The Black Flag

[JohnW.]

Not quite every war.....Jubal Early slipped in under the radar and told some tall tales

Very true

 

[Reb]

What "laws of war" specifically do you feel that Lincoln violated?

Read about General Eleazer Paine. A friend of Abraham Lincoln. I don't know what law it is, but releasing a prisoner on a old broke down horse, then sending your troops after him with family and friends in tow and then shooting him down for sport seems to be an example.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

Jackson in this case does not appear to be referring to captured or surrendered enemies, more like "as long as they keep coming, we'll keep killing them."

Early in the war, Jackson supposedly advocated a "black flag" strategy, raiding into the North primarily to destroy property and break Northern morale, although there would presumably have been considerable fighting and killing.

I'm sure this has been a temptation in every war, to use such a strategy as to ensure victory, but I've sidetracked myself in this post - originally I was talking soldiers, and not civilians. Article 60 (as quoted earlier) doesn't relate to civilians as far as I know. I could be wrong...

 

[Cavalry Charger]

Exactly. That is the same reason the Nazis were punished at Nuremberg...they lost the war. The victors in every war ever fought have written the history as they see it...right or wrong.

In my opinion, the Nazis were aggressors of a vastly different kind...there is no comparison here for me. Southerners wanted to secede, not occupy the North, although their resaons for doing so will forever be tied to the issue of slavery and exist under a cloud. As for the victors writing history...it's true. But, if you want a true and lasting peace it's best to write with a desire to include your routed enemy in the vision of the future...otherwise you might find you are still 'mopping up' a long time after the war...

 

[Cavalry Charger]

What "laws of war" specifically do you feel that Lincoln violated?

Hi Copperhead, I did not say this...the commentator did. I get the feeling since he is talking about the Lieber Code, that he feels this was violated by Lincoln and his Generals - specifically Grant and Sherman. Did they break the Codes of War as they were written at the time in order to ensure victory? I am only learning about this myself, so I hope you won't take account with me. There are obviously a number of different opinions around this, and I hadn't really meant to turn it into a discussion about 'war crimes', which I have seen treated in other threads on the site. I am in the midst of trying to understand GO *100 and this seems have come up as part of gaining understanding around that.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

I am now currently reading the Lieber Code, and there do seem to be a lot of qualifiers which basically add up to 'don't do it, but do it if you must'. As well as that there is some 'hedging of bets' i.e. do this, if it is practicable. It pretty much covers every contingency with regard to circumstances which may as yet be unknown...so it is a rule book that allows for the breaking of rules, if that makes any sense, which it probably does in times of war. To be honest, I just find myself going around in circles with this one...

 

[Specster]

It seems that throughout military history, those Generals that were "all in" (No quarter), were very, if not the most effective. Many people believe the bloodiest battle ever was the Battle of Towton, 29 March 1461, in which niether side gave quarter. Proportionately, Towton may have been worse than Antitiem and the Somme for a single day's looses.


I think it may make sense to adopt such a strategy when you know your enemy is going to treat you the same. In modern history we can see how the Russians treated the Germans, and how the Westerm allies did the same after numerous atrocities.

Fort Pillow and no quarter for black soldiers g=has been discussed here many times. Other notables, the Confederates at the Crater, and Quantrill at Lawrence, Ks. to an extent.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

I think I've found what I was looking for in relation to my Captain. He was wounded, but rather than capture him, the Confederates killed him. I don't know why, as it seems they did take some prisoners. Eyewitness accounts in Greg Eanes book "Wilson-Kautz Raid - Battle for the Staunton River Bridge" seem to confirm this with perhaps another Union soldier at the time:

"A former slave also recollected the event in 1927. A man by the name of Red Randall recalled the Confederates had made it to the railroad cut. He also recalled at one point a Federal trooper came out from under cover to an exposed position when some Confederates fired on him. "ah, God allow me a chance", Randall recalled the Federal saying, noting, "but they didn't allow him no chance. They shot him".

I guess that says it all. Whether the Order is given or not, men died who needn't have died on either side, but as soldiers they knew the price they might have to pay for confronting their enemy, and sadly were made to pay the ultimate price, and offer the ultimate sacrifice. James A. Sayles...may you Rest in Peace.

Here is a short poem that speaks volumes for me of this occasion, and the fact that his body remains in an unknown, unmarked grave:

My Brother's Grave by Dan Ashby

"I never shall see it - I never shall know
the place where he slumbers, lonely and low;
the sweetest of flowers I never shall bring,
to lay on his grave at the coming of Spring;
No prayer shall I breathe o'er his low soldier's bed
where the tear of a sister will never be shed.

