Civil War History - The South & Western TheatersCheck this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.
I'm sure you meant to say something here. What was it?
Regards,
Tim
Trice I'll add my two bits here; I know of no international accords between anyone from the time a Rome through at least the time of the Mongols. Between that time and the ACW is beyond my knowledge. I don't believe there was anything written down between the French & English in any of their wars and I can't find anything about Napolean's time. Any directions to point a student of history Suwanee or Trice?
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
A fictional play concerning historical events is what you consider historical proof?
Isn't that about the same as saying the movies Gettysburg and Gods and Generals are a form of serious Civil War history?
Again, any historical sources to prove your point? I'm with Shane on this one, I would very much like to know.
Plus still waiting to hear your take on what you think about the signs and history I dug up on the Grant County Reprisal story. Any comments?
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Trice I'll add my two bits here; I know of no international accords between anyone from the time a Rome through at least the time of the Mongols. Between that time and the ACW is beyond my knowledge. I don't believe there was anything written down between the French & English in any of their wars and I can't find anything about Napolean's time. Any directions to point a student of history Suwanee or Trice?
You might want to take a look at the International Red Cross site (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO?OpenView). They have a section on International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents.
The first few listed are:
Declaration Respecting Maritime Law. Paris, 16 April 1856.
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code). 24 April 1863.
Resolutions of the Geneva International Conference. Geneva, 26-29 October 1863.
Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 22 August 1864
Additional Articles relating to the Condition of the Wounded in War. Geneva, 20 October 1868.
Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight. Saint Petersburg, 29 November / 11 December 1868.
Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War. Brussels, 27 August 1874.
The Laws of War on Land. Oxford, 9 September 1880.
Final Act Of the International Peace Conference. The Hague, 29 July 1899.
I was unaware of the 1856 one, which is concerned with international rights and laws on the seas during time of war. Interestingly enough, the US was not a signatory to the Declaration Respecting Maritime Law in Paris (16 April 1856).
You might want to take a look at the International Red Cross site (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO?OpenView). They have a section on International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents.
The first few listed are:
Declaration Respecting Maritime Law. Paris, 16 April 1856.
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code). 24 April 1863.
Resolutions of the Geneva International Conference. Geneva, 26-29 October 1863.
Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 22 August 1864
Additional Articles relating to the Condition of the Wounded in War. Geneva, 20 October 1868.
Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight. Saint Petersburg, 29 November / 11 December 1868.
Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War. Brussels, 27 August 1874.
The Laws of War on Land. Oxford, 9 September 1880.
Final Act Of the International Peace Conference. The Hague, 29 July 1899.
I was unaware of the 1856 one, which is concerned with international rights and laws on the seas during time of war. Interestingly enough, the US was not a signatory to the Declaration Respecting Maritime Law in Paris (16 April 1856).
Regards,
Tim
Thanks Trice... curiosity more than anything else as neither the Frence or English were following any code of civilized warfare... and they were the "epitome" of military science at the time. Later everyone got their... in a bunch falling all over themselves to copy the Prussians. All it took for that was someone to wipe the walls w/ the French Army. Wonder why noone ever emulated the Juarista's? Actually, on second thought someone did.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
>> Henry V;
the soldier Bardolph is hanged for stealing from a church
>> Napoleonic War
Wellington: Soldier - where did you get that pig?
Soldier: found him wandering lost taking him home, Sir.
Wellington: Soldier, do you know the penalty for looting?
Soldier: ninety days loss of grog Sir?
Wellington: it's hanging **** you Sir!
Wellington: return the pig, Soldier.
Wellington: I don't know if they frighten the enemy, but they certainly frighten me.
(statement attributed to Duke of Wellington)
>> Law of War: soldiers who steal from civilians will be hanged. sources; William Shakespeare, Arthur Wellesley Duke of Wellington CIC Allied Forces.
origin; antiquity.
The Union Army did not recognize any laws of war even though the British and English had for centuries.
Not only were Union soldiers allowed to steal from civilians, it was Union Army policy.
On the other hand Confederate Army policy was that looters were to be executed.
In the time of the Roman Republic there was a law of war that captive soldiers who "passed under the yoke" would be spared. This law was recognized by many pre-christian nations - history abounds with such laws that encompassed more than one country.
There were such laws but the Union Army simply ignored them; by modern standards it would be considered a criminal organization.
"The 1863 Laws of War," originally published by the U.S. War Department in 1863, was reprinted by Stackpole Books in 2005.
"Articles of War" were established in the United States by an Act of Congress, April 10, 1806. These "Articles of War," were established to govern the discipline and behavior of soldiers WITHIN the army. They were rules of behavior towards superiors, towards each other, their actions towards the enemy, and for the performance of their duty. They were NOT "Rules of War." To quote from the introduction of the Stackpole edition -
" Military leaders from antiquity on set down rules and regulations to discipline their troops. The Romans had detailed rules, and so did the United States after the act of 1806, the date of the original Articles of War cited above. But these rules, for the most part were designed for the internal discipline of the army. Few rules existed for treatment of the enemy or civilian populations, or the unconventional forces that emerged in the course of the Civil War."
