Military Justice And Other Oxymorons
Abraham Lincoln versus The Sioux

by Paul Weber
3-30-2

When King George the Second (surnamed Bush) announced that some
of the soldiers (or is it detainees? or criminals?) captured in
the undeclared war in Afghanistan would be tried in military
tribunals, a lot of people got twisted out of shape. Military
Tribunals, it seems, are not open to the public; the military
serves as judge, jury, and hangman; and the accused can be
convicted and sentenced to summary execution merely on a
"preponderance of the evidence", rather than the usual "guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in conventional capital
cases. The words "Star Chamber" come immediately to mind. Oh,
yes - and the guilty have no right of appeal. Once you're found
guilty, you can step right on out the back door to the waiting
hangman.

"Ridiculous!" answered the big-government conservatives.
"Military tribunals are very fair. And you don't have to worry
about the trials turning into media circuses like the O. J.
Simpson case. We used military tribunals in several wars in
the past, and they rendered even-handed justice."
Actually, no. American military tribunals have historically
been set up to railroad people quickly to the hangman's noose.
Abraham Lincoln, the first president from the Republican Party
(as well as our Empire's first dictator), set up military
tribunals in the Civil War that were allegedly to be used to
try people in parts of the country where the conventional
court system had broken down as a result of the war.
Interestingly, one of the more famous military tribunals was
set up in a state that was never threatened by the Southern
rebels: Minnesota. The accused were not rebel soldiers, but
Sioux Indians who had been causing a ruckus by making
unreasonable demands on the Lincoln Administration, such as
actually sticking to the terms of a treaty.

According to Thomas DiLorenzo, author of a new book titled The
Real Lincoln, the Santee Sioux of Minnesota had sold 24 million
acres of land to the federal government for $1.4 million in
1851. By 1862, in the middle of the Civil War, the feds had
still paid the Sioux nothing, even though thousands of white
settlers had moved into the area. Because of a crop failure
that year, the Sioux had begun to starve, and without the
promised payments from the feds, they had no means of buying
provisions.

Okay, I know it's hard for you public-school-educated Americans
to comprehend, but our masters in Washington really do have a
sordid history of breaking treaties, particularly with the
Indian tribes.

Weary of being stiffed by Washington, the Sioux finally
revolted. In response, Lincoln sent a force under the command
of General John Pope, a charming fellow whose stated purpose
was to "utterly exterminate the Sioux." Of course the "war",
such as it was, was no contest - sort of like the American
military conquering the mighty nation of Afghanistan - and
hundreds of Sioux, including women and children, were taken
prisoner.

This is where the fun really began for the Lincoln
administration. Remember, Minnesota never even came close
to suffering invasion during the Civil War. The system of
courts in Minnesota had not been destroyed. Nonetheless, it
was very convenient to identify the Sioux as "illegal
combatants" in the war. Maybe they didn't wear uniforms, or
something, or maybe they even attacked innocent civilians -
something our own military never does, right? Anyhow, this
Military Tribunal, according to David Nichols in 'Lincoln and
the Indians', spent all of about 10 minutes on each "trial."
The Sioux, many of whom spoke no English, were not allowed to
put up much of a defense, even if they had some foggy notion
of what was going on.

Over 300 Sioux were found guilty and sentenced to summary
execution. The merciful Lincoln Administration, however, got
a few signals from Europe that mass execution of hundreds of
starving Indians with whom we had broken a treaty might just
be a little bit immoral. Because some of those nations were
toying with the idea of coming to the aid of the South,
Lincoln decided, in a great show of mercy, to execute only 39
of the prisoners. But to mollify the folks in Minnesota, he
also paid $2 million in federal funds, along with a promise
to eventually kill or remove every last Indian from the state.
Yes, this is the same Lincoln whom official Washington and
the public schools at all levels continually laud as one of
our greatest presidents. This is the fellow we celebrate with
a national holiday.

