Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: mac_truck
Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan learned to fight confederates in the West. You can thank the southern armies and militias in Missouri and elsewhere for the tactics adopted by these men. Was there a concious decision by the northen armies to make the south feel the pain and hardship of war? Absolutely. Was it effective in taking the fight out of the southerners? you bet it was.

The Federal generals didn't seem to have read the 1863 guide for behavior of the Union army in the field. From article 16 of that document, which was issued by Lincoln:

Military necessity does not admit of cruelty -- that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district.

666 posted on 02/03/2003 10:41:57 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies ]


To: rustbucket
Military necessity does not admit of cruelty -- that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district.

What is a source for this?

Walt

668 posted on 02/03/2003 10:59:32 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies ]

To: rustbucket
Military necessity does not admit of cruelty -- that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, specifically. My impression is that Sherman and others decided to fight their campaigns by living off the countryside, rather than trying to extend and protect supply lines that were subject to attack by cavalry and militias. If a city had military value, say as a fort, then that value had to be destroyed. But I seem to recall that the confederates burned Richmond.

Since you brought up field regulations, would you agree that men in uniform, regardless of race, were entitled the same status when captured?

677 posted on 02/03/2003 1:56:52 PM PST by mac_truck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson