How did duty and honor compel us into this awful war?

[ole]

C'mon, M.E.! When did the booklet of "rules" frequent the front pocket of every commander? Not very bloody likely! Lee was not consulting the booklet at Antietam/Sharpsburg, nor was Grant catching up on his study at Shiloh/Pittsburg Landing. In every engagement of every army, I'm betting that the commanders kinda focused on winning. The handbook of "rules" got lost somewhere. It happens.

ole

[M E Wolf]

Dear Ole,

In posting what I have on the Articles of War; it is documentation to which existed for those times in the Civil War.

Commanding officers can attempt to claim ignorance but, the fact that the Articles of War existed, stands on its own. I would be more inclined to excuse junior officers and non-commissioned officers and or enlisted men--volunteers also but, with the Articles of War being in the same book as the Rules and Regulations; it is --for me, difficult to claim ignorance.

So far, I am also seeing that a copy of the Rules and Regulations had to be within any command; to include books to account for General Orders, Special Orders, written correspondences, letters, etc., the Staff Officer was busy with paperwork and would have all these resources at hand; as well as the duty to remind officers of rules and regulations.

If and or how these rules and regulations were applied--I wasn't there; and can only consider many explainations, make assumptions, pose questions and the like. In posting existing rules or Articles of War; I am not necessarily making a statement--just cite that they existed.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[ole]

I hope you realize, M.E., that was in no way ridiculing you. It's just the idea that these people actually fought according to some long forgotten rules. I usually liken the whole affair as a bar fight. Bite, chew, whatever it takes. One must be the one standing after it is done. There is no such thing as fighting like a gentleman. Doesn't happen. Never did. Never will.

ole

[Hanny]

I have to agree with others regarding your logic, spelling and grammar. You would benefit from remedial reading and writing instruction. I suggest you apply yourself to some attention to details.

ok, the details that actually matter are the facts are, and what they will or will not support, you have made no answer to any points put or questions posed to you, but instead meerly claimed my logic is at fault. Since i invoked no logical argument but counter your poistions with facts its clear you wnat to popst something but have nothing to post on the points you entered. Not a good ideas to agree with others on my bad spelling, ( its not necessary to point out the obviouse) they do it because thats all that i leave them with to post, after makeing jelly of the opinions that are inane, uniformed twaddle, so joining them just adds you to that class of person unable to support their post, incapable of posting that which can be proven, but feel they have to post something when show how inane and uniformed their post are. Feel free to disprove that, or not, its not as though im short of posts to pull apart as twaddle. If i seem harsh with you, thats because your remidial grasp of what occured in history is painfull to read.

Is this some sort of justification for genocide?

Answer, involves no logic, meerly a understanding of facts.
Fact , USA is a signatory to the retrospective law of genocide but has never been charged with any such crime,

"I was just following orders!" is not a good defense.

Answer, again involves no logic, but familiarty with the Articles of war, an example would be R g Shaw at Darrien, who felt his honour impinged by orders which required he conform with or be arrested and face acourt martial, as detailed in his 9th June 1863 letter. See below.
secondly and rather more importantly, the american indian wars were prosecuted under laws that required the us soldier to follow orders, further the US mil law made all males over age 7 mil combatents, and could be denied any and all rights as they were people who any laws apploied to. Even when the SC rulled tribes who applied to have the protection of law won there case (Standing Bear V Crook), sherman appied that strictly to those bringing suit, and exterminated all others after issueing a no prisoners of any hostiles order.
R G Shaw was orderd to burn the town of Darrien by Col Montgomory, on the way there that Col had shelled negros working the fields and Shaw was appalled unresisted entry into the townwhich contained 2 white and 2 negro women only, then occured and Montgomory ordered shaw to burn it, the order was "I shall burn this town, the southerners must be made to feel thes is a real war and they are to be swept away by the hand of god, like the jews of old, we are outlawed and not bound by the rules of regular warfare". Shaw objected, citied the Articles of war which allow an officer to refuse any order that was not lawfull, and was told he would have to take a court martaila if he refused a second time to burn the Town. Shaw complied and compalined bittwer to his political influential father, he had still not made up his mind on what to do, but settled for his fathers clout to get his reg out of Montgomorys command forwith.

Even if we permit this type of defense, on behalf of the blue devils who bayoneted women and children, what part of the burden falls upon Gen. Pope? What part falls upon his excellency the tyrant, Lincoln?

Answer
Pope?, example please.
Lincoln, granted blanket imunity to mil and public figures from all civil prosection for ther duration of the war, an extreme measure but since congress passed the law, it was legal.
I ask again cite the ref to Pope for bayoneting women and children.

This is a forum for intelligent discussion regarding the late great unpleasantness.

