War Crimes During the Civil War

[The Infidel]

War crimes aren't war crimes unless and until there is a law making whatever activity it was criminal. There were no such laws during the Civil War so there were no war crimes. All you can do is say if such activity was conducted today it would be a war crime.

So would slavery

Quite true! When slavey was legal, it was in fact very legal. It was legal right up to the time the first law was passed against it.

It was still a crime against humanity.... the Nazis didnt break any of their laws when they committed their atrocities.

But still, I really think we are splitting hairs on the issue though.

 

[w1994]

War crimes aren't war crimes unless and until there is a law making whatever activity it was criminal. There were no such laws during the Civil War so there were no war crimes. All you can do is say if such activity was conducted today it would be a war crime.

So would slavery

Quite true! When slavey was legal, it was in fact very legal. It was legal right up to the time the first law was passed against it.

It's interesting that the first law protecting slavery and actually legalizing (the cradle to casket variety) it, came from those great folks in Yankeedum. The ones that brought forth the Pilgrims in 1620. Yes those nice folks of Massachusetts protected a masters right to own slaves in 1641. Sorry but the South did not invent slavery.

 

[Unkotare]

You're not coming across the way you'd probably hoped.

 

[w1994]

You're not coming across the way you'd probably hoped.

What did I hope?

 

[w1994]

"Killing innocent civilians remains a war crime regardless of how you want to spin it."

Your right, it's been a crime since 1949.....

Well, I hate to bring it up, but under that thinking any Jews killed by Nazis during WW2 must have simply been casualties of war and it wasn't really a tragedy. Right?

Not that it wasn't a tragedy, it wasn't illegal.
What world events would you suppose would prompt the WORLD to pass laws regarding the treatment of civilians during wartime AND outlaw genocide in 1949?

If it had been illegal, as it is now, Germans would have been tried for genocide, as they are today. They couldn't try them then because there was no law to charge them with violating.
That doesn't mean it was right, or that it wasn't a tragedy. It simply wasn't against any existing laws.

Yes, it was illegal. Haven't you heard of the Nuremberg trials? They started right away in November of 1945. Japan surrendered in September of 1945. The Nuremberg trials started immediately at the end of WWII. It dealt exclusively with the war crimes of the suriving Nazi leaders that had not killed themselves like Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels did. The things they did were illegal, that is why they were all brought to trial. They were setting forth the plans for war crime trials as early as December of the previous year. That being 1944. You must missed the huge PBS special on it a few years back. Its been on the History Channel on cable as well. Read about it on Wikipedia. Those trials went on for a year.

 

[w1994]

During the War for Southern Independence ]

Do you mean the US Civil War?

Our Civil War did not meet the definition criteria of a Civil War but the term stuck anyway. A Civil War is when two seperate factions fight for total control of the country. The South wanted control of their region of the country, not the whole country. The South was not trying to put Jeff Davis in Lincoln's bed at the White House. Secession is a formal withdrawl from a society, such as a political society. The South just wanted to pull back and handle their own affairs and be left alone. They were not trying to overthrow the government and take it all. They just wanted to get the government off their back. It was not a Civil War as far as the correct usage of the term is concerned but more so for practical reasons I guess.

 

[w1994]

It was total war. A war to break the spirit of the south. A war to punish the civillians so why wouldn't they be considered combatants? It's the war we should have fought in the middle east.

It wasn't total war at first but it gradually became that way. At first it was a miltary contest between two armies. It was a traditional, standard issue, conventional war, at first. As the war went on, the hatred and bigotry amongst the Northern leaders for Southerners, grew till they just lost all interest and respect for humanity and cast off anything resembling the normal polish, poise, finesse and standards of a sophisticated society. They got tired of the war so they just took it to the unarmed civilians as well, just like when we dropped the two A bombs on Japan that killed hundreds of thousands of non-combatants (unarmed people not enlisted in that countries military, nor having ever engaged in the act of war themselves). When a cat gets tired of playing with a mouse, he finally does the dirty work of snapping it's spine and biting off it's head. If we are going to wage that kind of war, I would much rather it not be on our own people. I agree, we should have fought that kind of war in the Middle East but too many of the Welfare recipients in Washington (they call themselves politicians) are so worried about world opinion, that it will never happen.

 

[Unkotare]

You're not coming across the way you'd probably hoped.

