Civilian deaths part of Civil War story

[SHOOTALL]

Nobel ? Its how battles were carried out in Bible days . Effective yes. By now in world history it should be apperant that peace is but a dream .

[Cabin4]

Does the bible advocate or condone genocide?

How would all out strategic genocidal warefare been a benefit to the North against the South in Civil War?

[ironfoot]

How do you reconcile after genocide?
We are all brothers now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIJaxu3w4-U&feature=player_embedded

[mcwoodduck]

I am only stating what I stated as I am for when at war it is total war. I am not for limited warfare it is not a sporting event. To tell you the truth my sympthies probably lied with the south and states rights in this conflict. I would advocate following my advice in any conflict.

Why the Mongols?
Why not the Hebrews- After winning in Caanan they killed everyone and the animals.
The Romans after destroying / Razed, not having two brinks together in Carthage took eveyone as slaves.
I wonder if that would have ended the war faster.  Sack Atlanta, Charleston, Norfolk or other major Southern city.  Destroy the city and take the population prisoner.
But the goal of the war on the Northern side was to end the rebellion and keep the Southern States, not repopulate them with Northerners

[SHOOTALL]

Does the bible advocate or condone genocide?

How would all out strategic genocidal warefare been a benefit to the North against the South in Civil War?

In some cases it would appear so at Jericco .
I don't believe I said it would in the war of northern aggression been a benifit .
But if you burn all the food and leave the population to die it would seem the north though it might help on Shermans drive to the sea or in Va.

[Ga.windbreak]

We see ourselves as having the moral high ground, we use the words that our forefathers gave us as our moral compass. The problem with that is we ourselves have allowed those words to be trashed time and time again. We say we value life yet kill millions of unborn, we say we are a nation of laws yet we trash the very laws we say we live by.

We throw a young wet behind the ears Lt to the wolves for killing in Vietnam yet we allow our own Brown shirts to kill 80 women and children in Waco Texas and throw some of the rest of those victims in jail to boot. An FBI sniper goes free when killing a woman with a single shot yet a US Solder who stands up for the oath he took and won't serve under a UN officer is thrown in jail and dishonorably discharged!

We are cowards and our forefathers would disown us for being so wasteful with the liberty they paid for with their blood and that of their children if they were here to see what we have allowed to happen with their gift of freedom!

WE honor a man who used a ruse to plunge this country into war and killed a million or more because He wanted to replace our God given freedom with a powerful central government and go nation building. Wiping out a whole nation of peoples who had been here for more than a thousand years and all of this done within a span of 20 years of less.

We have no moral legs to stand on and deserve whatever befalls us!

[Cabin4]

Well said and Ditto.

This country has completely lost its moral compass and the values that gave us our birth as a nation. Advocating genocide against the very people that our constitution is designed to protect, is pure evil. Lincoln was and is still in my opinion this nations single greatest evil. His actions laid the foundation for an overpowering central government that proved it would kill countless numbers to get the power it hungers even if it violates our constitution, the law of this land. War was not needed, necessary, warranted or legal. So when one advocates genocide in addition to this already evil act, I ask what in God’s creation are we dealing with? (rhetorical question)

[subdjoe]

If I'da been the General invading the south I would have ordered my soldiers to kill the men loot all they wanted and have thier way. I follow the Mongol way of warfare.

Sounds like you are channeling Sherman there. 

[S.S.]

Still a bit of hostility it seems between us.

[Shu]

Wow, what a forum.

If forced to go to war, wage war to the best of your ability. In warfare there are no noncombatants, there is only the enemy forces. If the population will not surrender then they are part of enemy forces.
Tzun Tsu Art of War

It is better not to fight a war but rather your enemy surrenders before it starts.
Tzun Tsu Art of War

Sirs /Ma'ams
war is not for gentlemen or ladies, it is brutal, gory and without mercy. If it was pleasant and fun we would always be in a state of war. Only killing actual combatants does not end wars. There is no end to people who will fight for thier homes. A person fighting for his home has a 10 to 1 advantage over any invader.
To try and civilize war just doesnot make sense, by it's very nature it involves killing which cannot be considered civilized.

