Replies

Perhaps the American Revolution?

How about the English Civil War?

I think that is good start.

In the 1700’s wars were fought, for the most part, between field armies, and civilian deaths were collateral damage, not really the intent of fighting. The objective was to destroy the opposing military force. THis carried on into the American Civil War. Sherman and Sheridan changed that. There targets were the Civilian Population. Their objective was to destroy the will of the southern population to support the war.

This tradition went on in the Boer War which brought us the first official concentration camps and was expanded in WW1 and WW2.

I think that is the situation, no?

How about the English Civil War?

Good example.

A recent study estimated the population of England was reduced during the wars by about 10%, Scotland by about 15% and Ireland by about 20%. Obviously the vast majority of these were civilians, as the armies just weren't that large.

An equivalent loss in the USA of the 1860s (comparing the 10% figure) would have been about 3M fewer Americans in 1870 than 1860.

In actual fact, of course, the US population increased during the 1860s from 32M to 38M, about 22%. With the 38M figure widely considered at the time and since to be inaccurate on the low side.

In the English Civil Wars many if not most civilians died not from massacre or intentional killing, but rather from malnutrition, disease, etc.

But of course these killers were also potentially present during our war.

Depends on what you mean by "modern." Throw in the Thirty Years' War and that thesis dies a quick death. The practice of burning entire villages in times of insurrection on the Continent never really fell out of practice. Armies both typically lived off the land and were quartered in civilian housing by force (often ejecting the owners), a practice that endured until Frederick William proved that the Prussian method of barracks and internal logistics was a superior method of keeping a field army intact and effective. The Brits were still doing it in America through the 18th century, which, I realize you're fully aware, is where the 3d Amendment came from.

A major complaint detailed in the Declaration of Independence had to do with warfare being waged on civilian populations through native proxies, a process that was waged the other direction with nearly equal deadliness. French, English and Spanish governments all tried that technique in one direction or another at one time or another.

As far as medicine goes, yes, to be wounded in battle during that time was often simply a slower way of dying due to wound sepsis, communicable diseases, and complications of the crude surgery of the day that sometimes took years to kill. Best of luck coming up with any epidemiological figures for that. Something a little worrisome is the assumption that any civil war fought today will be fought under conditions of modern medicine. It strikes me that dust-off flights, transfusions, antibiotics, et al, may come into short supply if we are unfortunate enough to have to go at it again. It would certainly be very, very ugly.

Sherman and Sheridan changed that. There targets were the Civilian Population. Their objective was to destroy the will of the southern population to support the war.

Had you noticed the article was about deaths, not property destruction?

Even at the time, nobody claimed Sherman or Sheridan intentionally or routinely massacred civilians. They destroyed crops and buildings, but that is not the same thing as killing people.

Population of GA , the state widely but inaccurately considered to have been most affected by Sherman's March, in 1860 was 1,057,000. In 1870 it was 1,184,000, not a total exactly indicating massive massacres.

SC, the state Sherman really hit hard, showed similar numbers. 703,000 in 1860, 705,000 in 1870.

What Sherman and Sheridan did was attack the war-making capacity of the other side. I am confused how one could possibly consider these actions war crimes without taking a similar position to US actions in WWII, Korea and Vietnam, in which we killed a great many more civilians that Sherman or Sheridan ever did.

I submit that the Cherry Valley massacre in the American Revolution points out that civilians were long involved in military operations. You can also look at the French and Indian war, where Indians with French officers raided colonial settlements, and in response Rangers went north to raid Indian villages.