but rarely, if ever will s/he upload it.

Andy K Jong Il @ 55:

Jack @ 52:

ysbaddaden @ 50:

You don't think Lincoln knew what was going to happen during the March to the Sea? Grant had Sherman do the same thing a year earlier, through Mississippi, after Vicksburg had surrendered.

And the March to the Sea helped to defeat Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, as well as Hood's Army of Tennessee, by destroying one of the last untouched agricultural bases in the Confederacy that could possibly feed the rebel troops.

And as the General just pointed out, there were no orders to rape the women of Georgia, and few were.

Jesus, Jack, read your history. Start with Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson. It's an all-encompassing book that focuses much less on the battles of the Civil War, and much more on the politics and economics of it.

To correct myself, the campaign through Mississippi to which I refered occured in February of 1864, 1/2 a year before The March to the Sea. It's refered to as The Merdian Expediton. Here's Sherman's account of it.

Also, here's a link to Sherman's Special Field Orders, No. 120, that specify the aims of the (March to the Sea) campaign, as well as tactics and a rough code of conduct. Contained within:

IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, potatoes, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.

V. To army corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.

General_Rennenkampf @ 61:

Andy K Jong Il @ 60:

Andy K Jong Il @ 55:

Jack @ 52:

You don't think Lincoln knew what was going to happen during the March to the Sea? Grant had Sherman do the same thing a year earlier, through Mississippi, after Vicksburg had surrendered.

And the March to the Sea helped to defeat Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, as well as Hood's Army of Tennessee, by destroying one of the last untouched agricultural bases in the Confederacy that could possibly feed the rebel troops.

And as the General just pointed out, there were no orders to rape the women of Georgia, and few were.

Jesus, Jack, read your history. Start with Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson. It's an all-encompassing book that focuses much less on the battles of the Civil War, and much more on the politics and economics of it.

To correct myself, the campaign through Mississippi to which I refered occured in February of 1864, 1/2 a year before The March to the Sea. It's refered to as The Merdian Expediton. Here's Sherman's account of it.

Also, here's a link to Sherman's Special Field Orders, No. 120, that specify the aims of the (March to the Sea) campaign, as well as tactics and a rough code of conduct. Contained within:

IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, potatoes, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.

V. To army corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.

All of this is accurate. I have Sherman's memoirs, and that's pretty much how the Savannah campaign is described. Sherman had a lot of copies of his orders in his memoirs, a real boon for history buffs and historians.

I think Jack has his Union Army mixed up with his Taiping Army, though. The Taiping under Hong Xiuquan...(shudder). There was an evil MFer. Guy killed the most people until Hitler and Stalin came along.

It's not complicated. Do a google search for "war criminals". Or you might read, "The Day Dixie Died", Thomas and Debra Goodrich.

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln's war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln's war.

In 1863 there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that sought to codify international law with regard to the conduct of war. What the convention sought to do was to take the principles of "civilized" warfare that had evolved over the previous century, and declare them to be a part of international law that should be obeyed by all civilized societies. Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army.

Your comparisons are quite on the mark, at least by 1860 standards.

General_Rennenkampf @ 54:

Jack @ 53:

ysbaddaden @ 48:

Moyer’s does shows filled with substance like hunger in America...

Moyers is the poster child for the elite media who would much rather utilize rumor and utter speculation, based on strictly anecdotal information, to arrive at their twisted and extreme conclusions.

He has no credibility beyond the left wing few who reside in academia, the wannabe's in the entertainment industry, and his media enablers.

Why someone who shows such laziness in gathering facts still gets a forum to spew forth is well past my ability to comprehend.

Thanks to Chris Wallace, he is furher confirmed as a maroon extraordinaire.

Jack @ 52:

ysbaddaden @ 50:

Interesting thing about the Emancipation Proclemation is that Lincoln was essentially making it economically unviable for the South to continue the war, especially if slaves escaped.

