Casualties of War
Dear SHNV Friends,
Mr. Regenstein’s question concerning the quote from the book that stated
"… subtracting the more than two-thirds who died from disease rather than battle, the previously staggering number of 620,000 dead "in toto" becomes 135,000 killed in battle for the North, and 66,000 for the South," is another one of the typical red-herring arguments used to silence Southerners and orthodox Christian ethicists who consider that the United States should be held accountable for the horrid violence committed against the people of Southern States and the seven northern States who resisted Lincoln’s tyranny. Modern Republican and Democrat imperialists (both of whom are incurable fascists) continue to deny themselves the beneficial historical exercise of taking a serious look at the facts and consequences of Lincoln’s War to Prevent Southern
Independence. The South continues to be the "whipping boy" for these corrupt politicians who nourish the /court historians/ with funding and massage their academic pin-head egos to encourage them to defend the violent actions of the U.S. administrative executives.
I used to teach my students that it took more vigorous thinking to discover the "right" questions to ask about an ethical dilemma than it does to find the answer once the question has been formulated. Finding the right questions likely accounts for 95% of the search for truth.
Here are a few observations on the nature of the books statement:
1. First, the Confederate States of America were not battling "the North." They were invaded by the United States of America. As a State was a member State some have called the United States "the Union." The use of "the North" and "the Union" had a certain effect that denigrated the people of the Confederate States of America. The United States of America invaded The Confederate States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, etc. Saying someone opposed the "Union" was meant to sound like someone opposed "marriage." We had to be the "/dis/unionists," and not the people seeking to preserve our human rights (granted by God) and our constitutional and moral liberties.
2. In many areas the ratio he gives of those who died from disease should be fairly accurate. However, somehow the question implies that the loss of life due to disease is not associated with the activity of war and that the aggressor is somehow "not responsible" for the resulting holocaust against both the black, white, Indian and Hispanic peoples of North America. This implication is, of course, nonsense and demeaning to those who died and serves to assuage the very real guilt of the aggressors who used violence to prevent constitutional independence. The actual United States government’s figure of military deaths as recorded in the /Federal Official Records of the War of the Rebellion/ is just over 623,000 without counting the Southern civilian deaths directly caused by the United States military. The early published figures following 1865 placed the military personnel deaths at over 1,000,000. What is /much worse/ than the horrors of such figures are the millions of people in the United States today who do not understand the savage and monstrous nature of a people who would conduct such atrocities against the Christian and God fearing peoples of the confederated States. The enemy of human rights and civilisation are those idiots */who today/* reason that such behaviour was justified. It is no wonder that the United States have fought 218 wars since the American Revolution. Somehow the "218 wars" is just a statistic to people who do not value freedom and in the individual human life.
3. The /Federal/ /Official Records of the War of the Rebellion/ state that "80% of the warfare conducted by the United States against the Confederate States of America" was specifically directed against Southern */civilians/*. Think for a moment about what this is saying. Most Southern men (volunteering) were in the CSA military. That means that the /civilians/ left were "women, children and the elderly." The purpose of this "Total War" policy and practice was "to demoralise their (the CSA’s) military (men)" so that the men would quit resisting the invasion and coercion of their States. "General Order 100", written at the invitation of Abraham Lincoln by Francis Leiber, permitted the /torture and killing/ of military and civilian *non-combatant* enemies at the discretion of the United States military "field commanders." Statements like the one Lewis quoted from this book clearly are made by someone without any sensitivity to death by warfare. There is also not the slightest suggestion by such authors that the terms "government by the consent of the governed", liberty and freedom have the most minute place in their thinking. To such people the death of one person close to them they may consider a/ tragedy/ but the deaths of hundreds of thousands by warfare are presented simply as /statistics/. Such a writer is just too barbaric to warrant the time of our responses. These people with endarkened minds and amoral souls approved of the atrocities committed against our ancestors and would support such actions against us today were they to fail to gain some "important" political or social advantage through normal democratic means. The United States continue to take such actions against any foreign nation who refuses to become "democratised" in a "support-our-political-beliefs-or-I’ll-kill-you" scenario. Such people are simply barbarians.
Timothy D. Manning, M. Div.
North Carolina Heritage Foundation
3018 Charleston Highway
Cayce, South Carolina 29172