Yet I know that the birds above him will sing -
the soft tender grass around him will spring;
the moon and the stars, that are everywhere true,
will shine on his grave in the soft falling dew;
for him shall the rains of the sad Autumn weep -
the winds of the South will grievingly sweep,
the flowers shed their fragrance beneath the blue sky,
and his lone grave be watched by an All seeing Eye.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

It seems that throughout military history, those Generals that were "all in" (No quarter), were very, if not the most effective. Many people believe the bloodiest battle ever was the Battle of Towton, 29 March 1461, in which niether side gave quarter. Proportionately, Towton may have been worse than Antitiem and the Somme for a single day's looses.


I think it may make sense to adopt such a strategy when you know your enemy is going to treat you the same. In modern history we can see how the Russians treated the Germans, and how the Westerm allies did the same after numerous atrocities.

Fort Pillow and no quarter for black soldiers g=has been discussed here many times. Other notables, the Confederates at the Crater, and Quantrill at Lawrence, Ks. to an extent.

Thanks for that insight, Specter. I don't know much about the incidents you have mentioned here...needless to say there is so much to know...and I will read up further on them. I wonder if there weren't 'atrocities' committed on the Union side, where 'all in' meant they also did not take prisoners - if we are talking about effective Generals then it seems the Federals had some of the most effective. The outcome of the war would indicate that. Thanks again for your input

 

[Specster]

Thanks for that insight, Specter. I don't know much about the incidents you have mentioned here...needless to say there is so much to know...and I will read up further on them, but I also wonder if there weren't 'atrocities' committed also on the Union side, where 'all in' meant they also did not take prisoners - if we are talking about effective Generals then it seems the Federals had some of the most effective. The outcome of the war would indicate that. Thanks again for your input

Just a knee jerk as to what you said, IRRC, Sherman and Sheridan were despised, and still are to this day, for being overly aggressive - not so much Black Flag but perhaps that and inflicting damage on civilians. Many may see a deep chasm between the two but if u r hell bent on destruction, I dont think the fact that the enemy are combatant or not is going to make much of a differnce

 

[Cavalry Charger]

[QUOTE="Specster, post: 1505168, member: 13258

"if u r hell bent on destruction, I dont think the fact that the enemy are combatant or not is going to make much of a differnce[/QUOTE]

Sadly, I would have to agree

 

[leftyhunter]

[QUOTE="Specster, post: 1505168, member: 13258

"if u r hell bent on destruction, I dont think the fact that the enemy are combatant or not is going to make much of a differnce

Sadly, I would have to agree [/QUOTE]
Based on years of reading the Civil War no conventional general fought under " the black flag". Yes stuff happaned here and there such has Ft. Pillow the Crater ( where USCT captured were executed)
and their was one battle in Texas very late war where the Union attaked some fort and the USCT shot surrendering Confederates as paypack. I forgot the name but one poster did a whole thread on it a while back.
The forementioned guerrilla war portion of the Civil War now thats where we get into black flag.
Leftyhunter

 

[Cavalry Charger]

[/QUOTE]
Based on years of reading the Civil War no conventional general fought under " the black flag". Yes stuff happaned here and there such has Ft. Pillow the Crater ( where USCT captured were executed)
and their was one battle in Texas very late war where the Union attaked some fort and the USCT shot surrendering Confederates as paypack. I forgot the name but one poster did a whole thread on it a while back.
The forementioned guerrilla war portion of the Civil War noe thats where we get into black flag.
Leftyhunter[/QUOTE]
Guerilla warfare is a nasty business, and it is a dirty business. No rules apply there, and I can see how it may become 'black flag' warfare. What then is the interpretation one should make of the notion of 'total war' as opposed to 'black flag' warfare? Is there a difference? It would seem the go ahead was given for 'total war' to be waged on the Confederates to help bring the war to a close, but this affected civilians as well as combatants - at least when it came to sieges. It's not outright killing, so perhaps it's not considered 'black flag'. I'm just searching for answers here, and thanks for your input

 

[leftyhunter]

Based on years of reading the Civil War no conventional general fought under " the black flag". Yes stuff happaned here and there such has Ft. Pillow the Crater ( where USCT captured were executed)
and their was one battle in Texas very late war where the Union attaked some fort and the USCT shot surrendering Confederates as paypack. I forgot the name but one poster did a whole thread on it a while back.
The forementioned guerrilla war portion of the Civil War noe thats where we get into black flag.
Leftyhunter

Guerilla warfare is a nasty business, and it is a dirty business. No rules apply there, and I can see how it may become 'black flag' warfare. What then is the interpretation one should make of the notion of 'total war' as opposed to 'black flag' warfare? Is there a difference? It would seem the go ahead was given for 'total war' to be waged on the Confederates to help bring the war to a close, but this affected civilians as well as combatants - at least when it came to sieges. It's not outright killing, so perhaps it's not considered 'black flag'. I'm just searching for answers here, and thanks for your input [/QUOTE]
I don't know of any major black flag operation in the Civil War by either side. Certainly not compared to the rape of Nanking in 1937. The 1st Colorado Cavalry did commit the Sandcreek Massacre and Indians were massacred by both sides . However nothing close to the scale of Nanking. No siege compares to say the siege of Savejro? in Bosnia and Herzegovina . Lee's men in the AnV kidnapped free blacks from Southern Pennsylvania . Overall we don't see black flag in the Civil War on the scale of more modern conflicts. Black Flag did exist prior to the Civil War against civilians. "Afghanistan a millitary history from Alexander the Great to the war against the Taliban" Stephen Tanner DaCapo Press has plenty of examples in that regard.
Leftyhunter