Since only peasants had to do the actual fighting it's hurting each other's economic viability to wage war that has traditionally ended wars.

boosh is destroying our economic viability for the terrorists by essentially atrophying the Nation's wealth to continue indefinitely, with no definition of what a victory is.

Lincoln did bring the war to an early close by enlisting in the aid of War Criminal Gen. Sherman. During the Civil War, General Grant insisted that the defeat of Confederate armies was the first and foremost objective of Union strategy. Disobeying this policy, General Sherman set forth on a march to Savannah and the sea on November 15, 1864. He led his Union troops away from every Confederate army camp or stronghold. Instead, his army proceeded through the soft belly of the South, burning and destroying the civilians, their homes, their property, their farms, their food, their entire countryside. They murdered the children and the elderly, raped the women and then shot them, and stole every valuable they could get their hands on.

O.o

No, Sherman's boys never did that. Destroyed property, yes. That's war.

But rape? In 19th Century America? When Ben Butler issued his general order he achieved infamy. There are no records in either Union or Rebel records of mass rape and murder in Sherman's campaign. And it wasn't a war crime. The U.S. didn't enter the Geneva convention until after the Second World War. If Sherman's campaign was some sort of Taiping-ish mass slaughter and destruction, it would be much more remembered in the South than it is. It wasn't. Sherman simply shortened a fratricidal conflict that was all too long.

And dude, I don't know who Bill Moyers is, nor do I care. If you condemn him like this, he must be good.

And for your enlightenment "General".

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln's war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln's war.

In 1863 there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that sought to codify international law with regard to the conduct of war. What the convention sought to do was to take the principles of "civilized" warfare that had evolved over the previous century, and declare them to be a part of international law that should be obeyed by all civilized societies. Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army.

Wow... You still can't let the whole Steph-Gibson thing go? I guess its good for hits to your site, right? You make a lil more change from the extra folks who will click your ads by way overplaying this?? Brilliant.

Take Obama's advice and focus on the real issues. The left wingers sound like a bunch of shocked cry babies over a few stinking' debate questions. Before the debate you all glibly smiled like you knew the fix was in and thought they would toss waffle balls at Obama and Hillary? LMAO. A hard ball is good every so often -- it shouldn't have led to this leftie outcry of weeping and gnashing of teeth. It's not the end of the world. As usual, you're showing yourselves to be a bunch of half witted, overly defensive drama queens and are shooting yourselves in the foot once again. You're worse then the religious right for what boils down hollering bloody murder that your sanctimonious expectations for easy questions was violated.

From an Independent's point of view, McCain is as much as a disgrace as Hillary and Obamination. I dislike them all right now. So do us a favor and give me a reason why we should vote against McCain beyond the clap trap rhetoric of unfair questions and what those two mugs on dem side have been blaring on the campaign trail. As opposed to having to vote against the likes of Gore, Kerry (a no brainer) and whomever comes out of the coming farce of the democratic convention, I sure would like a solid reason to vote against the McCainiac. Maybe I and my Independent friends who will control this game at the end will just sit this one out, or vote for Nader and you get what you deserve which is 4 years of Bush II??? Maybe I vote for McCain on the expectation that he's likely to do a William Henry Harrison on us and croak in office (that would largely depend on the running mate I suppose)? You know that one day soon he's gonna pop a major blood vessel in his brain during a tirade. If in the White House, this could be caused by something as simple as his poached egg being too runny.

So, tell me Mr. Uptight Blogster, with a more than ever precarious choice on the Republican side - why is it that you foam at the mouth over a few debate questions and depart from substance so easily? You relativistic and gnarly minded folks honestly can't ever take the high road (really a little of your own medicine) - or to, to use a Christian cliche, turn the other cheek and just move on?? Again, You have to have your cake and eat it too, or you're going to go into a mass temper tantrum? It just makes no sense.