Possible that is is, i guess we disagree on what constitutes intellegent. I would for instance, understand that not makeing a reply to any point put is a good indicator that the points were sound, and instead of addressing the points, claim spelling of them somehow made them less effective, but of course its not logical to ignore that which you can understand and make jelly of in reply to a post, but it is logical to ignore that which has made jelly of a poistion and comment on the spelling or logic of it when it does so. Now, intelligent discussion, that would require your post to be factually correct, since you dont know that the CSA Mil required its orders to be followed in that time, and that no order to give no quarter was found by anyone who looked from Sherman to Congress down to the present day, that Genocide did not exist as word or a crime till 1944, and that your other points are simple vaugue refernces to Pope being responsible for bayoneting women and children, its pretty clear what level of intlegence you have at your command. I would further think using the term genocide incorectly is a indicator of the posters intilegence, along with factually incorrect comment on events.

Lord knows, I suffer from my own fat fingers from time to time, I've been know to misspell a few four letter words and I am often times not grammatically correct, but dang, you might as well be writing in Greek.

So i posted them again and invite you to make reply, i wait for you to do so, in the expectation you cannot and will not, because you cannot counter my post to your twaddle, which is a much better explanation for you lost post to me.

Gen. Forrest most certainly did order his men to kill everyone in Fort Pillow.

So you claim, Forrest order otoh meerly, stated " Should my demand be refused, i cannot acept responsoblity for the fate of your command."
Hardly what you posted the order would entail.

Anyone that knows anything about him knows he did, too.

So thats not you then. its not the Congresional finding either. Its certainly not Forrest himself who asked for a court martial to answer such a claim, and have Sherman decline his offer and commented after examining all the circamstances of FT Pillow, as ordered to by Grant, and act on any wrong doing, and made no recomendation of further action in respect of it, back to Grant, and went on with winning the war, with "I was told by 100s of our men that were at various times pows under him that he usually treated them very well". It did not stop him ofering a reward for Forrest dead or alive, and post war remarking that Forrest was "The most remarkable man the war the war produced on either side. And was remrarkable in many ways" and go on to list the man genius for war etc.
Otoh The Federal Lt Van Horn, present and survived the attack in OR XXXii part i, page 570 gave this evidence.
There never wasa surrendor at FT Pillow, both officers and men cliaming that they would never surrendor not ask for quarter"
LT Col J Brownlow, son of the fantic Union Gov Brownlow of Tenn, OR Vol xxxi part i page 591 set the precedednt for no quarter for Forrest, when his First Tenn cav were ordered to take no prisoners, on Dec 1 1863, and 13 of forrest men were killed post combat who had been taken pow and wounded. OR xxxii part i page 592 ( March 22 of 1864 Forrest requested that then following officers and men be handed over for crial by jury, for the crime of murder, or if not would not be would be demed outlaws and not treated as pows should they fall into CSA hands. One Col Fielding Hurst and others of his regiment who delbertaly took out and killed 7 seven CSA soldiers, one of whom they left to die after cuting out the tougue, punched out his eyes, splitting his moth to both ears,and other mutilations, and inflicting other mutilations".
Lt Willis Dobbs of Newsome reg of forrest command was arrested by Hurst command, and tortured to death, i thought we all could think about that man ( he was the above mentioned man who lost his toungue and and eyes) and how he met his end, at the hands of those who dont think wars should have laws like those of antiquity.


And rightly so. He demonstrated in front of the fort. He gave the occupants an opportunity to capitualate with full military honors. They refused. They forced him to make a frontal assualt. He was well within his right to order the deaths of every living soul inside of Fort Pillow. Black, White, even those with pick pokadots. There is 5000 plus years of precedece to justify his actions too.[/quote]

Gen. Pope and Colonels Sibley and Chivington on the other hand ......

Did what?, and to whom did they do it?. there are many things you may be refering to, which ones, be specific.

5000 years of military precedence dicates that razing a fort and putting its occupants under the axe is perfectly legitmate.

Cite an example of such precdence.

Forrest demonstrated in front of Fort Pillow. He offered them terms. They refused. He was within his rights to kill every single one of them.

Not within the CSA Articlers of war which he fought under however.

What would Alexander have done?

Greek law on combat would allow the extermination of all who resisted, but Greeks were not at Pillow, not being time travelers able to ignore 2000 years of legal advancement on what you can or cannot do in war.

What would Ceasar have done?

Roman law, required any surrender before the ram touched the wall, to be acepted, at which point if the ram touched the wall, the Romands had 3 days to do they wanted to who they wanted, as long as all persons and livestock ended up dead. But again Romnas wer not at Pillow, americans were , subject to articles of war or the Liber code depending on which side you want to post concerning.

My point is NOT to defend Gen. Forrest's actions at Fort Pillow. My point is to use the so called "Fort Pillow Massacer" to demostrate how new age abolitionist reconstructionsists continue to harp on that Devil Forrest while turning a blind eye to the autrocities of their blue clad soldiers.

