Because he didn't just claim that the judge was Mexican. He said that the judge couldn't treat him fairly because he's Mexican.
This is what emboldened white supremacists look like
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
Because he didn't just claim that the judge was Mexican. He said that the judge couldn't treat him fairly because he's Mexican.
Which is true
No, it's racist.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
:up:
To a great extent, a person's attitude toward the war of 1861-65 depends upon when and where he or she went to college if they did go to college.
I remember University of Texas professor of history Tuffly Ellis talking to me personally in 1979 about how Federal General Nathaniel Banks was a hack politician who tried to invade Texas in 1864, but his army was defeated in Louisiana before it ever got to Texas. That time, 1979, was a little late for a history professor in a university, north of south, to take the side of his home state and expose a corrupt Federal General.
1979 was becoming late for a history professor to take the "racist" side in the 1861-1865 war because by 1979 political correctness was going on in the universities, including at the University of Texas in Austin.
You might say Professor Ellis was just being honest and was following the facts of history. But political correctness, which came out of the transformational Marxist Frankfurt School, is a highly dogmatic ideology, and does not allow nuances of history to deter its obsession with racism as a means of control.
There is another factor in the cause of the 1861-1865 war, and real or imagined racism, and that is the role of a dictator who became president in 1861. There was at that time what history called the Radical Republicans, and there was the ongoing conflict between the New England former Puritan elite against the Southern Planter Elite which was actually racist.
In the 1861 election Lincoln got 39.8 percent of the vote and the remaining vote was divided by three others. Douglas got 29.6 percent, Breckenridge got 18.1 percent and Bell received 12.6, adding to a total of about 59 percent of the vote.
Had the votes opposing Lincoln been cast for one man, Lincoln would have lost the 1861 election.
Lincoln turned out to be a dictator, but a deceptive one. He claimed he was saving the Union, but in the process was dividing the nation even more along its fault lines.
Though there was a movement to free the Black slaves in both North and South at the time of the 1861 election, this was not the primary cause of the 1861-65 war.
http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
"Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War....Much of the tariff revenue collected from Southern consumers was used to build railroads and canals in the North. Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track was laid. At its best, these tracks benefited the North.........With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90% of the federal government's annual revenue came from these taxes on imports."
"The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South."
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-09-03/discussion.cgi.90.html
"Lincoln was the first national head of state in the western world to, defacto, order national troops to kill civilians in what is today called, a la Clausewitz, "total war." Seventy-nine years later, men who had committed far less egregious crimes against humanity were convicted of war crimes, and hung by the neck until dead. By Nuremberg standards, Lincoln was a war criminal.
Lincoln presided over the killing of a half million plus Americans. Relative to today's population, that would be equivalent to eight million dead Americans. It was an unholy blood bath. Lincoln was willing, according to his own statements, to see many more die to, in his words, "save the union."
"One bit of truth that has managed to seep out about Lincoln is that he was manic-depressive. The dark half of manic-depression is amoral sociopathic thoughts and actions."
"Sociopathic" is another word for psychopathic.
Many American families who have recorded family histories and had ancestors living in the South during the 1861-1865 war have stories of civilian family members being shot and killed by the invading Federal Army.
I remember University of Texas professor of history Tuffly Ellis talking to me personally in 1979 about how Federal General Nathaniel Banks was a hack politician who tried to invade Texas in 1864, but his army was defeated in Louisiana before it ever got to Texas. That time, 1979, was a little late for a history professor in a university, north of south, to take the side of his home state and expose a corrupt Federal General.
1979 was becoming late for a history professor to take the "racist" side in the 1861-1865 war because by 1979 political correctness was going on in the universities, including at the University of Texas in Austin.
You might say Professor Ellis was just being honest and was following the facts of history. But political correctness, which came out of the transformational Marxist Frankfurt School, is a highly dogmatic ideology, and does not allow nuances of history to deter its obsession with racism as a means of control.
There is another factor in the cause of the 1861-1865 war, and real or imagined racism, and that is the role of a dictator who became president in 1861. There was at that time what history called the Radical Republicans, and there was the ongoing conflict between the New England former Puritan elite against the Southern Planter Elite which was actually racist.
In the 1861 election Lincoln got 39.8 percent of the vote and the remaining vote was divided by three others. Douglas got 29.6 percent, Breckenridge got 18.1 percent and Bell received 12.6, adding to a total of about 59 percent of the vote.
Had the votes opposing Lincoln been cast for one man, Lincoln would have lost the 1861 election.
Lincoln turned out to be a dictator, but a deceptive one. He claimed he was saving the Union, but in the process was dividing the nation even more along its fault lines.
Though there was a movement to free the Black slaves in both North and South at the time of the 1861 election, this was not the primary cause of the 1861-65 war.
http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
"Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War....Much of the tariff revenue collected from Southern consumers was used to build railroads and canals in the North. Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track was laid. At its best, these tracks benefited the North.........With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90% of the federal government's annual revenue came from these taxes on imports."
"The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South."
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-09-03/discussion.cgi.90.html
"Lincoln was the first national head of state in the western world to, defacto, order national troops to kill civilians in what is today called, a la Clausewitz, "total war." Seventy-nine years later, men who had committed far less egregious crimes against humanity were convicted of war crimes, and hung by the neck until dead. By Nuremberg standards, Lincoln was a war criminal.
Lincoln presided over the killing of a half million plus Americans. Relative to today's population, that would be equivalent to eight million dead Americans. It was an unholy blood bath. Lincoln was willing, according to his own statements, to see many more die to, in his words, "save the union."
"One bit of truth that has managed to seep out about Lincoln is that he was manic-depressive. The dark half of manic-depression is amoral sociopathic thoughts and actions."
"Sociopathic" is another word for psychopathic.
Many American families who have recorded family histories and had ancestors living in the South during the 1861-1865 war have stories of civilian family members being shot and killed by the invading Federal Army.
ClimateSanity
New member
Yes. There are young boys playing on the floor behind you with sensitive ears.
ClimateSanity
New member
He didn't say that.
^ This ... and we know this stems from the fact that Trump KNOWS he treats minorities unfairly and expects the same from them.
drbrumley
Well-known member
The Donald & The La Raza Judge
By Patrick J. Buchanan
June 7, 2016
Before the lynching of The Donald proceeds, what exactly was it he said about that Hispanic judge?
Stated succinctly, Donald Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over a class-action suit against Trump University, is sticking it to him. And the judge’s bias is likely rooted in the fact that he is of Mexican descent.
Can there be any defense of a statement so horrific?
Just this. First, Trump has a perfect right to be angry about the judge’s rulings and to question his motives. Second, there are grounds for believing Trump is right.
On May 27, Curiel, at the request of The Washington Post, made public plaintiff accusations against Trump University — that the whole thing was a scam. The Post, which Bob Woodward tells us has 20 reporters digging for dirt in Trump’s past, had a field day.
And who is Curiel?
An appointee of President Obama, he has for years been associated with the La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego, which supports pro-illegal immigrant organizations.
Set aside the folly of letting Clinton surrogates like the Post distract him from the message he should be delivering, what did Trump do to be smeared by a bipartisan media mob as a “racist”?
He attacked the independence of the judiciary, we are told.
But Presidents Jefferson and Jackson attacked the Supreme Court, and FDR, fed up with New Deal programs being struck down, tried to “pack the court” by raising the number of justices to 15 if necessary.
Abraham Lincoln leveled “that eminent tribunal” in his first inaugural, and once considered arresting Chief Justice Roger Taney.
The conservative movement was propelled by attacks on the Warren Court. In the ’50s and ’60s, “Impeach Earl Warren!” was plastered on billboards and bumper stickers all across God’s country.
The judiciary is independent, but that does not mean that federal judges are exempt from the same robust criticism as presidents or members of Congress.
Obama himself attacked the Citizens United decision in a State of the Union address, with the justices sitting right in front of him.
But Trump’s real hanging offense was that he brought up the judge’s ancestry, as the son of Mexican immigrants, implying that he was something of a judicial version of Univision’s Jorge Ramos.
Apparently, it is now not only politically incorrect, but, in Newt Gingrich’s term, “inexcusable,” to bring up the religious, racial or ethnic background of a judge, or suggest this might influence his actions on the bench.
But these things matter.
Does Newt think that when LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall, ex-head of the NAACP, to the Supreme Court, he did not think Marshall would bring his unique experience as a black man and civil rights leader to the bench?
Surely, that was among the reasons Marshall was appointed.
When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a woman of Puerto Rican descent who went through college on affirmative action scholarships, did Obama think this would not influence her decision when it came to whether or not to abolish affirmative action?
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” Sotomayor said in a speech at Berkeley law school and in other forums.
Translation: Ethnicity matters, and my Latina background helps guide my decisions.
All of us are products of our family, faith, race and ethnic group. And the suggestion in these attacks on Trump that judges and justices always rise about such irrelevant considerations, and decide solely on the merits, is naive nonsense.
There are reasons why defense lawyers seek “changes of venue” and avoid the courtrooms of “hanging judges.”
When Obama reflexively called Sgt. Crowley “stupid” after Crowley’s 2009 encounter with that black professor at Harvard, and said of Trayvon Martin, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” was he not speaking as an African-American, as well as a president?
Pressed by John Dickerson on CBS, Trump said it’s “possible” a Muslim judge might be biased against him as well.
Another “inexcusable” outrage.
But does anyone think that if Obama appointed a Muslim to the Supreme Court, the LGBT community would not be demanding of all Democratic Senators that they receive assurances that the Muslim judge’s religious views on homosexuality would never affect his court decisions, before they voted to put him on the bench?
When Richard Nixon appointed Judge Clement Haynsworth to the Supreme Court, it was partly because he was a distinguished jurist of South Carolina ancestry. And the Democrats who tore Haynsworth to pieces did so because they feared he would not repudiate his Southern heritage and any and all ideas and beliefs associated with it.
To many liberals, all white Southern males are citizens under eternal suspicion of being racists. The most depressing thing about this episode is to see Republicans rushing to stomp on Trump, to show the left how well they have mastered their liberal catechism.
By Patrick J. Buchanan
June 7, 2016
Before the lynching of The Donald proceeds, what exactly was it he said about that Hispanic judge?
Stated succinctly, Donald Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over a class-action suit against Trump University, is sticking it to him. And the judge’s bias is likely rooted in the fact that he is of Mexican descent.
Can there be any defense of a statement so horrific?
Just this. First, Trump has a perfect right to be angry about the judge’s rulings and to question his motives. Second, there are grounds for believing Trump is right.
On May 27, Curiel, at the request of The Washington Post, made public plaintiff accusations against Trump University — that the whole thing was a scam. The Post, which Bob Woodward tells us has 20 reporters digging for dirt in Trump’s past, had a field day.
And who is Curiel?
An appointee of President Obama, he has for years been associated with the La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego, which supports pro-illegal immigrant organizations.
Set aside the folly of letting Clinton surrogates like the Post distract him from the message he should be delivering, what did Trump do to be smeared by a bipartisan media mob as a “racist”?
He attacked the independence of the judiciary, we are told.
But Presidents Jefferson and Jackson attacked the Supreme Court, and FDR, fed up with New Deal programs being struck down, tried to “pack the court” by raising the number of justices to 15 if necessary.
Abraham Lincoln leveled “that eminent tribunal” in his first inaugural, and once considered arresting Chief Justice Roger Taney.
The conservative movement was propelled by attacks on the Warren Court. In the ’50s and ’60s, “Impeach Earl Warren!” was plastered on billboards and bumper stickers all across God’s country.
The judiciary is independent, but that does not mean that federal judges are exempt from the same robust criticism as presidents or members of Congress.
Obama himself attacked the Citizens United decision in a State of the Union address, with the justices sitting right in front of him.
But Trump’s real hanging offense was that he brought up the judge’s ancestry, as the son of Mexican immigrants, implying that he was something of a judicial version of Univision’s Jorge Ramos.
Apparently, it is now not only politically incorrect, but, in Newt Gingrich’s term, “inexcusable,” to bring up the religious, racial or ethnic background of a judge, or suggest this might influence his actions on the bench.
But these things matter.
Does Newt think that when LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall, ex-head of the NAACP, to the Supreme Court, he did not think Marshall would bring his unique experience as a black man and civil rights leader to the bench?
Surely, that was among the reasons Marshall was appointed.
When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a woman of Puerto Rican descent who went through college on affirmative action scholarships, did Obama think this would not influence her decision when it came to whether or not to abolish affirmative action?
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” Sotomayor said in a speech at Berkeley law school and in other forums.
Translation: Ethnicity matters, and my Latina background helps guide my decisions.
All of us are products of our family, faith, race and ethnic group. And the suggestion in these attacks on Trump that judges and justices always rise about such irrelevant considerations, and decide solely on the merits, is naive nonsense.
There are reasons why defense lawyers seek “changes of venue” and avoid the courtrooms of “hanging judges.”
When Obama reflexively called Sgt. Crowley “stupid” after Crowley’s 2009 encounter with that black professor at Harvard, and said of Trayvon Martin, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” was he not speaking as an African-American, as well as a president?
Pressed by John Dickerson on CBS, Trump said it’s “possible” a Muslim judge might be biased against him as well.
Another “inexcusable” outrage.
But does anyone think that if Obama appointed a Muslim to the Supreme Court, the LGBT community would not be demanding of all Democratic Senators that they receive assurances that the Muslim judge’s religious views on homosexuality would never affect his court decisions, before they voted to put him on the bench?
When Richard Nixon appointed Judge Clement Haynsworth to the Supreme Court, it was partly because he was a distinguished jurist of South Carolina ancestry. And the Democrats who tore Haynsworth to pieces did so because they feared he would not repudiate his Southern heritage and any and all ideas and beliefs associated with it.
To many liberals, all white Southern males are citizens under eternal suspicion of being racists. The most depressing thing about this episode is to see Republicans rushing to stomp on Trump, to show the left how well they have mastered their liberal catechism.
In the sense that not all colleges are equals in terms of curriculum or faculty, sure.
Intelligent people have, sadly, taken the racist side of the coin at various times in history. Being smart doesn't necessarily free someone from bigotry. Woodrow Wilson had by every account an impressive intellect. He was also a racist and when he spoke on race he might as well have been a blithering idiot for all the good his intellect did him. I suspect because he focused it outwardly. Socrates was right about the unexamined life and what it leads to often enough is less profound than profane.
Or, if he favored the racist coin, you might stop trying to cobble conspiratorial excuses and realize that he failed himself, as Wilson before him and many others had.
Rather, while racism was rampant in every part of the country and firmly seated in more men than not, the evil of slavery and the desire of the South to expand it to the territories to keep pace with or exceed the political power of the free states was the division that led to the war. That war was a last gasp effort by those in the South who profited by the institution and realized the death knell of that way of life was sounding absent withdraw from a Union that would become more and more opposed to it. Lincoln and others were determined to restrict the borders of the slave states.
That's one debatable way to look at it. Another is that the South withdrew, fired upon a federal installation and reaped the whirlwind of its evil.
Complete nonsense. You can't divide any more thoroughly than the states did in attempting to withdraw from the Union. Lincoln preserved that Union and eventually ended a vile institution at its core, a mark on the soul of our nation, north and south.
I've never heard anyone claim that the war was over emancipation. Mostly I hear people who want to subtly set the table for denying that slavery was the issue begin with that bell. There were all sorts of associative issues in the war, but the war itself was simply and directly as stated by most of the declarations of states attempting withdraw, slavery and the north's interference, failure to support, and movement toward its restriction.
A lie the men who wrote state declarations attest to in their own words, not relying on revisionist historians and others. I've quoted them and linked to them often enough.
Lincoln had declared his intent that the slave states would expand no farther, supra. The wealthy gentlemen of the South understood what that meant over time. So did Lincoln. And so the war.
I'm disinterested in addressing the largely discredited attempts by some to sully Lincoln's name and paint a distorted and one sided portrait of the barbarity of war. There was enough sin in that respect to go around.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Make it up as you go boss.....you wanna be naïve, go ahead....but your not going to do it here.
You neglected to tell why the north didn't want slavery in the new territories....it wasn't because slavery was an evil institution....
He called him a "Mexican" and impugned his ability to do his job objectively. Pat throws a lot of sand into the air, but it's still not smoke he's making and there's no fire at the heart of it.