Following the disaster of W (which would have been no holds barred political conflagration for the country with a Kerry, or a Gore in the White House that would make Warren Harding look like a master), you pin head lefties need to blow into a brown paper lunch bag and calm down and focus on doing a better job of presenting real reasons to vote for your eventual candidate.

Stop whining and bitching and give us some substance. Kapish? Thanks.

JimK @ 67:

Jack @ 64:

General_Rennenkampf @ 54:

Jack @ 53:
Jack @ 52:

O.o

No, Sherman's boys never did that. Destroyed property, yes. That's war.

But rape? In 19th Century America? When Ben Butler issued his general order he achieved infamy. There are no records in either Union or Rebel records of mass rape and murder in Sherman's campaign. And it wasn't a war crime. The U.S. didn't enter the Geneva convention until after the Second World War. If Sherman's campaign was some sort of Taiping-ish mass slaughter and destruction, it would be much more remembered in the South than it is. It wasn't. Sherman simply shortened a fratricidal conflict that was all too long.

And dude, I don't know who Bill Moyers is, nor do I care. If you condemn him like this, he must be good.

And for your enlightenment "General".

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln's war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln's war.

In 1863 there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that sought to codify international law with regard to the conduct of war. What the convention sought to do was to take the principles of "civilized" warfare that had evolved over the previous century, and declare them to be a part of international law that should be obeyed by all civilized societies. Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army.

Jack @ 64:

General_Rennenkampf @ 54:

Jack @ 53:
Jack @ 52:

O.o

No, Sherman's boys never did that. Destroyed property, yes. That's war.

But rape? In 19th Century America? When Ben Butler issued his general order he achieved infamy. There are no records in either Union or Rebel records of mass rape and murder in Sherman's campaign. And it wasn't a war crime. The U.S. didn't enter the Geneva convention until after the Second World War. If Sherman's campaign was some sort of Taiping-ish mass slaughter and destruction, it would be much more remembered in the South than it is. It wasn't. Sherman simply shortened a fratricidal conflict that was all too long.

And dude, I don't know who Bill Moyers is, nor do I care. If you condemn him like this, he must be good.

And for your enlightenment "General".

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln's war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln's war.

In 1863 there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that sought to codify international law with regard to the conduct of war. What the convention sought to do was to take the principles of "civilized" warfare that had evolved over the previous century, and declare them to be a part of international law that should be obeyed by all civilized societies. Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army.

Yikes, "Mr Lincoln's War"??? LOL. That's so ridiculous it's funny. I guess we should call American involvement in WWII "Mr. Roosevelt's War" and skewer him on the fires of revisionist history for allowing the bombing of Dresden where there were real, mass casualties of civilians??

Back to the Civil War... At least Abe got Congress to sign on to a real declaration of war, unlike our modern day inhabitant of the White House!

You really don't get what happened in the Civil War do you? Very simple: it was "total" war. Before commenting here on the Civil War, you need to do some more reading on Grant's viewpoint on total war and then come back with something useful to say aside from shrill pronouncements about the Geneva Convention and the rape of women in the Georgia countryside by Union troops.

You need to understand a little lesson among many, that "total war" is the key reason why the shooting came to an end and why the quagmire in Iraq will last for decades to come. There is no such thing as civilised warfare and it actually becomes more un-civilised when war is allowed to drag on in non total war fashion. But I digress and my inclusion of the Iraq situation is merely to point out the basic difference between how war was waged by the Generals of Lincoln and Davis and what Bush is overseeing today. Of course there are other differences as well. Our Moslem (offensive spelling by choice) antagonists in Iraq have been killing each other (including civilians) for at least 1400 years. How convenient that you forgot about that. So this whole blame uncivilised warfare thing on Lincoln could only come from someone WHO DOESN'T KNOW HIS BASIC WORLD CIV HISTORY!

Oh, on the rape comment - as someone stated, we're talking 19th century America not the Japanese in the Nanking in the late 1930's. I hope the ghosts of the Civil War past come to haunt you for making such and inaccurate and inflammatory statement. I think even Bobby Lee and Stonewall Jackson would be offended.

