“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.
Neither do I. But those who decide to "appeal to the decision of arms" on the notion that they will quickly and easily win have little right to object if it turns out the war is long and hard and they are losing.
In the movie Twins Arnold's character has to keep explaining to the bad guys that one can always move from negotiation to violence, but trying to move back to peaceful negotiation of differences once violence has been initiated is very difficult. And the level of violence reached, once it has been unleashed, is also not always within the control of anybody. Things have a way of getting out of hand.
I suspect we might differ on "who started the war," and in particular who was most responsible for creating the climate of opinion that led up to it, but I hope we can agree that the war, while perhaps in the long run unavoidable, was a very bad idea.
I will note that the 10th amendment reserves powers to the states, and to the people.
The people is distinguished from the states. It is the same word used in the 1st and 2nd Amendment, which both describe rights not assigned to the states.
Pretending that a state alone can secede is thus contrary to the 10th Amendment, so obviously so that the southern states did not bother to file a case in federal court to have the SCOTUS rule on secession. As RE Lee said, secession war simply rebellion, and in the event, it failed on its merits.