War Crimes.

[Scottish Rebel]

How many soldiers on both sides were arrested for war crimes and how many were convicted and sentenced?
Is the definition of a war crime during the ACW any different from what is defined as a war crime today?

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

How many soldiers on both sides were arrested for war crimes and how many were convicted and sentenced?
Is the definition of a war crime during the ACW any different from what is defined as a war crime today?

This is going from memory, but I believe that the United States tried about seven hundred Confederates-not all of them soldiers by any means-for purported violations of the laws and customs of war. Of these, in the vicinity of two hundred were executed. A comprehensive list of these executions does not exist. The vast majority of these cases occurred prior to the surrender at Appomattox. They typically involved alleged spying, partisan activities, murder, arson, bridge-burning and the like. Most of these cases were tried by military commission but a number of extra-judicial killings also occurred.

After the war, excluding the four Lincoln assassination suspects, only three Confederates were executed for war crimes. Most Confederates sentenced to imprisonment for violation of the laws of war were simply released at the end of the war. An exception was Sam Berry who ended up serving seven years at Albany Penitentiary in New York before dying in 1873.

A number of Union soldiers were executed by Confederate military authorities on various pretexts, but the exact number escapes me, and again no accurate list (if any at all) exists that I am aware of. Some of these, like the Andrews raiders, would have been executed on charges of spying, which is a violation of the laws of war. I exclude from this any cases of Union personnel executed or killed on charges of leading or inciting servile insurrection because they led USCT. The Union side, certainly, would not have conceded this to be a crime (and I sure don't either).

As for your last question, I really wouldn't want to speculate because my knowledge of American war crimes trials basically stops after 1951, and I am not a lawyer. As long as we are talking about alleged violations on or in the vicinity of the battlefield, then I would say the treatment of war crimes on a procedural basis up until 1951 is substantially similar (and indeed rooted in) to the treatment of war crimes in the Civil War by American authorities. Beyond that, I have no real idea.

 

[archieclement]

I don't think an accurate number could ever be ascertained. Certainly if using Leiber code to define war crimes, many were summarily executed in field under sections IV and V

Leiber Code don't think would be same as later international laws, but it helped lead to creation later.

 

[bdtex]

A good article at NPS:

Myth: Henry Wirz was the only person tried for war crimes in the Civil War - Andersonville National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

 

[major bill]

I don't think an accurate number could ever be ascertained. Certainly if using Leiber code to define war crimes, many were summarily executed in field under sections IV and V

Leiber Code don't think would be same as later international laws, but it helped lead to creation later.

The current general laws of war are founded on the four Genvia Conventions of 1949, the two Genvia Protocols of 1977, and the Genvia Protocol of 2005. All of which I have been trained on in hours of military training.

All are founded on the Hague Protocols of 1899 and 1907, and the Genvia Convention of 1929. I perhaps had about 6 hours of Army classes on the history of these, but did not study them in as much depth as the current laws.

 

[gary]

I know plenty of soldiers were executed under military law (looting where Dwight executed a soldier during the Bayou Teche Campaign, or desertion and of course, famously sleeping on guard duty (but the Yankee was pardoned by Lincoln), but I'm wrestling with the definition of war crime for the Civil War era.

 

[archieclement]

I know plenty of soldiers were executed under military law (looting where Dwight executed a soldier during the Bayou Teche Campaign, or desertion and of course, famously sleeping on guard duty (but the Yankee was pardoned by Lincoln), but I'm wrestling with the definition of war crime for the Civil War era.

Don't think there was any by today's sense, as well the crimes by your side aren't crimes was in full effect.

Probally most blatant example during war would been Sand Creek and committed by US. Chivington is allowed to resign, therefore not suffering either civil or military charges. Nor did anyone else of the command. There was investigations and lip service, but no real legal or criminal consquences.

For the Confederacy they were hamstring both by losing the war, as well incidents often occurring behind lines which doesn't lend itself to being able to conduct thorough investigations.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

I know plenty of soldiers were executed under military law (looting where Dwight executed a soldier during the Bayou Teche Campaign, or desertion and of course, famously sleeping on guard duty (but the Yankee was pardoned by Lincoln), but I'm wrestling with the definition of war crime for the Civil War era.

May I suggest Lincoln's Code as a starting point? I recommend it without reservation if you are interested in how war crimes were defined in the Civil War era.