Of course Pat is being disingenuous, but to answer anyway, no. He could have claimed a bias on the judge's part due to certain observable leanings and without adding the "Mexican" comment. But the remarks he made as he made them are indefensible or should be to anyone without a bias problem of their own.
Pat should understand that, but then Pat has his own issues.
Excerpts from Suicide of a Superpower by Pat Buchanan
"When the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, the people die. That is the progression. And as the faith that gave birth to the West is dying in the West, peoples of European descent from the steppes of Russia to the coast of California have begun to die out, as the Third World treks north to claim the estate."
Translation: "The Latinos are coming!" Of course, they're disproportionately Catholic, the brand of Christianity Buchanan only appears to note among those of European descent. Recognizing that, his comments contain a startlingly obvious deficiency that doesn't appear to reach Mr. Buchanan's prefrontal cortex.
"Nothing in the Constitution or federal law mandated social, racial, or gender equality."
Translation: I miss the good old days, when whites could romanticize their misogyny and racism and no one could say boo about it.
To put the icing on that cake:
"Back then, black and white lived apart, went to different schools and churches, played on different playgrounds, and went to different restaurants, bars, theaters, and soda fountains. But we shared a country and a culture. We were one nation. We were Americans."
No, Pat, you and the people like you were pretending that those separated from you by law and social nods were better off with their own and without the privileges and power you likely still consider your birthright.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Because LINCOLN was a bonafide thru and thru racist....just as much as the southern plantation owners...
Not a jot, your powerful declaration notwithstanding.
I'll continue to be rational and factual and you can keep throwing names at it.
I don't care what was in the heart of the north, though Uncle Tom's Cabin had started a growing alteration of the popular sentiment in regard to slavery and the movement for its abolition continued to gain power. That the South left to champion slavery and the expansion of the slave state is sufficient for condemnation and reason enough to celebrate the Union victory.
So whether a man does a good thing out of a wellspring of goodness or as a service to some self-interest is of no real concern, because he only cheats himself if it is the latter and those who benefit by that good remain enriched.
That's not an answer to anything that it purported to follow and most men were racist by our lights. Some of them matured and changed over time and some did remarkable things in spite of their prejudice.
And it's one thing for a man to harbor an ignorant and hateful notion and something else to execute it in relation to another. To harbor is to harm oneself. To inflict is a worse evil and that was the cause of the South.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Of course you don't...cause that opens up your heart in the matter.
Lincoln and company wanted an all white preserve so to speak. Couple that with telling the north and the south you can have your slaves....he had no intention of freeing them.
Yeah, let's have our only white preserve....blacks are not welcome.....you can spin it anyway you want...
I wrote more than brumley's misleading use of, "I don't care what was in the heart of the north" (which is debatable and differed among men) and dr, being destitute in his cause, offered that truncation and this poverty:
EDIT: drbrumly added the following after my commentary:
I'm fine with an examination of a heart that doesn't support an attempt to ennoble the ignoble and is willing to take a hard and saddened look at the root of my own ancestry. But while I have deep feeling on the point, it originates in reason and is singularly defensible using that faculty.
Is this your non response to my rebuttal on Buchanan or a continuation of your factually deficient, largely subjective bit on the larger issue of the Civil War? Given neither are factually supported it's hard to tell.
Prior to the 60s essentially true in much of the nation, the nation Pat romanticized in the quote I noted.
Again, I've presented fact. I've set out the preserved words and reasons of the South for its attempt to withdraw and I've noted the reality of what was preserved and how that changed the landscape of a nation stained and corrupted by an institutionalized evil. In response to your printing of Buchanan's attempt to defend the indefensible I noted the root of his response and the similar problem he appears to share with the president. That's not spin, which is why you can't address it, only attempt to mislabel it.
EDIT: drbrumly added the following after my commentary:
Last edited:
drbrumley
Well-known member
And the washing machine keeps a spinnin'
Bumper sticker declarations are what people in your position have to live on...and with.
Political Correctness tries to set up a strong association in the minds of many people between the Old South, the Confederacy, Black Slavery and Racism.
But political correctness makes use of a simplified view of the Old South, the War of 1861-65. Black Slavery and Racism. This simplified view disagrees with details of history, but the followers of political correctness cannot accept the details, facts, of history that contradict the narrative of political correctness, because that can weaken the narrative for many target people.