What did I hope?

Unless it was to be seen as a whiny little bitch, you missed.

 

[w1994]

You're not coming across the way you'd probably hoped.

What did I hope?

Unless it was to be seen as a whiny little bitch, you missed.

I wasn't shooting for that, so I certainly missed it.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The winning side writes the history books so criminal behavior that would not be tolerated anywhere in the civilized world is ignored. Was Grant really a drunk? What sane person would tell his generals to plunder civilians "so a crow would have to pack a lunch" if he was flying over the South? Look at old photos of general Sherman and you might be convinced that rumors that he was insane were true. What sane person would order civilians out of a city and set it on fire? Maybe during the "dark ages" but certainly not in the civilized 19th century. Union general David "black dave" Hunter was an arsonist and pillager who murdered civilians in the Shenandoah Valley. When his band of pirates thought they were confronted by a real army at Lynchburg, which was a bluff, the cowards fled into the mountains rather than fight.

Those orders came from Lincoln. Sherman was doing what he was told to do. He was told to wage total war to destroy everything so that the will of the Southerners to fight would be broken. Was Lincoln insane? He gave the orders.

That was actually a brilliant set of orders too. The only way to wage a war and ensure you get a long lasting peace afterwards is to wage a war so total, and so destructive, that those left alive are forced to accept they lost.

That's why in WWII the Allies declared they would accept only unconditional surrender. Negotiated surrender with a foe that refuses to acknowledge they were indeed beaten will only lead to more war.

War is a terrible horrible thing. And the best way to prevent War is to fight, when forced to, in such a way that everyone literally trembles in fear at the idea of it. I'll take Sherman's March to the Sea, the fire bombing of Dresden and Hamburg, and the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki any day of the weak over the flat out slow bleeding you see in the Middle East that's been going on for well near a century.

 

[whitehall]

The winning side writes the history books so criminal behavior that would not be tolerated anywhere in the civilized world is ignored. Was Grant really a drunk? What sane person would tell his generals to plunder civilians "so a crow would have to pack a lunch" if he was flying over the South? Look at old photos of general Sherman and you might be convinced that rumors that he was insane were true. What sane person would order civilians out of a city and set it on fire? Maybe during the "dark ages" but certainly not in the civilized 19th century. Union general David "black dave" Hunter was an arsonist and pillager who murdered civilians in the Shenandoah Valley. When his band of pirates thought they were confronted by a real army at Lynchburg, which was a bluff, the cowards fled into the mountains rather than fight.

Those orders came from Lincoln. Sherman was doing what he was told to do. He was told to wage total war to destroy everything so that the will of the Southerners to fight would be broken. Was Lincoln insane? He gave the orders.

Say what? Sherman was "only following orders"? Seems to me I heard that defense back in the 1940's.

 

[Katzndogz]

The winning side writes the history books so criminal behavior that would not be tolerated anywhere in the civilized world is ignored. Was Grant really a drunk? What sane person would tell his generals to plunder civilians "so a crow would have to pack a lunch" if he was flying over the South? Look at old photos of general Sherman and you might be convinced that rumors that he was insane were true. What sane person would order civilians out of a city and set it on fire? Maybe during the "dark ages" but certainly not in the civilized 19th century. Union general David "black dave" Hunter was an arsonist and pillager who murdered civilians in the Shenandoah Valley. When his band of pirates thought they were confronted by a real army at Lynchburg, which was a bluff, the cowards fled into the mountains rather than fight.

Those orders came from Lincoln. Sherman was doing what he was told to do. He was told to wage total war to destroy everything so that the will of the Southerners to fight would be broken. Was Lincoln insane? He gave the orders.

Say what? Sherman was "only following orders"? Seems to me I heard that defense back in the 1940's.

Is it fair to say something about Sherman (Who was brilliant) and not say anything at all about the president who gave those orders? Face it, Lincoln was not a very nice man but he was willing to do whateve it took to put down the secession. Had Lincoln not given those kinds of orders, we would have the CSA on our southern border instead of mexico.

 

[whitehall]

Those orders came from Lincoln. Sherman was doing what he was told to do. He was told to wage total war to destroy everything so that the will of the Southerners to fight would be broken. Was Lincoln insane? He gave the orders.

Say what? Sherman was "only following orders"? Seems to me I heard that defense back in the 1940's.