Jack @ 62:

General_Rennenkampf @ 61:

Andy K Jong Il @ 60:

Andy K Jong Il @ 55:

To correct myself, the campaign through Mississippi to which I refered occured in February of 1864, 1/2 a year before The March to the Sea. It's refered to as The Merdian Expediton. Here's Sherman's account of it.

Also, here's a link to Sherman's Special Field Orders, No. 120, that specify the aims of the (March to the Sea) campaign, as well as tactics and a rough code of conduct. Contained within:

IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, potatoes, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.

V. To army corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.

All of this is accurate. I have Sherman's memoirs, and that's pretty much how the Savannah campaign is described. Sherman had a lot of copies of his orders in his memoirs, a real boon for history buffs and historians.

I think Jack has his Union Army mixed up with his Taiping Army, though. The Taiping under Hong Xiuquan...(shudder). There was an evil MFer. Guy killed the most people until Hitler and Stalin came along.

It's not complicated. Do a google search for "war criminals". Or you might read, "The Day Dixie Died", Thomas and Debra Goodrich.

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln's war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln's war.

In 1863 there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that sought to codify international law with regard to the conduct of war. What the convention sought to do was to take the principles of "civilized" warfare that had evolved over the previous century, and declare them to be a part of international law that should be obeyed by all civilized societies. Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army.

Your comparisons are quite on the mark, at least by 1860 standards.

Jack: The Union Army of the Atlanta to Savannah campaign destroyed property. Big F'ing deal, that's how warfare works. But to imply the Union Army did unto the people of the South who rebelled for the right of states to keep other human beings in bondage what the Soviet Army did do in Germany is flat-out wrong. When a CS general used mines, which is very common today, Sherman had a fit, and Lee convinced his fellow general to retire those soldiers. If they objected to mines, do you think a campaign of mass slaughter would have been allowed by Lincoln to other white men? To the Indians during the war, that's a little different. Not to the other white men of the United States.

The Union Army was remarkably civilized. After all the slaughter unleashed by the Civil War, frex, no mass hangings and reprisals occurred in the former Confederacy. Had the Union Army been the monstrosity you're describing, Jeff Davis would have received the black lynching treatment and the war likely would have dragged on with former Confederates becoming guerillas to protect their families.

General_Rennenkampf @ 68:

JimK @ 67:

Jack @ 64:

General_Rennenkampf @ 54:

And for your enlightenment "General".

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln's war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln's war.

In 1863 there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that sought to codify international law with regard to the conduct of war. What the convention sought to do was to take the principles of "civilized" warfare that had evolved over the previous century, and declare them to be a part of international law that should be obeyed by all civilized societies. Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army.

Jack @ 64:

General_Rennenkampf @ 54:

And for your enlightenment "General".

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln's war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln's war.

In 1863 there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that sought to codify international law with regard to the conduct of war. What the convention sought to do was to take the principles of "civilized" warfare that had evolved over the previous century, and declare them to be a part of international law that should be obeyed by all civilized societies. Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army.

Yikes, "Mr Lincoln's War"??? LOL. That's so ridiculous it's funny. I guess we should call American involvement in WWII "Mr. Roosevelt's War" and skewer him on the fires of revisionist history for allowing the bombing of Dresden where there were real, mass casualties of civilians??

Back to the Civil War... At least Abe got Congress to sign on to a real declaration of war, unlike our modern day inhabitant of the White House!

You really don't get what happened in the Civil War do you? Very simple: it was "total" war. Before commenting here on the Civil War, you need to do some more reading on Grant's viewpoint on total war and then come back with something useful to say aside from shrill pronouncements about the Geneva Convention and the rape of women in the Georgia countryside by Union troops.