Many people generally have difficulty in understanding and ordering a complex set of ideas, issues or events and tend only to understand and deal with simple one dimension orderings.
The simplified view of the War of 1861-1865, Abraham Lincoln and the issues in that war which is presented by Political Correctness - a method of attitude and belief change used by Transformational Marxism - ignores a number of factors in order to carry out the manipulation of public perception...
And common morality gets pushed aside by political correctness in ignoring the details of the War of 1861-1865 which are not made outstanding in perception. It is not just opinion that in the invasion of the South the federal armies were guilty of carrying out a huge number of war crimes. The total number of civilians killed by the Federal armies in the invasions of the South east of the Mississippi is not known. But McPherson in 'Battle Cry of Freedom" (1988) estimates about 50,000 civilians died as a result of the war. How many were deliberately killed by the Federal armies is not known either. But there are records which point to the deliberate killing of civilians by Lincoln's armies, and every deliberate killing was a war crime, which is there in history, though not usually taught in high school history classes and apparently not in undergraduate college level history either.
But political correctness makes use of a simplified view of the Old South, the War of 1861-65. Black Slavery and Racism. This simplified view disagrees with details of history, but the followers of political correctness cannot accept the details, facts, of history that contradict the narrative of political correctness, because that can weaken the narrative for many target people.
Many people generally have difficulty in understanding and ordering a complex set of ideas, issues or events and tend only to understand and deal with simple one dimension orderings.
The simplified view of the War of 1861-1865, Abraham Lincoln and the issues in that war which is presented by Political Correctness - a method of attitude and belief change used by Transformational Marxism - ignores a number of factors in order to carry out the manipulation of public perception...
And common morality gets pushed aside by political correctness in ignoring the details of the War of 1861-1865 which are not made outstanding in perception. It is not just opinion that in the invasion of the South the federal armies were guilty of carrying out a huge number of war crimes. The total number of civilians killed by the Federal armies in the invasions of the South east of the Mississippi is not known. But McPherson in 'Battle Cry of Freedom" (1988) estimates about 50,000 civilians died as a result of the war. How many were deliberately killed by the Federal armies is not known either. But there are records which point to the deliberate killing of civilians by Lincoln's armies, and every deliberate killing was a war crime, which is there in history, though not usually taught in high school history classes and apparently not in undergraduate college level history either.
Last edited:
Looks like north here is blogging.
The Union alone prosecuted upwards of 500 soldiers for the rape of civilians. God knows how many cases went unreported. A great many black women, liberated slaves, were raped in the presence of white women and owners with some regularity as well. One man, from Pennsylvania, was successfully prosecuted under the Lincoln's Lieber Code, which for the first time gave blacks the full protection of military law.
Then there were events like the Gainesville hangings, where forty one men were murdered with little to no trial for being suspected of Union sympathy. That's before Andersonville, Quantrill's atrocities, and without considering the insitutionalized rape, mutilation and brutality of slavery in the South.
No, history set up the strong association in the minds of rational people between the Confederacy and slavery. Racism was prima facie established and continued as a political and social force for generations after the war, giving rise to the Civil Rights Movement.
You're just spitting out catch phrases. Again,the actual documents, letters, editorials, and declarations by the states separating from the Union (well, attempting it) are rather plain about the reason: slavery.
You should use simpler sentences. You could have stopped after the dates and had a decent thesis to defend.
I'm fairly sure war crimes were committed by both sides and with alarming frequency. You need a better understanding of history taught on the university level. It's not lacking depth on any particular. I can't speak to what's taught at the high school level, but I'd imagine the stuff of war crimes would be considered a bit mature for them.
The Union alone prosecuted upwards of 500 soldiers for the rape of civilians. God knows how many cases went unreported. A great many black women, liberated slaves, were raped in the presence of white women and owners with some regularity as well. One man, from Pennsylvania, was successfully prosecuted under the Lincoln's Lieber Code, which for the first time gave blacks the full protection of military law.
Then there were events like the Gainesville hangings, where forty one men were murdered with little to no trial for being suspected of Union sympathy. That's before Andersonville, Quantrill's atrocities, and without considering the insitutionalized rape, mutilation and brutality of slavery in the South.