Was the South invaded unjustly per Constitutuion of the United States-yes
Were there civilian casualties- yes
Did scholars make up reasons for the war that weren't factual-yes
Does killing the civilian population go against the moral thought process we have - yes
So how do you win a war, when the opposition forces look like everyone else on the streets?
That is the billion dollar question.

[Ga.windbreak]

So how do you win a war, when the opposition forces look like everyone else on the streets?
That is the billion dollar question.

You don't go to war without a plan to fight, win, and end it. Lincoln, along with several other of our Presidents (LBJ, and Bush Jr. come to mind), had none of those parts in place. He was, like many, consumed with the power of the office thinking as if he were God and above the LAW.

The results speak far better than I as to the error of his ways!

[Swampman]

Civilians that help the enemy suffer.  A fact of war.

[Cabin4]

These civilians were considered American citizens by the very mogrel that unleased armed forces on them. If you can't win a civil war without targeting the civilians, you lost the war before it ended, even if you won!

[Swampman]

Sherman won the war because he knew how to.  America will never win another war because she's forgotten what Sherman knew.

[Ga.windbreak]

Oh wow, now its

Sherman won the war

! To bad he didn't have to go up against Lee, Jackson, or Longstreet. Any cur could have handled the march thru GA. given that he wouldn't fight against Confederate troops but chose instead to burn barns and rape and pillage!

[Swampman]

The best generals in the world could not have beat Sherman.  The north probably put about a 10% effort into winning the war.  They didn't even really try.

[williamlayton]

Harms way keeps coming to mind.
In Europe the folks had sense enough to know that bombs and bullets have no conscious and tried to get out of the way---some made it--those who didn't make it died.
The French cried as they tore apart Caan and killed their own.
War is not a battle of conscious--that interferes with winning and not dying.
No nation/army has ever been without blood on its hands concerning civilian deaths--some as an after effect of a battle--some, sad to say, as a direct act of the participants direct acts of murder.
Folks, at the battle of the Falsie Pocket in France one could walk a hundred yards by stepping on the dead and dying.
Shermans march was not as vicious as some would like to believe but it was unbelievably effective.
Why did the South not send an army to get in the way?  They did not have an army to send. It is most expeditious to avoid contact with a garrisoned force when invading---we did this quite well in the island hopping in the Pacific. Now there were Generals who wanted to wage war on every Island---thank God they were sent to empty desk in Washington.
War is not hell---it is much worse than that---and none of it is glorious/gallant/humane--Chivialary is BS .
You see brains/guts/halves and quarters---there are no clean wounds, there is crying for momma, people trying to put their guts back in their stomachs--reaching for dismantled arms and legs--crying and wailing---men broken by shock, walking aimless and crying, facelss men trying to speak.
Get a life about war.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

Sherman won the war because he knew how to.  America will never win another war because she's forgotten what Sherman knew.

Yeah, kill or disappear the women, children, cripples, and old men.  Don't bother with the armies.  Go after the soft targets that can't fight back. 

[williamlayton]

If you are anold man or child and you bear arms against an invading force--what do you want? Mercy----BS.
Blessings

[Shu]

Sherman vs Stonewall, interesting... we will never know. Truthfully the southern states had better officers simply becuase more of the southern officers went to West Point. The south having a primagenitor society, what were the non first born sons supposed to do, military or clergy.

Before Sherman marched south he studied tax records, he knew he had to resupply his troops. He marched his columns to the weatlhiest plantations. Simple strategy, it basically raped the southern states. When confronted with mines in front of his troops he simply marched P.O.W.s in front of his columns. The laying of mines stopped.
Yes I used the term rape because that is what it was. I am a student of history not a sympathizer in either direction.