You need to understand a little lesson among many, that "total war" is the key reason why the shooting came to an end and why the quagmire in Iraq will last for decades to come. There is no such thing as civilised warfare and it actually becomes more un-civilised when war is allowed to drag on in non total war fashion. But I digress and my inclusion of the Iraq situation is merely to point out the basic difference between how war was waged by the Generals of Lincoln and Davis and what Bush is overseeing today. Of course there are other differences as well. Our Moslem (offensive spelling by choice) antagonists in Iraq have been killing each other (including civilians) for at least 1400 years. How convenient that you forgot about that. So this whole blame uncivilised warfare thing on Lincoln could only come from someone WHO DOESN'T KNOW HIS BASIC WORLD CIV HISTORY!

Oh, on the rape comment - as someone stated, we're talking 19th century America not the Japanese in the Nanking in the late 1930's. I hope the ghosts of the Civil War past come to haunt you for making such and inaccurate and inflammatory statement. I think even Bobby Lee and Stonewall Jackson would be offended.

Jack @ 62:

General_Rennenkampf @ 61:

Andy K Jong Il @ 60:

All of this is accurate. I have Sherman's memoirs, and that's pretty much how the Savannah campaign is described. Sherman had a lot of copies of his orders in his memoirs, a real boon for history buffs and historians.

I think Jack has his Union Army mixed up with his Taiping Army, though. The Taiping under Hong Xiuquan...(shudder). There was an evil MFer. Guy killed the most people until Hitler and Stalin came along.

It's not complicated. Do a google search for "war criminals". Or you might read, "The Day Dixie Died", Thomas and Debra Goodrich.

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln's war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln's war.

In 1863 there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that sought to codify international law with regard to the conduct of war. What the convention sought to do was to take the principles of "civilized" warfare that had evolved over the previous century, and declare them to be a part of international law that should be obeyed by all civilized societies. Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army.

Your comparisons are quite on the mark, at least by 1860 standards.

Jack: The Union Army of the Atlanta to Savannah campaign destroyed property. Big F'ing deal, that's how warfare works. But to imply the Union Army did unto the people of the South who rebelled for the right of states to keep other human beings in bondage what the Soviet Army did do in Germany is flat-out wrong. When a CS general used mines, which is very common today, Sherman had a fit, and Lee convinced his fellow general to retire those soldiers. If they objected to mines, do you think a campaign of mass slaughter would have been allowed by Lincoln to other white men? To the Indians during the war, that's a little different. Not to the other white men of the United States.

The Union Army was remarkably civilized. After all the slaughter unleashed by the Civil War, frex, no mass hangings and reprisals occurred in the former Confederacy. Had the Union Army been the monstrosity you're describing, Jeff Davis would have received the black lynching treatment and the war likely would have dragged on with former Confederates becoming guerillas to protect their families.

The Union Army was very civilized. They used CSA POW's to clear the mines in front of Shermans troop's. Many lost arms, legs and their lives.

JimK @ 67:

Jack @ 64:

General_Rennenkampf @ 54:

Jack @ 53:
Jack @ 52:

O.o

No, Sherman's boys never did that. Destroyed property, yes. That's war.

But rape? In 19th Century America? When Ben Butler issued his general order he achieved infamy. There are no records in either Union or Rebel records of mass rape and murder in Sherman's campaign. And it wasn't a war crime. The U.S. didn't enter the Geneva convention until after the Second World War. If Sherman's campaign was some sort of Taiping-ish mass slaughter and destruction, it would be much more remembered in the South than it is. It wasn't. Sherman simply shortened a fratricidal conflict that was all too long.

And dude, I don't know who Bill Moyers is, nor do I care. If you condemn him like this, he must be good.

And for your enlightenment "General".

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln's war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln's war.

In 1863 there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that sought to codify international law with regard to the conduct of war. What the convention sought to do was to take the principles of "civilized" warfare that had evolved over the previous century, and declare them to be a part of international law that should be obeyed by all civilized societies. Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army.