Lincoln's Code: The Laws Of War In American History Book By John Fabian Witt, ('tp') | Indigo

Buy the book Lincoln's Code: The Laws of War in American History by john fabian witt at Indigo

www.indigo.ca

 

[Belfoured]

May I suggest Lincoln's Code as a starting point? I recommend it without reservation if you are interested in how war crimes were defined in the Civil War era.

Lincoln's Code: The Laws Of War In American History Book By John Fabian Witt, ('tp') | Indigo

Buy the book Lincoln's Code: The Laws of War in American History by john fabian witt at Indigo

www.indigo.ca

I was actually asked to review that when it came out. It's very well done, including the process by which Lieber more or less "assembled" and codified existing customs, practices, and rules, adapted for issues raised by a civil war.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

I was actually asked to review that when it came out. It's very well done, including the process by which Lieber more or less "assembled" and codified existing customs, practices, and rules, adapted for issues raised by a civil war.

I thought Witt did his homework on that book. It deserves to be better known.

 

[JeffBrooks]

Is the definition of a war crime during the ACW any different from what is defined as a war crime today?

Yes, considerably. In 1861, there was no legally accepted definition of "war crimes" at all. Since 1865, we have had the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, which codify war crimes under international law. The Rome Statute also deals with crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression - the United States signed the Rome Statute, but never ratified it and has since withdrawn its signature.

There were generally accepted "rules of warfare" that Western nations generally observed and which were stated in the Lieber Code of 1863. Examples include not killing prisoners-of-war and not mistreating civilians.

Observance of truces was also considered sacrosanct. That goes all the way to Homer, by the way - there's a moment in the Iliad some of the gods get bored during a truce that they get it into the head of a Trojan archer to let loose an arrow at the Greeks, which the Greeks consider extremely unsportsmanlike and causes them to restart hostilities.

 

[Old Soldier]

War crimes? War was a crime in the thinking of the day. There was no Geneva Convention. Wars were fought by men who wanted to be there. What happened on the barttlefield stayed there. There were no rules. Rules were for peacetime. War was not against civilians - 'normal people' - just between soldiers - men who wanted war. They were there to kill the opposition. That was what UNIFORM was for - identifying who was on whose side.

There were no rules? Not quite, there were the rules of some sort of chivalry, outdated though they were. It was all about HONOR. The white flag of truce was respected - usually, but some did not. In a similar fashion, you did not attack anyone with their hands up - surrendering. Well ... not usually. You did not attack medical personnel . You did not kill the drummer boys or band deliberately but if a stray bullet got them ... tough. It was a battle. Civilians were generally not a target, but it explains the rather poor treatment of 'raiders' who wore no uniform.

The first Geneva Convention was in 1864 concerning the treatment of wounded on the battlefield. The USA was invited but did not attend or sign.

 

[Belfoured]

I thought Witt did his homework on that book. It deserves to be better known.

I agree. It's a good piece of research and analysis from a legal perspective.

 

[archieclement]

3rd

War crimes? War was a crime in the thinking of the day. There was no Geneva Convention. Wars were fought by men who wanted to be there. What happened on the barttlefield stayed there. There were no rules. Rules were for peacetime. War was not against civilians - 'normal people' - just between soldiers - men who wanted war. They were there to kill the opposition. That was what UNIFORM was for - identifying who was on whose side.

There were no rules? Not quite, there were the rules of some sort of chivalry, outdated though they were. It was all about HONOR. The white flag of truce was respected - usually, but some did not. In a similar fashion, you did not attack anyone with their hands up - surrendering. Well ... not usually. You did not attack medical personnel . You did not kill the drummer boys or band deliberately but if a stray bullet got them ... tough. It was a battle. Civilians were generally not a target, but it explains the rather poor treatment of 'raiders' who wore no uniform.

The first Geneva Convention was in 1864 concerning the treatment of wounded on the battlefield. The USA was invited but did not attend or sign.

Unfortunately would say mostly all to accurate.

It would be somewhat fair to add the chivalry or honor was rather reserved to Anglo Saxon combatants. Certainly the US army and briefly the Confederate didn't have much an history of applying it universially to Mexicans, Natives or Africans.

 

[Bruce Allardice]

Calling something a "war crime" implies a law that has been violated.
Calling something a "law" implies that there exist an accepted, written body of rules, with a neutral enforcement mechanism. Which didn't exist in 1861 for a war (and doesn't exist today, for that matter).
Thus, there was no "law of war" in 1861. There was (as usual) "victor's justice."