"... Through the centuries, law-of-war theorists in Europe developed certain touchstones of what was moral and immoral in war, which purported to be universally binding in the relations between nations. Later writers, such as Machiavelli and Clausewitz added thoughts on the nature of war. Yet, there was no one sythesized, comprehensive law of land warfare that laid down in clear, explicit, formal terms the rights and obligations of one's own army and those of an enemy's army and the civilian population until that produced by Francis Lieber in 1863."
Worth repeating - "...there was no one sythesized comprehensive law of land warefare that laid down in clear, explicit, formal terms the rights and obligations of one's own army and those of an enemy's army and the civilian population until that produced by Francis Lieber in 1863."
The book goes on to note that the work of Lieber "had a profound effect on the international law of land warfare. The governments of Great Britain, France and Prussia copied it." It was also the basis of both Geneva Conventions and the Hague Convention of 1907 "which was ratified by nearly all civilized nations."
Laws of War 101 I think sir you are in need of a 98 level class; starting first with the rules of sourcing and how to build a bibliography. A 101 level class suggest university... I never knew a prof that didn't occasionaly demand a source or two. By gosh & by golly don't fly in any 101 level class and they should not here either.
>> Henry V;
the soldier Bardolph is hanged for stealing from a church
>> Napoleonic War
Wellington: Soldier - where did you get that pig?
Soldier: found him wandering lost taking him home, Sir.
Wellington: Soldier, do you know the penalty for looting?
Soldier: ninety days loss of grog Sir?
Wellington: it's hanging **** you Sir!
Wellington: return the pig, Soldier.
Wellington: I don't know if they frighten the enemy, but they certainly frighten me.
(statement attributed to Duke of Wellington)
>> Law of War: soldiers who steal from civilians will be hanged. sources; William Shakespeare, Arthur Wellesley Duke of Wellington CIC Allied Forces.
origin; antiquity. Do you know who set that penalty? Wellington. Such nicities were not reserved for the colonists, the Raj, Chinese; Wellington himself was rather guilty when dealing w/ the Raj.
The Union Army did not recognize any laws of war even though the British and English had for centuries. No they had not, please provide an official record of any treaty pertaining between England and France that dealt with rules of war. If it were true, why did civilians in the South suffer so much less than the Irish, Scots, Welsh, Raj, Chinese, Afghans, Zulua etc under the British and Mexicans, Spanish, Italians etc under the French? Lets not start talking about the Russians or Prussians.
Not only were Union soldiers allowed to steal from civilians, it was Union Army policy. Do tell where all of that glorious loot stolen by Sherman's men went? Hint very little if any made it home. Before spouting Lost Cause propoganda please do some research or at the very least supply some documentation.On the other hand Confederate Army policy was that looters were to be executed. Really; were they? I know of none of Wheelers men who were executed.
In the time of the Roman Republic there was a law of war that captive soldiers who "passed under the yoke" would be spared. This law was recognized by many pre-christian nations - history abounds with such laws that encompassed more than one country.
There were such laws but the Union Army simply ignored them; by modern standards it would be considered a criminal organization. A modern standard against an incident 130 odd years ago... how intriguing; does this mean you believe the Danes are owed recompense for their brutal and patently illegal handling by the Brits in 1809? The US Army as a criminal organization... somehow I'm no longer suprised.
International Rule or War where? You have yet to show anything that would convince me any two nations signed such.
Just as a note the great Bard was an entertainer, not a historian... or are you suggesting say Oliver Stone is an authority on Vietnam or JFK simply because he wrote very good but embarassingly inaccurate movies?
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
"The 1863 Laws of War," originally published by the U.S. War Department in 1863, was reprinted by Stackpole Books in 2005.
"Articles of War" were established in the United States by an Act of Congress, April 10, 1806. These "Articles of War," were established to govern the discipline and behavior of soldiers WITHIN the army. They were rules of behavior towards superiors, towards each other, their actions towards the enemy, and for the performance of their duty. They were NOT "Rules of War." To quote from the introduction of the Stackpole edition -
" Military leaders from antiquity on set down rules and regulations to discipline their troops. The Romans had detailed rules, and so did the United States after the act of 1806, the date of the original Articles of War cited above. But these rules, for the most part were designed for the internal discipline of the army. Few rules existed for treatment of the enemy or civilian populations, or the unconventional forces that emerged in the course of the Civil War."
"... Through the centuries, law-of-war theorists in Europe developed certain touchstones of what was moral and immoral in war, which purported to be universally binding in the relations between nations. Later writers, such as Machiavelli and Clausewitz added thoughts on the nature of war. Yet, there was no one sythesized, comprehensive law of land warfare that laid down in clear, explicit, formal terms the rights and obligations of one's own army and those of an enemy's army and the civilian population until that produced by Francis Lieber in 1863."
Worth repeating - "...there was no one sythesized comprehensive law of land warefare that laid down in clear, explicit, formal terms the rights and obligations of one's own army and those of an enemy's army and the civilian population until that produced by Francis Lieber in 1863."
The book goes on to note that the work of Lieber "had a profound effect on the international law of land warfare. The governments of Great Britain, France and Prussia copied it." It was also the basis of both Geneva Conventions and the Hague Convention of 1907 "which was ratified by nearly all civilized nations."
Regards, Dave Gorski
Dave; thank you for another well researched post.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
