03Fox2/1
30-12-06, 00:16
From its inception as a nation, America has venerated the rule of law. The armed forces of the United States have, at least since 1806, and the original "Articles of War", had laws governing the activity of the army and navy both in times of peace and when at war. The original Articles of War was amended through June 25, 1863. The laws governing the military forces were, for the most part, passed as acts of Congress. The advent of the American War Between the States (1861-1865), resulted in a considerable expansion in the laws governing the conduct of warfare, especially General Order No. 100, or the "Lieber Code" as it was commonly called. General Order No. 100, "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field" was written at the direction of President Lincoln by Professor Francis Lieber and promulgated on April 24, 1863. The effect of this originally American code was so profound that the code was adopted into the laws and customs of war of several nations and included later into the Hague and Geneva Conventions. These codes were strictly adhered to by both the Union and Confederate armies during the war. There were exceptions here and there by both sides but it was the Union that towards the end of the war, ignored these rules of war and justified their conduct by any means to win. It was the Union that stopped prisoner exchanges and the parole of captured Confederates.
There are 157 various instructions, I will share just a few with you for now. Semper Fi
#11.
The law of war does not only disclaim all cruelty and bad faith concerning engagements concluded with the enemy during the war, but also the breaking of stipulations solemnly contracted by the belligerents in time of peace, and avowedly intended to remain in force in case of war between the contracting powers. It disclaims all extortions and other transactions for individual gain; all acts of private revenge, or connivance at such acts. Offenses to the contrary shall be severely punished, and especially so if committed by officers.
#15.
Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of "armed" enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally "unavoidable' in the armed contests of the war;it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to the hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of the appropriation of whatever an enemy's country affords necessary for the subsistance and safety of the army, and of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist. Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God.
#16
Military necessity does not admit of cruelty--that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district, It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult.
#20
Public war is a state of armed hostility between sovereign nations or governments. It is a law and requisite of civilized existence that men live in political, continuous societies, forming organized units, called states or nations, whose constituents bear, enjoy, and suffer, advance and retrograde together, in peace and in war.
#21.
The citizen or native of a hostile country is thus an enemy, as one of the constituents of the hostile state or nation, and as such is subjected to the hardships of the war.
#22.
Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit.
#23.
Private citizens are no longer murdered, enslaved, or carried off to distant parts, and the inoffensive individual in as little disturbed in his private relations as the commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war.
I'll stop for now. Needless to say, many like myself, wonder why General Sherman was allowed to violate so many rules of war. The citizens of Atlanta and Columbia certainly weren't combatants. I think the old saying, the winners make the rules and also write, or rewrite, the history books, is appropriate.
There are 157 various instructions, I will share just a few with you for now. Semper Fi
#11.
The law of war does not only disclaim all cruelty and bad faith concerning engagements concluded with the enemy during the war, but also the breaking of stipulations solemnly contracted by the belligerents in time of peace, and avowedly intended to remain in force in case of war between the contracting powers. It disclaims all extortions and other transactions for individual gain; all acts of private revenge, or connivance at such acts. Offenses to the contrary shall be severely punished, and especially so if committed by officers.
#15.
Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of "armed" enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally "unavoidable' in the armed contests of the war;it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to the hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of the appropriation of whatever an enemy's country affords necessary for the subsistance and safety of the army, and of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist. Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God.
#16
Military necessity does not admit of cruelty--that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district, It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult.
#20
Public war is a state of armed hostility between sovereign nations or governments. It is a law and requisite of civilized existence that men live in political, continuous societies, forming organized units, called states or nations, whose constituents bear, enjoy, and suffer, advance and retrograde together, in peace and in war.
#21.
The citizen or native of a hostile country is thus an enemy, as one of the constituents of the hostile state or nation, and as such is subjected to the hardships of the war.
#22.
Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit.
#23.
Private citizens are no longer murdered, enslaved, or carried off to distant parts, and the inoffensive individual in as little disturbed in his private relations as the commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war.
I'll stop for now. Needless to say, many like myself, wonder why General Sherman was allowed to violate so many rules of war. The citizens of Atlanta and Columbia certainly weren't combatants. I think the old saying, the winners make the rules and also write, or rewrite, the history books, is appropriate.