Which side do YOU view as right?

Ok fine. Lets start a conversation on how prisoners were treated on both sides. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, what is that name i'm looking for,............darn cant remember, but I do remmeber that it was supposed to hold ten thousand people and it was packed with over thirty thousand. And also that the conditions were so poor that an average of about one hundred poeple died EVERY day from either disease, mal-nutrition, or mere neglect. Note that this is a prison in the south. Might I also add that for every 12 people there were about, idk, 2 BLANKETS. I cant think of the name but is was the worst prison out of both sides. And it just happened to be in the south;) Hows that for a topic starter Stuart. Come on boy, time for you to lash back.

You're thinking of Andersonville Prison. If you want to discuss prisons oppie, I would think that that would call for another topic. This topic is for debating who was right (look at the name). Yes, what you said was true -or somewhat true, some of your numbers are off- but you have to understand that the South was having a hard enough time feeding their own troops, nevermind scrounging to find enough for the blue invaders. Diseases were rampant in the prison given the humid climate, the lack of grounds and guards to spread the prisoners out over, and the total lack of hygiene. If I remember right, the prison had one stream, that many prisoners used as both a toilet and a source of drinking water. Even on a steady diet, prisoners who didn't get any vegetables of fruit were susceptible to scurvy, which is life-threatening. And if you want to complain about the crowding of the prison, you have good-old U.S. Grant to thank for that; it was Grant that stopped the prisoner-exchange system, thus loading more prisoners upon the south than it could handle. Even the union prisoners knew this. When confederate guards were being switched out with troops from the front lines, they were commonly bid by the captives to "shoot ol' Grant." The South couldn't create more prisons because of the lack of men available to serve as guards. Thus, in a large way, Grant and the north created the whole problem, and it was the front-line soldier who was forced to live -and die- with it.

Though the worst prison (Andersonville aka Camp Sumter) was in the south the overall death rate was higher in the northern prisons. 12% of the southerners in yankee prisons died whereas 8% of Yankees in Southern prisons died. Also the South feed their prisoners equal to what their men in the field where being feed (which wasnt much due to the blockade). Also much of the cause of the high death rate was that though the South offered to exchange prisoners the north wouldnt do it (that contributed to the "over the top" capacity of Andersonville.

Btw Jebs post is right on.

From your point of view perhaps.

Prove him wrong and I will revoke my "opinion" Until then

About it being Grants fault? Grant had his reasons, and if you want to go right to the source then why dont you just blame the circumstances that Grant was subjected to?

The end does not justify the means nor do circumstances call for wrong doing. Prove to me that it wasnt his fault... Till then lol jk

As I said.. common Yankee tactics lol jk

"A question settled by violence, or in disregard
of law, must remain unsettled forever." -- President Jefferson Davis

And who I might add was charged for war crimes after the end of the war? Hmm? ............................................... Someone in charge of a certain group of prisoners.

Since, I can tell you don't know what his name was, it was Henry Wirtz. Yes, he was tried and convicted of war crimes...But who was he tried by? The union.....And who won the war? The union.... Get my point? He was the only officer on either side out of the entire war to be found guilty of war crimes. And my answer to that? The same court let Sherman off Scot-free! They merely needed a scapegoat at the end of the war to point the "treason" finger at. And they found an easy one, in an officer who was only trying to execute his orders with the tools, men and supplies given him; it wasn't his fault that so many men died. Remember, the sanitary standards of the day were barbaric compared to today's levels of hygiene; surgeons didn't even wash their instruments in between operations, the doctor would only sometimes rinse the blood off of his hands and his saw to prevent slipping in the middle of a job. Therefore, it's not reasonable to say that Wirtz was guilty of not providing a "cleaner environment."

Gen. Lee's right, the percentage of union prisoners that died is nothing compared to the confederate percentage, so I think that effectively ends the arguement....

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

the overall death rate was higher in the northern prisons. 12% of the southerners in yankee prisons died whereas 8% of Yankees in Southern prisons died. Also the South feed their prisoners equal to what their men in the field where being feed (which wasnt much due to the blockade).