Jack @ 64:

General_Rennenkampf @ 54:

Jack @ 53:
Jack @ 52:

O.o

No, Sherman's boys never did that. Destroyed property, yes. That's war.

But rape? In 19th Century America? When Ben Butler issued his general order he achieved infamy. There are no records in either Union or Rebel records of mass rape and murder in Sherman's campaign. And it wasn't a war crime. The U.S. didn't enter the Geneva convention until after the Second World War. If Sherman's campaign was some sort of Taiping-ish mass slaughter and destruction, it would be much more remembered in the South than it is. It wasn't. Sherman simply shortened a fratricidal conflict that was all too long.

And dude, I don't know who Bill Moyers is, nor do I care. If you condemn him like this, he must be good.

And for your enlightenment "General".

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln's war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln's war.

In 1863 there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that sought to codify international law with regard to the conduct of war. What the convention sought to do was to take the principles of "civilized" warfare that had evolved over the previous century, and declare them to be a part of international law that should be obeyed by all civilized societies. Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army.

Yikes, "Mr Lincoln's War"??? LOL. That's so ridiculous it's funny. I guess we should call American involvement in WWII "Mr. Roosevelt's War" and skewer him on the fires of revisionist history for allowing the bombing of Dresden where there were real, mass casualties of civilians??

Back to the Civil War... At least Abe got Congress to sign on to a real declaration of war, unlike our modern day inhabitant of the White House!

You really don't get what happened in the Civil War do you? Very simple: it was "total" war. Before commenting here on the Civil War, you need to do some more reading on Grant's viewpoint on total war and then come back with something useful to say aside from shrill pronouncements about the Geneva Convention and the rape of women in the Georgia countryside by Union troops.

You need to understand a little lesson among many, that "total war" is the key reason why the shooting came to an end and why the quagmire in Iraq will last for decades to come. There is no such thing as civilised warfare and it actually becomes more un-civilised when war is allowed to drag on in non total war fashion. But I digress and my inclusion of the Iraq situation is merely to point out the basic difference between how war was waged by the Generals of Lincoln and Davis and what Bush is overseeing today. Of course there are other differences as well. Our Moslem (offensive spelling by choice) antagonists in Iraq have been killing each other (including civilians) for at least 1400 years. How convenient that you forgot about that. So this whole blame uncivilised warfare thing on Lincoln could only come from someone WHO DOESN'T KNOW HIS BASIC WORLD CIV HISTORY!

Oh, on the rape comment - as someone stated, we're talking 19th century America not the Japanese in the Nanking in the late 1930's. I hope the ghosts of the Civil War past come to haunt you for making such and inaccurate and inflammatory statement. I think even Bobby Lee and Stonewall Jackson would be offended.

Gen. Robert E. Lee and Gen. Thomas J. Jackson would certainly take offense to any reference by someone such as yourself, of this I’m assured. The Union in its infinite wisdom only restored Gen. Lee’s US citizenship on August 5th, 1975. But back to Sherman, “my historical expert”. His unannounced bombardment and burning of Atlanta was the first and precursor to modern warfare, (concerning the intentional targeting of civilians). Even today in Iraq and Afghanistan, those of the US Armed Forces inflict less collateral damage to civilians than “Uncle Billy”.

General_Rennenkampf @ 73:

Jack @ 71:

JimK @ 67:

Jack @ 64:
Jack @ 64:

Yikes, "Mr Lincoln's War"??? LOL. That's so ridiculous it's funny. I guess we should call American involvement in WWII "Mr. Roosevelt's War" and skewer him on the fires of revisionist history for allowing the bombing of Dresden where there were real, mass casualties of civilians??

Back to the Civil War... At least Abe got Congress to sign on to a real declaration of war, unlike our modern day inhabitant of the White House!