Is it fair to say something about Sherman (Who was brilliant) and not say anything at all about the president who gave those orders? Face it, Lincoln was not a very nice man but he was willing to do whateve it took to put down the secession. Had Lincoln not given those kinds of orders, we would have the CSA on our southern border instead of mexico.

Lincoln was a hands on president but you can't hold him responsible for the conduct of a maniac general who thought he was God's terrible swift sword and torched an entire city.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Say what? Sherman was "only following orders"? Seems to me I heard that defense back in the 1940's.

Is it fair to say something about Sherman (Who was brilliant) and not say anything at all about the president who gave those orders? Face it, Lincoln was not a very nice man but he was willing to do whateve it took to put down the secession. Had Lincoln not given those kinds of orders, we would have the CSA on our southern border instead of mexico.

Lincoln was a hands on president but you can't hold him responsible for the conduct of a maniac general who thought he was God's terrible swift sword and torched an entire city.

You can when Lincoln later gave the "thanks of the country" to Sherman for his actions.

 

[Katzndogz]

Say what? Sherman was "only following orders"? Seems to me I heard that defense back in the 1940's.

Is it fair to say something about Sherman (Who was brilliant) and not say anything at all about the president who gave those orders? Face it, Lincoln was not a very nice man but he was willing to do whateve it took to put down the secession. Had Lincoln not given those kinds of orders, we would have the CSA on our southern border instead of mexico.

Lincoln was a hands on president but you can't hold him responsible for the conduct of a maniac general who thought he was God's terrible swift sword and torched an entire city.

Sherman was told to burn Atlanta. You may not like it, but the North was told to destroy everything that the South could use whether civilian or military.

I fully agree with this form of warfare. If we had used it in the middle east, we wouldn't be there for ten years and counting.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Is it fair to say something about Sherman (Who was brilliant) and not say anything at all about the president who gave those orders? Face it, Lincoln was not a very nice man but he was willing to do whateve it took to put down the secession. Had Lincoln not given those kinds of orders, we would have the CSA on our southern border instead of mexico.

Or worse, an on and off 150 or so years of guerrilla warfare like they've had in other countries in the world. The South was never going to break free in a straight up military conflict with the North. The numbers simply were not there. The Europeans were never going to jump in while the South was a slave holding region and the South was never going to give up Slavery as an institution. It was part of the declarations of a majority of the Southern States.

Without things like Sherman's March to the Sea there's a chance you'd have had a long term guerrilla warfare conflict open up in a lot of the Deep South, despite Lee's best efforts to prevent that from happening when he surrendered at Appomattox. I can guarantee you that the effort of fighting that kind of war would have killed FAR FAR more people than Sherman's March to the Sea. If you doubt that, look at the lengths the US had to go to fight insurgency in the Philippines or look at the ongoing Middle East conflict.

Long guerrilla conflicts are always the result of a "Humane" war and they always end up killing more folks and prolonging conflict for generations. If you have to fight, fight as brutally as possible. In the long run, you save lives.

 

[Katzndogz]

Is it fair to say something about Sherman (Who was brilliant) and not say anything at all about the president who gave those orders? Face it, Lincoln was not a very nice man but he was willing to do whateve it took to put down the secession. Had Lincoln not given those kinds of orders, we would have the CSA on our southern border instead of mexico.

Or worse, an on and off 150 or so years of guerrilla warfare like they've had in other countries in the world. The South was never going to break free in a straight up military conflict with the North. The numbers simply were not there. The Europeans were never going to jump in while the South was a slave holding region and the South was never going to give up Slavery as an institution. It was part of the declarations of a majority of the Southern States.

Without things like Sherman's March to the Sea there's a chance you'd have had a long term guerrilla warfare conflict open up in a lot of the Deep South, despite Lee's best efforts to prevent that from happening when he surrendered at Appomattox. I can guarantee you that the effort of fighting that kind of war would have killed FAR FAR more people than Sherman's March to the Sea. If you doubt that, look at the lengths the US had to go to fight insurgency in the Philippines or look at the ongoing Middle East conflict.

Long guerrilla conflicts are always the result of a "Humane" war and they always end up killing more folks and prolonging conflict for generations. If you have to fight, fight as brutally as possible. In the long run, you save lives.