War is not civilized, stop thinking it is. Unfortunately killing the civillian population is part of warfare. If you do not force your opponent to quit there is no victory or an end to the war. If you think Sherman was overly brutal, do you really believe any southern general in his place would have done less? I don't know for sure but I would consider them to do whatever it takes to win. That means sometimes you have to be brutal.

[Casull]

The best generals in the world could not have beat Sherman.  The north probably put about a 10% effort into winning the war.  They didn't even really try.

Just when I thought you couldn't get any sillier, you go and top yourself.  With about a quarter of the population and less than a fifth of the production capacity, the Confederates fought against the North for 4 years.  If they had been even close in manpower and supplies, they would have beat the invaders in a year.  Early battles prove this out.  The invaders won a war of attrition, with the help of war crime tactics.

[williamlayton]

A defensive war--close to your own supplies--without an air force to contend with---when the only offense is a frontal attack and movement is with minute calvary---is a very easy fight.
It takes a three to one ratio to attact sucessfully--if then.
Lee proved his worth as an offensive General when he finally--in desperation--broke out to Gettesburg--it was a slaughter.
Yes I said a slaughter---when Lee had opportunity he failed to see it and let chances slip by.
The wheat field was a desperate move by a tired and beaten General.
I adore lee and his motivations---The South simply had no chance. the north did as much as they could do to loose and they couldn't get that right.
By the time Lincoln fianally stopped appointing clerks to generals and got it right--the South was beaten.
As beaten as the Germans against the Russians.
It is simply pride that keeps the debate ringing---the facts, if undenied and looked at in the cold grey light of dawn, are not open to any conclusion but defeat.
The only state that Sherman had a hate for was South Carolina--and he wanted to punish South Carolina. He did not burnColumbia as many contend, he didn't even want to---but he shed no tear when it happened.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

If you are anold man or child and you bear arms against an invading force--what do you want? Mercy----BS.
Blessings

Ah, so now you are claiming that the entire population of the South was bearing arms?  Interesting point of view there.  I guess trying to keep you daughter, mother, or sister from being raped by an invading army is "bearing arms" against an invading force.  Nice.

[williamlayton]

I guess you have to clarify your thinking---the only attack by old men and boys was at grizwoldville (if I am correct on the location-it's a long time since i looked at that action).
I know their were atrocities committed by some Bummers--but all in all, not as many as are portraid by some. I make no excuses for those that happened. Should not have happened---but they did.
Well, yes, I am thinking there were a number of folks doing some hit and run. If they were children and old men--which was all that were left--they were as free a target as the soldiers.
I just don't know what you would expect.
Blessings

[Swampman]

The south had plently of supplies.  They were well fed and clothed.  They had about 10% of the manpower.  The north could have won anytime they wished.

Read your history.

[Cabin4]

Lincoln and the North violated the constitution, the law of the land. If the north would have lost, Lincoln would been served up the death penalty. Thankfully, Booth took care of this for us. Read the history, know your rear consumed food pipe exit from a hole in the ground, quite ignoring the facts and quite acting like you had a lobotomy.

[williamlayton]

Cabin
If the South had won they would not have been in the Union to serve a death warrant.
At this point in time, does it make any difference about constitutional violations---the South tried---that was a viable option, always is---and they lost.
I do think I see the facts clearly.
Blessings

[Cabin4]

I do think I see the facts clearly.

No you don't. My comments are not directed towards you. But while we are on the subject, how do you know we would still been called a Union? Whats to say that if the South would have won, they would have stopped at a repell? Perhaps they would have marched into Washington? We just don't know what actions they would have felt compelled to take to secure thier security.

[Casull]

The north could have won anytime they wished.

That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read.  Sooooo, they must not have wished to win.   

[Ga.windbreak]

The north could have won anytime they wished.

That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read.  Sooooo, they must not have wished to win.   

  That rates as a two thumbs up!!