Good job on not defending Forrest at Pillow, if your going to make refernces to the late unpleastness, it would be nice if they were acuarte ones, and not fantasy ones, like an intelegent popster would do.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by M E Wolf

Dear List Members,

However, it is my understanding that mass execution, to which General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson desired -- also known as the "Black Flag"--no prisoners; is disturbing. If the CSA had similar rules and regulations as above; it would be violation of said rules and regulations. It is in my opinion based on the above; it would be improper for the US Army.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

Both sides used the artilces of war till US replaces them with Liver code.http://www.usregulars.com/Regulations%20Home.html

Jackson, was not advocating killing pows, he was expalining that the CSA could not win a long war, and that only a short war copuld be won, and that ment fighting outside the articles of war under which the CSA operated, and the US would do by repaceing them with the Liber code, ie the governemnt placed the theatre commander with the legal authority to fight as hard a war as was needed in his circamstances, rather tha shackle him with a uniform code, that allowed an imoral order ( depending on an individuals morals he may or may not think an oprder moral) to be refused, but had to face a court in any event.

Problems also arose with the CSA Partizan acts, as to who was covered as legal combatent so as to speak, and subject to regulations.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Could you cite the law that allows for the murdering of POWs during the Civil War?

Lieber code, alows any and all rules to be ignored in the need of mil neccisity, which is what Shermnan thought needed when he ordered civilians shot or hung as part of his collective responsobility, he once ordered Poe to go a certain town and kill a dozen or civilians at random, and make it clear to all, the same would occur every time a bushwacking occured. He would use Pows to clear land mines, and use them on flatbeds sent ahead of trains to detyer any attempt to unrail the trains, all highly unorthodoxe and ilegal actions under normal conditions and articles of war, but also highly effective, and used by the UK in SA etc.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by ole

I hope you realize, M.E., that was in no way ridiculing you. It's just the idea that these people actually fought according to some long forgotten rules. I usually liken the whole affair as a bar fight. Bite, chew, whatever it takes. One must be the one standing after it is done. There is no such thing as fighting like a gentleman. Doesn't happen. Never did. Never will.

ole

All wars start with rules, the more evenly the combatents are, in terms of resources or resolve, the greater pressure to bend or break or ignore those rules becomes, today the planners plan, but do not execute the plan, those executing are limited by what level of force is deemed suffiecent by the planners, and further limited by the JA office as to what level of force thay do have may be employed, the WBTS was no different, the pressure the time contraint for the Union increased the -pressure for a relaxing of the rules, no one wanted Turchins all over the place, but the Governemnt knew that soft war Democrate generals used the AOW as reasons for delay, i cant move as directed till i have enough of x w or z, while those of a hard war simply got the job done regardless, and the liber code was implemented to allow those willing to condict a harsh war could do so, takeing fence rails for camp fires wasa a capital offence in the AOW, but was common practice, so Liber also hada huge impact on common sense things as well.

There is an argument to be made that when war comes, throw out the rules and get it over as quick as possible, but technology has made this argument somewhat outdated, we know change the language of war, terrorism is now not a warfighting tactic such as startegic bombing is, or the Kamikazi were, ie use of humans to achieve what imbalnces in technology have prevented, look at ww2 US losses by Japanese conventional attack dropping to next to nothing and then going through the roof after adopting kamikazi as policy, but a war crime. Not because itsa crime, but because its a ***** to counter, and thats the problem with war without rules.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Hanny

Lieber code, alows any and all rules to be ignored in the need of mil neccisity,

It is clear on how POWs are to be treated.

Lieber Code
Art. 49.
A prisoner of war is a public enemy armed or attached to the hostile army for active aid, who has fallen into the hands of the captor, either fighting or wounded, on the field or in the hospital, by individual surrender or by capitulation.
All soldiers, of whatever species of arms; all men who belong to the rising en masse of the hostile country; all those who are attached to the army for its efficiency and promote directly the object of the war, except such as are hereinafter provided for; all disabled men or officers on the field or elsewhere, if captured; all enemies who have thrown away their arms and ask for quarter, are prisoners of war, and as such exposed to the inconveniences as well as entitled to the privileges of a prisoner of war.

I am not able to find where it is a military necessity to execute soldiers who are surrendering.

Art. 14.
Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war.
Art. 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 subsistence 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.
Art. 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.

[Hanny]

Art 14 means that if the mil commander deems mil necissity requires it, a no prisoner order can be issued.

[Hanny]

Sherman expaining how he operated under Lieber, to his own troops.

"When teh Rebels ventured their all in their efforst to destroy our government, they pledged their lives , their fourtunes and their sacred honour to that cause. The goverment acepted their wager of battle. Hence when we conquuered, we by conmquest, gained all that they had . Their prperty bcomes ours by conquest. Thuis they lost their slaves, their mules,and their horses, their cotton their all., evenm their lives and personalliberty , thrown by them into the issue, where theirs only by our forbearence and and celency. So soldiers,when we marched through and conquered the terr of the rebels, we became the owners of all they had, and i dont wantyou to be troubled in your conssciences for takeing, while on the march, the property of the conquered rebels.They forfieted their right to it, an i being an agent iof the governmnet to which they belonged, gave you full authority to keep all the CMs could take or did not want.

His authority to do this comes from the provisions in lieber, and that comes from a pres order, and overides all Constitional an UScodes of law, mil and civil, and is beyond any censure except POTUS, and thats why it was a very bad piece of law, but a very efective means of winning the war.