Many of the UnionIst bushwhacker's were made up of deserters and draft dodgers to begin with, would assume they would meet a criminal defination.Were the Bushwhackers criminals ?
The best answer is probably that some were criminal, some took extreme action to defend themselves against criminals, and some were just trying to help their cause.
Attached is the appropriate section of the Lieber Code, which the Federal Army issued as G.O. 101. It served as a first draft of the subsequent 1864 Geneva Convention on the law of land warfare. I believe that it answers the question from a contemporary legal stand point:
SECTION IV
Partisans - Armed enemies not belonging to the hostile army - Scouts - Armed prowlers - War-rebels
Art. 81.
Partisans are soldiers armed and wearing the uniform of their army, but belonging to a corps which acts detached from the main body for the purpose of making inroads into the territory occupied by the enemy. If captured, they are entitled to all the privileges of the prisoner of war.
Art. 82.
Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers - such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates.
Art. 83.
Scouts, or single soldiers, if disguised in the dress of the country or in the uniform of the army hostile to their own, employed in obtaining information, if found within or lurking about the lines of the captor, are treated as spies, and suffer death.
Art. 84.
Armed prowlers, by whatever names they may be called, or persons of the enemy's territory, who steal within the lines of the hostile army for the purpose of robbing, killing, or of destroying bridges, roads or canals, or of robbing or destroying the mail, or of cutting the telegraph wires, are not entitled to the privileges of the prisoner of war.
Art. 85.
War-rebels are persons within an occupied territory who rise in arms against the occupying or conquering army, or against the authorities established by the same. If captured, they may suffer death, whether they rise singly, in small or large bands, and whether called upon to do so by their own, but expelled, government or not. They are not prisoners of war; nor are they if discovered and secured before their conspiracy has matured to an actual rising or armed violence.
Regards,
Ddon Dixon
Archie's statement is quite true and accurate. I made my previous statement assuming that @gem was using the term "bushwhackers" interchangeably with "guerrillas." One should never assume, but I admit I do it sometimes. Thanks for your clarification, Archie.Many of the UnionIst bushwhacker's were made up of deserters and draft dodgers to begin with, would assume they would meet a criminal defination.
Bushwhackers unlike guerrillas really weren't officially in the service of either side, they are probably rarer then guerrilla irregulars, but did exist in some numbers, again generally deserters or criminal dissenters. Newt Knight would be a classic example, confederate deserter but never recognised as in US service at all. John Brown would also met a bushwhacker defination as he was in the service of no one as well, as their was no other official belligerent side pre war, prewar border ruffians would also have been in some cases, but not all
Bushwhackers owed allegiance to no one.
It may be confusing to those not all that versed in the border war......jayhawker, border ruffian, partisan ranger, bushwhacker, guerrilla, irregulars ect.....but the reason for so many terms is most carry subtle distinctions not making them synonymous
@Waterloo50 ,Attached is the appropriate section of the Lieber Code, which the Federal Army issued as G.O. 101. It served as a first draft for portions of the subsequent Geneva Conventions on the law of land warfare. I believe that it answers the question from a contemporary legal standpoint:
SECTION IV
Partisans - Armed enemies not belonging to the hostile army - Scouts - Armed prowlers - War-rebels
Art. 81.
Partisans are soldiers armed and wearing the uniform of their army, but belonging to a corps which acts detached from the main body for the purpose of making inroads into the territory occupied by the enemy. If captured, they are entitled to all the privileges of the prisoner of war.
Art. 82.
Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers - such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates.
Art. 83.
Scouts, or single soldiers, if disguised in the dress of the country or in the uniform of the army hostile to their own, employed in obtaining information, if found within or lurking about the lines of the captor, are treated as spies, and suffer death.
Art. 84.
Armed prowlers, by whatever names they may be called, or persons of the enemy's territory, who steal within the lines of the hostile army for the purpose of robbing, killing, or of destroying bridges, roads or canals, or of robbing or destroying the mail, or of cutting the telegraph wires, are not entitled to the privileges of the prisoner of war.
Art. 85.
War-rebels are persons within an occupied territory who rise in arms against the occupying or conquering army, or against the authorities established by the same. If captured, they may suffer death, whether they rise singly, in small or large bands, and whether called upon to do so by their own, but expelled, government or not. They are not prisoners of war; nor are they if discovered and secured before their conspiracy has matured to an actual rising or armed violence.
Regards,
Ddon Dixon
An extremely useful list, many thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Yet the US didn't follow the code and violated its provisions itself Using un-uniformed forces behind lines such as Andrews raiders, Missouri militia would dress as confederate forces as well to deceive people as well as some other irregulars such as Terrill.
The reference to Andrews men should not be considered bushwackers. Their job was to destroy property and disrupt transportation to slow enemy movement of men and supplies, but not to kill indiscriminately. They were not in uniform so could be considered spies, but by no stretch bushwackers. Would one consider the Confederates that robbed the bank at St. Albans, Vt. bushwacker? Of course not.
Well, this seems a very loaded statement to me, because it infers that a bushwhacker's mission WAS to kill indiscriminately. I don't think that's the case, although there's no doubt some of them did kill indiscriminately. Bill Anderson and Harry Termain come immediately to mind. ...and again, when I reference Anderson, I am equating "bushwhacker" with "guerrilla." I have suspected for a long time (and stated here previously) that Anderson was probably responsible for most of the excesses at Lawrence, but no one can really prove who did what there. Termain is a little known figure who sometimes went by the alias of Harry Truman (don't worry, it was years before the president was born.) He persuaded the army that he could find and kill all the pro-southern bushwhackers and guerrillas in central Missouri. Then he went on a spree of shooting and hanging--killing so many civilians that he had to be rounded up.Their job was to destroy property and disrupt transportation to slow enemy movement of men and supplies, but not to kill indiscriminately.
This is a very good insight.Whether they were or not, neither they nor we should be surprised if they were treated as such. It goes with the job -- always, and whichever side you are on.