It was bad but the very fact that the troops were colored will likely make some European countries care less about it. Remember we are discussing how the confederacy will attract allies back in the world where they won the civil war not in today's world. just how many allies did the USA's treatment of Indians lose them?So, you don't think its policy on and actions towards the USCT count?
Foreign Relations of an Independent Confederacy?
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
AtriumCarceris
Banned
So, you don't think its policy on and actions towards the USCT count?
Policy which you haven't actually outlined. It's simply assumed outright that what you think happened is common knowledge.
Well, I've never heard of it, and doing a brief lookup doesn't reveal anything too distressing. So basically, I don't know what you're talking about. My minor research into the Confederacy's treatment of captured coloured Union soldiers doesn't scream out to me "war crimes," their treatment seemingly only slightly worse than any other captured Union soldier.
Well from what I have read it was common for them to be considered rebel slaves by default (as I suppose some might have been). This of course carried the sentence of death but I know it was not always enforced (some i know were enslaved (or re-enslaved).
I make the assumption that you (and others in a conversation on the Confederacy) have actually studied the Civil War, which would include knowing this.
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/civil_war_series/2/sec19.htm
Sufficient to say, your research has obviously not gone into any depth on the subject.
Honest question: Just how much have you actually studied the ACW?
Well one would still have to butterfly away the Franco-Prussian War away to have Napoleon III keep his troops in Mexico.
Maybe since Napolean is concentrating on Mexico he tries to stay out of European wars?
Maybe since Napoleon is concentrating on Mexico he tries to stay out of European wars?
AtriumCarceris
Banned
Even when I explicitly state I don't know much?
Clearly, as I have admitted. Nevertheless my opinion is not swayed, for I did not learn anything new from your link. I maintain that what you have just shown me is no more atrocious or vile than various things the Union did, and that is generally the sort of thing to be expected in all wars.
I would personally say I have done almost no study into it. Of course my bars are set pretty high in all things, and I think if I were to lower my bars down to just some random guy off the street, I'd know a fair bit more than him.
Don't quote me on this but I think since the Congress of Vienna, France tried to check the rise of Prussia. If anything you will need to butterfly away Prussian expansionism and the German Empire.
"I don't know very much" and "my knowledge is so limited that I don't even know stuff that comes up in discussion regularly" are two different things. It would be like me protesting I don't know very much about British politics when claiming Labor is far right.
So you do know that the Confederacy's policy towards the USCT was far more serious than the usual POW policy, and you're still claiming it was no different than normal and that the Union did similarly?
What.
That's not saying very much.
AtriumCarceris
Banned
Right. If you say so.
There are those loaded words again.
I know that Confederate policy towards USCT was mildly more serious than usual POW policy.
Nor did I say that the Union did similarly in the same respects as the Confederacy. I merely mean to say that ultimately, there is a pretty equal amount of moral despicable-ness in both sides.
I do say so.
There are those accurate terms again. Massacre: http://www.brainyquote.com/words/ma/massacre188260.html
That is not "mildly" more serious than usual POW policy. Nor is (re?)enslaving POWs.
The overall record may be about even, this aside. But that's a big aside. This is a significant stain on the Confederacy's record that isn't present on the Union's. There isn't an equivalent policy of massacring the defeated towards white POWs (I don't know enough about the Trans-Missisippi, where most of the Native American units fought, to say the same about those units).
AtriumCarceris
Banned
Yep. Only mildly worse.
But I don't feel much like talking about this with you anymore.
But I don't feel much like talking about this with you anymore.
No, not mildly worse. That's like saying the Holodomor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor )was only slightly worse than conditions in France.
If you don't feel like talking about it, that's fine, however. No point continuing a discussion when inconvenient facts are dismissed so as to treat two unalike things as alike.
AtriumCarceris
Banned
I just don't want to derail the thread. I maintain it was only slightly worse. Words like "massacre" are merely words with specific connotations that are used to make the enemy seem worse. They don't really have true, concrete definitions, as evident by certain instances where the same event is named a massacre, or not, by different sides.
So that's enough out of me about this.
So that's enough out of me about this.
Words like massacre definitely describe intentional killing above and beyond the norms of war, which is exactly what was done at the Crater, Poison Springs, Fort Pillow, and so on.
That is not slightly worse than what happened at say, Harper's Ferry when Jackson took it.
Wolfpaw
Banned
I remember my first encounter with AtriumCarceris. I was given the following advice...