Does this part of Leiber code seem curious?

[archieclement]

Ive always found this article curious as both sides recognized simply paroling enemy soldiers on their own recognizance to not take up arms against until exchanged. So considering period morality and practice does this strike anyone strange?

"Art 60
It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter. No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give, and therefore will not expect, quarter; but a commander is permitted to direct his troops to give no quarter, in great straits, when his own salvation makes it impossible to cumber himself with prisoners."

Why exactly is there a out clause to allow no quarter? Was something like Dahlgren raid allready under consideration? The "in great straits" and "impossible to cumber himself with prisoners" would seem specifically anticipating a raid setting

 

[RedRover]

Ive always found this article curious as both sides recognized simply paroling enemy soldiers on their own recognizance to not take up arms against until exchanged. So considering period morality and practice does this strike anyone strange?

"Art 60
It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter. No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give, and therefore will not expect, quarter; but a commander is permitted to direct his troops to give no quarter, in great straits, when his own salvation makes it impossible to cumber himself with prisoners."

Why exactly is there a out clause to allow no quarter? Was something like Dahlgren raid allready under consideration? The "in great straits" and "impossible to cumber himself with prisoners" would seem specifically anticipating a raid setting

It is consistent with period usage. And as part of General Orders no. 100, it would have regarded any troops, under any circumstances.

William O. Manning's commentaries on international law (London, 1839) also mentions something like it. Quarter must be extended, except where the purposes of the warfare would be "frustrated" by extending it.

Henry W. Halleck's treatise on international laws (1861) makes some similar notices, that the exception to giving quarter is a desperate situation of the troops, particularly where they cannot adequately guard them without concern from them, or their would-be rescuers, etc.

 

[Bruce Allardice]

Codes are one thing. Practice another.
Commanders are going to order prisoner torture/massacre in order to save their own troops lives, and no code can stop them doing so. The Lieber Code (and other codes) merely recognized this reality of war.

 

[archieclement]

Codes are one thing. Practice another.
Commanders are going to order prisoner torture/massacre in order to save their own troops lives, and no code can stop them doing so. The Lieber Code (and other codes) merely recognized this reality of war.

Its always rather laughable the one sidedness of such nonsense though. Especially if invoking high handed nonsense such as laws of war....would think then would be applicable to everyone

As rather regardless whatever you excuse/condone, is most likely going to be returned....whether you find other side doing same acceptable or not.

Like the Leiber code excusing killing guerrillas.....also condemned many Union soldiers being captured by guerrillas.

 

[wausaubob]

Ive always found this article curious as both sides recognized simply paroling enemy soldiers on their own recognizance to not take up arms against until exchanged. So considering period morality and practice does this strike anyone strange?

"Art 60
It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter. No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give, and therefore will not expect, quarter; but a commander is permitted to direct his troops to give no quarter, in great straits, when his own salvation makes it impossible to cumber himself with prisoners."

Why exactly is there a out clause to allow no quarter? Was something like Dahlgren raid allready under consideration? The "in great straits" and "impossible to cumber himself with prisoners" would seem specifically anticipating a raid setting

The law of civilized warfare has a purpose. The goal is to encourage an enemy force that is at a disadvantage to surrender, expecting civilized treatment. The second motive is to encourage the enemy to follow the same rules. A test of strength need not turn into a battle unto the death of the last man.
Although there may have been instances in which prisoners were executed, at Ft. Donelson, Ft. Pillow, Vicksburg and other places, prisoners were taken and either exchanged or paroled.
How many Confederates gave themselves up at Chattanooga before and during the battle on Missionary Ridge.

 

[JeffBrooks]

Ive always found this article curious as both sides recognized simply paroling enemy soldiers on their own recognizance to not take up arms against until exchanged. So considering period morality and practice does this strike anyone strange?

"Art 60
It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter. No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give, and therefore will not expect, quarter; but a commander is permitted to direct his troops to give no quarter, in great straits, when his own salvation makes it impossible to cumber himself with prisoners."

Why exactly is there a out clause to allow no quarter? Was something like Dahlgren raid allready under consideration? The "in great straits" and "impossible to cumber himself with prisoners" would seem specifically anticipating a raid setting

I imagine that they were thinking of situations such as Custer at Little Big Horn or Lieutenant Chard and Lieutenant Bromhead at Rorke's Drift.