You really don't get what happened in the Civil War do you? Very simple: it was "total" war. Before commenting here on the Civil War, you need to do some more reading on Grant's viewpoint on total war and then come back with something useful to say aside from shrill pronouncements about the Geneva Convention and the rape of women in the Georgia countryside by Union troops.

You need to understand a little lesson among many, that "total war" is the key reason why the shooting came to an end and why the quagmire in Iraq will last for decades to come. There is no such thing as civilised warfare and it actually becomes more un-civilised when war is allowed to drag on in non total war fashion. But I digress and my inclusion of the Iraq situation is merely to point out the basic difference between how war was waged by the Generals of Lincoln and Davis and what Bush is overseeing today. Of course there are other differences as well. Our Moslem (offensive spelling by choice) antagonists in Iraq have been killing each other (including civilians) for at least 1400 years. How convenient that you forgot about that. So this whole blame uncivilised warfare thing on Lincoln could only come from someone WHO DOESN'T KNOW HIS BASIC WORLD CIV HISTORY!

Oh, on the rape comment - as someone stated, we're talking 19th century America not the Japanese in the Nanking in the late 1930's. I hope the ghosts of the Civil War past come to haunt you for making such and inaccurate and inflammatory statement. I think even Bobby Lee and Stonewall Jackson would be offended.

Gen. Robert E. Lee and Gen. Thomas J. Jackson would certainly take offense to any reference by someone such as yourself, of this I'm assured. The Union in its infinite wisdom only restored Gen. Lee's US citizenship on August 5th, 1975. But back to Sherman, "my historical expert". His unannounced bombardment and burning of Atlanta was the first and precursor to modern warfare, (concerning the intentional targeting of civilians). Even today in Iraq and Afghanistan, those of the US Armed Forces inflict less collateral damage to civilians than "Uncle Billy".

Jack @ 70:

General_Rennenkampf @ 68:

JimK @ 67:
Jack @ 62:

Jack: The Union Army of the Atlanta to Savannah campaign destroyed property. Big F'ing deal, that's how warfare works. But to imply the Union Army did unto the people of the South who rebelled for the right of states to keep other human beings in bondage what the Soviet Army did do in Germany is flat-out wrong. When a CS general used mines, which is very common today, Sherman had a fit, and Lee convinced his fellow general to retire those soldiers. If they objected to mines, do you think a campaign of mass slaughter would have been allowed by Lincoln to other white men? To the Indians during the war, that's a little different. Not to the other white men of the United States.

The Union Army was remarkably civilized. After all the slaughter unleashed by the Civil War, frex, no mass hangings and reprisals occurred in the former Confederacy. Had the Union Army been the monstrosity you're describing, Jeff Davis would have received the black lynching treatment and the war likely would have dragged on with former Confederates becoming guerillas to protect their families.

The Union Army was very civilized. They used CSA POW's to clear the mines in front of Shermans troop's. Many lost arms, legs and their lives.

They could have done things the Nazi, Roman or Taiping way, and threatened to kill all CS POWs just because they could.

Jack, you don't get that the Confederate ancestors of mine were traitors to the Union, do you? Do you think Stalin or Mao would have been nearly so lenient? You seem to imply Sherman was a Red Army general in terms of the way he waged warfare. The US reaction could have been more on the scale of what we did to the Indians. That any people survived the Confederate era in the South, period, is testament to Union mercy.

Ah General, Confederate Ancestors, my sincere apologies. No Sir, I'm not trying to draw a comparison between Stalin and Mao with the Federals, but I don't believe in "Union Mercy" or my Ancestor as a TRAITOR. The point that I'm trying to make is, (and I guess know, I'm texting a person who known’s what a Sherman Bowtie is) the South was not an evil empire. Slavery was EVIL, but my ancestor was from Austria and did not believe in or own slaves. He did quite well on his farm/ranch in Fairplay, TX with his family. But when called to arms he did successfully defeat the Federals in the Red River Campaign and later suffered the harsh consequences after their surrender, Co. A 2nd Brigade, 14th Texas Infantry.