- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Location
- Middle Tennessee
Some here have brought this topic up so I thought I would start a thread. What were the "Rules of War" generally accepted by both sides as binding upon them?
John Fabian Will published a new book on the American understanding of the laws of war at the time of the Civil War. The "Lieber Code" written by a German immigrant, Francis Lieber, is the first comprehensive American statement of the laws of war. It became a basis for the Geneva Convention two generations later. As you will imagine, Lieber's code was not accepted in its entirety by Confederates since it placed black soldiers on a level of equality with whites.Some here have brought this topic up so I thought I would start a thread. What were the "Rules of War" generally accepted by both sides as binding upon them?
Modern commentators most frequently criticize the Lieber code for its section on guerrillas.First Sergeant Young,
Thank you for posting. I do note that these rules leave lots of interpretation to the local officers--especially when it comes to defining a "guerrilla". Pretty scary. Thank you for posting this.
Patrick
I haven't looked at the Lieber code in detail for quite some time (but will do so soon) but I still feel that it was wrong for the North to purposefully attack civilian populations and that such was commonly considered not a right of war at the time. That's one of the things often cited by the "first total war" school folk as differentiating the Civil War from previous wars.
So I do wonder what, aside from simple "we'll win sooner if we do this" rationalization, led Lincoln et al. to believe that what they were doing was allowed by the generally accepted practices of the day.
I haven't looked at the Lieber code in detail for quite some time (but will do so soon) but I still feel that it was wrong for the North to purposefully attack civilian populations and that such was commonly considered not a right of war at the time. That's one of the things often cited by the "first total war" school folk as differentiating the Civil War from previous wars.
So I do wonder what, aside from simple "we'll win sooner if we do this" rationalization, led Lincoln et al. to believe that what they were doing was allowed by the generally accepted practices of the day.
Why? How many of these modern commentators have had the fun experience of being in a guerrilla war or seeing there friends killed?Modern commentators most frequently criticize the Lieber code for its section on guerrillas.
Modern commentators most frequently criticize the Lieber code for its section on guerrillas.
I don't see how else the Union was supposed to fight guerrilla's . If CSA partisans wore Union uniforms where they supposed to be put in a POW camp like the regular (not that a CW pow camp was a 5 star resort) CSA troops. History has shown time and time again that win loose or draw they are not fought by any kind of"rules' or if they are has the old saying goes "rules where made to be broken".I realize I might be hijacking the intent of the original poster. For that, I apologize. But, still....out here in Missouri, we had a situation of native boys wishing to defend their home counties. Yes, many enlisted in Confederate outfits (knowing they would probably be transferred far to the East), but many others chose to stay home and fight as guerrillas. Other equally brave boys enlisted in Federal outfits (my Great Uncle among them). The Confederate government recognized the desire of local boys to defend their home counties by passing the Partisan Ranger Act. The problem was: The Federal government did not seem too inclined to recognize partisan rangers as soldiers under the rules of war. In fact, a series of Federal generals determined that Missouri guerrillas should NOT be accepted as soldiers under the rules of war. Surrenders were NOT to be accepted. Instead, those boys were to be treated as common criminals and summarily executed. And most of them did not have the benefit of civil law when they were judged as criminals. As I have said in other threads, times were especially tough out here under martial law, with all normal rules of civil law suspended. The interpretation of martial law was usually left to the local Provost Martial out here, and those men were not of equal mentality or common sense. Some were simply in over their heads and some others were nothing more than power-obsessed bullies. Before long, normal rules of war were often a mute point out here. That applies to the way both sides fought their war here. There are some exceptions to my last statement, of course, and they are quite interesting cases. It was a particularly sad time for civilian and soldier alike--regardless of which side you favored.
I don't see how else the Union was supposed to fight guerrilla's . If CSA partisans wore Union uniforms where they supposed to be put in a POW camp like the regular (not that a CW pow camp was a 5 star resort) CSA troops. History has shown time and time again that win loose or draw they are not fought by any kind of"rules' or if they are has the old saying goes "rules where made to be broken".
Leftyhunter