How convenient for them that these rules didn't apply to "uncivilized" opponents, on whom apparently any atrocities could be committed. Which of course brings up the question of just who was civilized.
My point is that 17th, 18th and 19th century practice varied widely from theory. Most particularly when a civil war or suppression of a rebellion was involved. Our WBTS was pretty obviously the first, and was arguably the second.
I believe my original comment was that our Civil War had fewer atrocities committed against civilians than any other great civil war in history. I'm still waiting for someone (anyone?, anyone?, Buehler?) to come up with an example that would prove me wrong. I'm not saying that many bad things didn't happen, only that for a civil war, which is peculiarly prone to atrocities as opponents are viewed not only as enemies but also as traitors, there were few when compared to other great civil wars.
Outside of SC and to some extent GA Sherman burned few homes, though most barns and all public buildings were destroyed.
I have myself lived in the Valley of Virginia, and if Sheridan burned all the homes in the Valley, it is remarkable how many he missed. I've stayed in some of them.
“How convenient for them that these rules didn’t apply to “uncivilized” opponents, on whom apparently any atrocities could be committed. Which of course brings up the question of just who was civilized. “
Another issue and I probably agree with you on this one.
“My point is that 17th, 18th and 19th century practice varied widely from theory.”
There is often a gap between the pracise and the theory. But when the government OFFICIALLY advocates a policy, the impact of that policy on practise is often significant.
“Most particularly when a civil war or suppression of a rebellion was involved.”
True. But civil wars were always very nasty affairs. The establishment generally did not consider their opponents legitimate combatants. I was thinking of wars between nation states. But I guess you “got me” there as the U.S. Civil War was not considered the latter by the North.
“I believe my original comment was that our Civil War had fewer atrocities committed against civilians than any other great civil war in history. “
You are right in that regard I admit. What went on in other Civil Wars was far more brutal. I think you could make an argument that the Brits in our Revolution, at least in theory, wanted to limit their violence to the Rebels and not the entire American population as a whole.
“Outside of SC and to some extent GA Sherman burned few homes, though most barns and all public buildings were destroyed.”
They destroyed communication lines and crops and burning a barn could mean starvation for the folks who relied on the stored produce for food. And that was civilian as well as military personnel.
I guess the thing that most irritates me about Sherman’s and Sheridan’s actions is that I always think of my fellow Americans as special, even if they were rebels and did not regard themselves as such. I don’t like Americans making war on fellow Americans.
I’m not sure where I would have stood on the Civil War. I certainly think slavery was a great evil and that it should have been stamped out. On the other hand, the states, I beleive, DO have a right to seceed. The Constitution clearly states in the Tenth Amendment that the people and the State retain all powers specifically not delegated to the Federal Government and the Consitution does not clearly forbid seccession. Further, several of the articles of adoption by the individuals states to the Constitution - New York and Virginia among them, retain the right ot seceed if the state should think it in its own best interest. The Constitutional Convention accepted these articles of adoption, thus extending what they contained to all states involved.
Most particularly when a civil war or suppression of a rebellion was involved.
The War of 1861 was not our first civil war. The war of 1775-1783 was...and it was also regarded as putting down a rebellion by one side to the conflict.