 

[Cavalry Charger]

I don't know of any major black flag operation in the Civil War by either side. Certainly not compared to the rape of Nanking in 1937. The 1st Colorado Cavalry did commit the Sandcreek Massacre and Indians were massacred by both sides . However nothing close to the scale of Nanking. No siege compares to say the siege of Savejro? in Bosnia and Herzegovina . Lee's men in the AnV kidnapped free blacks from Southern Pennsylvania . Overall we don't see black flag in the Civil War on the scale of more modern conflicts. Black Flag did exist prior to the Civil War against civilians. "Afghanistan a millitary history from Alexander the Great to the war against the Taliban" Stephen Tanner DaCapo Press has plenty of examples in that regard.
Leftyhunter

So, basically, it wasn't ever really a consideration apart from isolated incidents during the CW. It is a frightening concept, as the other information you've presented me with shows, and the lack of it is something to be grateful for. As Robert E Lee said: "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it".

 

[leftyhunter]

So, basically, it wasn't ever really a consideration apart from isolated incidents during the CW. It is a frightening concept, as the other information you've presented me with shows, and the lack of it is something to be grateful for. As Robert E Lee said: "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it".

The Lee quote is attributed to the Battle of Fredericksburg. Lee himself was rather against guerrilla warfare because it was in his words demoralizing . The only behind the line force Lee approved of was Mosby and McNeill.
A great book that discuss Lee' s thoughts on guerrilla warfare is "The Savage Conflict the decisive role of guerrilla warfare in the Civil War" Daniel Sutherland University of North Carolina Press.
As far as Black Flag the Crusaders did a lot more Black Flag then either side during the Civil War.
Leftyhunter

 

[Cavalry Charger]

The Lee quote is attributed to the Battle of Fredericksburg. Lee himself was rather against guerrilla warfare because it was in his words demoralizing . The only behind the line force Lee approved of was Mosby and McNeill.
A great book that discuss Lee' s thoughts on guerrilla warfare is "The Savage Conflict the decisive role of guerrilla warfare in the Civil War" Daniel Sutherland University of North Carolina Press.
As far as Black Flag the Crusaders did a lot more Black Flag then either side during the Civil War.
Leftyhunter

I take my hat off you, Sir. You're obviously extremely well versed in Military History and, from now on, will be my go to source on all such matters! The Daniel Sutherland book sounds like and interesting one...it's going to take me a lifetime to read all the literature out there on the Civil War...but, I'll give it my best shot

 

[leftyhunter]

I take my hat off you, Sir. You're obviously extremely well versed in Military History and, from now on, will be my go to source on all such matters! The Daniel Sutherland book sounds like and interesting one...it's going to take me a lifetime to read all the literature out there on the Civil War...but, I'll give it my best shot

Thank you although we have plenty of knowledgeable folks. Sutherland wrote another book exclusively on Unionist guerrilas and Abes Books has a half off sale until the end of March. Good luck on your reading endevor
Leftyhunter

 

[Cavalry Charger]

Read about General Eleazer Paine. A friend of Abraham Lincoln. I don't know what law it is, but releasing a prisoner on a old broke down horse, then sending your troops after him with family and friends in tow and then shooting him down for sport seems to be an example.

If that is true, it is barbaric, and far exceeds even the notion of 'black flag' warfare. Killing as sport and entertainment reminds one of the Romans, and would be beyond the pale in the circumstances. It would be disgraceful for any disciplined military officer to behave that way, but at the same time the facts would need to be proven.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Read about General Eleazer Paine. A friend of Abraham Lincoln. I don't know what law it is, but releasing a prisoner on a old broke down horse, then sending your troops after him with family and friends in tow and then shooting him down for sport seems to be an example.

It appears that General Eleazer A. Paine was an antebellum acquaintance of Lincoln from back in Illinois and that Paine held a command right in the heart of Champ Ferguson and Confederate guerilla territory. From what I've read, Paine was a brutal s.o.b. and despised by the locals but Sherman? had him relieved of command and court-martialed where he was acquitted of all charges except the charge of disrespecting a superior officer. Lincoln's only involvement from what I've been able to find out, was that he received the results of Paine's court martial and wrote a general order reprimanding the general for his conviction on the single charge and Secretary of War, Stanton refused to implement the order. From what I've been able to find through a Google search, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on Lincoln's part especially one taking it to the level of a violation of the "laws of war."