Absolutely. Could not agree more.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A discussion I had earlier this morning prompted me to create this thread. During the War for Southern Independence Lincoln and his generals used the strategy of total war to fight the Confederacy. In other words, no southern civilian be they man, woman, or child or any southern slave was safe from northern aggression.

One hundred thirty-six years after General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Americans are still fascinated with the War for Southern Independence. The larger bookstores devote an inordinate amount of shelf space to books about the events and personalities of the war; Ken Burns’s "Civil War" television series and the movie "Gettysburg" were blockbuster hits; dozens of new books on the war are still published every year; and a monthly newspaper, Civil War News, lists literally hundreds of seminars, conferences, reenactments, and memorial events related to the war in all 50 states and the District of Columbia all year long. Indeed, many Northerners are "still fighting the war" in that they organize a political mob whenever anyone attempts to display a Confederate heritage symbol in any public place.

Americans are still fascinated by the war because many of us recognize it as the defining event in American history. Lincoln’s war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the "rewriting" of the Constitution by federal judges, "total war," the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big "problem solver."

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln’s war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln’s war.

Targeting Civilians

and the South was fighting to keep it's niggars in chains. That would be a war crime today too.

Unleash the dogs of war and...

You sound like Adolph Hitler apologists who claim Hitler was only copying American practices when he sent the Jews to their deaths in camps. You blame Lincoln for targeting civilians? read history. Ever since the dawn of mankind Armies have slaughtered and pillaged civilian fortresses.

Lincoln allowed Southerners to live because it was a civil war. He did not order troops to slaughter all civilians and take any survivors in chains, though the last part might have been an appropriate sort of justice indeed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A discussion I had earlier this morning prompted me to create this thread. During the War for Southern Independence Lincoln and his generals used the strategy of total war to fight the Confederacy. In other words, no southern civilian be they man, woman, or child or any southern slave was safe from northern aggression.

One hundred thirty-six years after General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Americans are still fascinated with the War for Southern Independence. The larger bookstores devote an inordinate amount of shelf space to books about the events and personalities of the war; Ken Burns’s "Civil War" television series and the movie "Gettysburg" were blockbuster hits; dozens of new books on the war are still published every year; and a monthly newspaper, Civil War News, lists literally hundreds of seminars, conferences, reenactments, and memorial events related to the war in all 50 states and the District of Columbia all year long. Indeed, many Northerners are "still fighting the war" in that they organize a political mob whenever anyone attempts to display a Confederate heritage symbol in any public place.

Americans are still fascinated by the war because many of us recognize it as the defining event in American history. Lincoln’s war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the "rewriting" of the Constitution by federal judges, "total war," the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big "problem solver."

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln’s war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln’s war.

Targeting Civilians

and the South was fighting to keep it's niggars in chains. That would be a war crime today too.

Unleash the dogs of war and...

You sound like Adolph Hitler apologists who claim Hitler was only copying American practices when he sent the Jews to their deaths in camps. You blame Lincoln for targeting civilians? read history. Ever since the dawn of mankind Armies have slaughtered and pillaged civilian fortresses.

Lincoln allowed Southerners to live because it was a civil war. He did not order troops to slaughter all civilians and take any survivors in chains, though the last part might have been an appropriate sort of justice indeed.

Actually the south was fighting to separate from the U.S. government.

 

[Peach]

A discussion I had earlier this morning prompted me to create this thread. During the War for Southern Independence Lincoln and his generals used the strategy of total war to fight the Confederacy. In other words, no southern civilian be they man, woman, or child or any southern slave was safe from northern aggression.



Targeting Civilians

and the South was fighting to keep it's niggars in chains. That would be a war crime today too.

Unleash the dogs of war and...

You sound like Adolph Hitler apologists who claim Hitler was only copying American practices when he sent the Jews to their deaths in camps. You blame Lincoln for targeting civilians? read history. Ever since the dawn of mankind Armies have slaughtered and pillaged civilian fortresses.

Lincoln allowed Southerners to live because it was a civil war. He did not order troops to slaughter all civilians and take any survivors in chains, though the last part might have been an appropriate sort of justice indeed.

Actually the south was fighting to separate from the U.S. government.

At least one historian analyzed how brutal slave owners were by how many slaves were within each state as compared to whites; others describe the war as an industrial/rural conflict. Many angles to be debated.