Another famous case involves the story of Major Henry Wirz,
the unfortunate soldier given the unenviable task of
overseeing the Andersonville prison in Georgia during the
Civil War. First, a bit of background. The American military,
which never targets civilians, engaged in what we now call
"Total War" on the population of the South. That is, they
not only attacked the armies of the Confederacy, but also
made war on noncombatants. Throughout the South, the invading
Union Army burned crops, shot livestock and left the carcasses
to rot, and burned people out of their homes. This, added to
the fact that the South had been effectively blockaded for
several years, meant the civilian population was reduced to
starvation and had no access to medicine.

During the early years of the war, the opposing sides
negotiated the exchange of prisoners, but as the war dragged
on, the North realized that - surprise! - the Union soldiers
they were taking back were starving and disease-ridden, a
fact that just might have been related to their own blockade
and their own policy of Total War. The Union generals, not
wanting to "exchange skeletons for healthy men", decided to
cease all prisoner exchanges, fully knowing that the South
would be put in the impossible position of rationing what
little food was available, while at the same time being
morally responsible for feeding their prisoners of war.
Attorney Louis Schade, in a letter defending Major Wirz,
pointed out that the South advised the North that they were
unable to feed their prisoners, offering to simply let the
North take back their prisoners without any compensating
exchange, on humanitarian grounds. The offer was made in
August, 1864, but the North did not send transportation to
pick up the prisoners until December. It was during that
period of time that most of the deaths at Andersonville
occurred.

Almost 22,000 Northerners died in Southern camps during the
war, compared to the 26,000 Southerners who died in Northern
camps, despite the fact that the North did not suffer any
blockade or Total War tactics, as had the South. From this,
we can gather that Southern troops were not treated very
kindly in Northern prisons, but the victors in war get to
write the history, so the story of mistreatment in Northern
prison camps has been largely swept under the rug.
The North, however, needed a scapegoat and a show trial, so
Major Wirz faced a military tribunal. Wirz was made to stand
trial despite the fact he had been wounded during surrender.
He was so weak that he was unable to sit upright during his
trial; he had to recline on a sofa in the courtroom. He was
denied the right to speak in his own defense. Wirz,
ironically, was accused of "murder in violation of the laws
and customs of war." Well, General Sherman never did
anything like that, did he?

A dozen "witnesses" were produced, all accusing Wirz of
personally beating 13 prisoners to death. There were several
problems with the testimony, however, the most conspicuous
being the fact that none of the alleged "witnesses" could
recall the names of any of the victims! This lapse of memory
seems to have occurred despite the fact that several of the
alleged victims lived for five or six days after the beatings.
Isn't it unusual that, among the thousands of prisoners at
Andersonville, not one witness could be produced who could
recall the name of a single victim? Against those 15
"witnesses," the defense was allowed to produce 145 witnesses
who all swore Wirz never murdered any Union soldiers. Despite
the preponderance of evidence indicating Wirz never killed
anyone, the Union general in charge of the proceedings
(gee--you don't suppose a commander of the opposition forces
would be a little, you know, biased, would you?) found Wirz
guilty and ordered him hanged.

It gets better, though. On the night before the scheduled
execution, several federal officers approached Schade with
an offer of clemency for Wirz if he would simply testify that
Jefferson Davis himself had a hand in the "murder" of the
unnamed prisoners. Such a claim would be, of course, absurd.
Jefferson Davis was never anywhere near Andersonville, but
the Union, unable to try Davis for treason, was trolling for
a more mundane charge, like murder. Wirz, in one of those
strange, darkly heroic moments of history, refused to go
along with the perjury, saying he could not accuse an innocent
man even to save his own life. Two hours later, he mounted the
gallows and was hanged¼.

Jefferson Davis actually wanted to be put on
trial for treason, confident he could prove that individual
states had every right to secede from the union. The Feds,
reviewing the mountains of evidence in the writings of the
Founding Fathers indicating the states did indeed have just
such a right, never brought Davis to trial.
These are just two examples from our illustrious history of
military tribunals. I'm sure that, with a little research,
one could come up with many more examples to demonstrate that
military tribunals are set up with the specific purpose of
arriving at the "right" predetermined verdict.

Paul Weber’s novel, Transfiguration, is available at http://www.xlibris.com/Transfiguration.html.