This is fact.

Dont make me laugh. Your statements have holes in them the size of manhatten.

You're pathetic lol.

Gen. Lee challenged you, and now so am I: prove me wrong, and I will retire forever from this forum.

I wouldent want to do that to you Stuart we are pals after all.

If you're refusing to prove me wrong then, there is no point in continuing this one-sided debate. Now, to get back to topic....

General Stuart wrote:

Since, I can tell you don't know what his name was, it was Henry Wirtz. Yes, he was tried and convicted of war crimes...But who was he tried by? The union.....And who won the war? The union.... Get my point? He was the only officer on either side out of the entire war to be found guilty of war crimes. And my answer to that? The same court let Sherman off Scot-free! They merely needed a scapegoat at the end of the war to point the "treason" finger at. And they found an easy one, in an officer who was only trying to execute his orders with the tools, men and supplies given him; it wasn't his fault that so many men died. Remember, the sanitary standards of the day were barbaric compared to today's levels of hygiene; surgeons didn't even wash their instruments in between operations, the doctor would only sometimes rinse the blood off of his hands and his saw to prevent slipping in the middle of a job. Therefore, it's not reasonable to say that Wirtz was guilty of not providing a "cleaner environment."

Gen. Lee's right, the percentage of union prisoners that died is nothing compared to the confederate percentage, so I think that effectively ends the arguement....

HEy Stuart, here's a casualty list I found.

Union Soldiers that died as prisonres of war-30,192
Confederate Soldiers that died as prisoners of war-31,000

So much for you enourmous deficit.


And just a side note..

Union
Killed in action-110,100

Confederate
Killed in action- 94,000

No one takes into account the whole casualty figure, 620,000 soldiers alone died in the war (not taking into account the people killed by bushwackers) and 430,000 wounded or maimed for life. We are talking 1,000,000 people here folks! But, we only take the dead into consideration.

Well yeah if you count the wounded and deaths from disease then the figures jump up drastically. I was talking about those killed in battle IBG.

But some of the diseases were from being wounded in battle so technocly.

The Opposition wrote:

General Stuart wrote:

Since, I can tell you don't know what his name was, it was Henry Wirtz. Yes, he was tried and convicted of war crimes...But who was he tried by? The union.....And who won the war? The union.... Get my point? He was the only officer on either side out of the entire war to be found guilty of war crimes. And my answer to that? The same court let Sherman off Scot-free! They merely needed a scapegoat at the end of the war to point the "treason" finger at. And they found an easy one, in an officer who was only trying to execute his orders with the tools, men and supplies given him; it wasn't his fault that so many men died. Remember, the sanitary standards of the day were barbaric compared to today's levels of hygiene; surgeons didn't even wash their instruments in between operations, the doctor would only sometimes rinse the blood off of his hands and his saw to prevent slipping in the middle of a job. Therefore, it's not reasonable to say that Wirtz was guilty of not providing a "cleaner environment."

Gen. Lee's right, the percentage of union prisoners that died is nothing compared to the confederate percentage, so I think that effectively ends the arguement....

HEy Stuart, here's a casualty list I found.

Union Soldiers that died as prisonres of war-30,192
Confederate Soldiers that died as prisoners of war-31,000

So much for you enourmous deficit.


And just a side note..

Union
Killed in action-110,100

Confederate
Killed in action- 94,000

Once again, your post makes me wonder if you passed your 2nd grade math class. Oppie, we were talking on a per-capita basis. That's what percent means. You might not know this, but your statistics drastically prove my point. If more rebels died in northern prisons than yankees in southern prisons, on an overall count, then imagine how bad it must have been in northern prisons, for even though there were less confederate prisoners, their percentage of deaths were much higher! A shocking fact, but a true one. Thanks for the support, Oppie.

I know that it disproved my point, but it also disproves yours, so i'm happy!

I beg to differ, but it doesn't disprove my statements at all. To the contrary, it only backs them up that much more with facts.

Not quite, you were saying the contrast was emence. It is not, therefore my statement was correct.