There are a lot of modifiers in that sentence.
Let me simplify. In war, you have the right to kick the crap out of the enemy and to utterly destroy his war-making capacity. Presumably that does not include killing civilians and innocents. It does include taking or obliterating anything that adds to the enemy's war machine, including food and animal stock. If that leaves the civilian population destitute, that's too bad. It is up to their own forces to care for them - or capitulate. There is no "due process", because war is not a legal process.
When guerrilla warfare occurs, the number of civilian casualties necessarily increases.
"The one that comes closest out of the major figures is [Stonewall] Jackson."
Interesting that you would mention Thomas Jackson. Jackson was an early proponent of fighting a "psychological" war - one designed to break the will of the enemy. (See Bevin Alexander, How Great Generals Win, chapter: "Stonewall Jackson")
"Outside of Eastern Tennessee and the Wheeling region of Virginia (which wasn't really southern to begin with - it's north of the mason dixon line) the number of union troops from the south is virtually non-existant."
I did not say providing troops for the Union. I said "participate militarily." There were a great many southerners in the areas I listed who "sat out" the war.
According to "Battles And leaders of the Civil War: Vol.4", page 767, the number of southerners serving in the Union Army was more than 'nonexistent'. There were 2576 from Alabama, almost 8300 from Arkansas, almost 6,000 from Louisiana, 2000 from Texas. And that does not count the more than 150,000 men from Kentucky and Missouri, two ostensibly confederate states. And these are not all black soldiers, either. A considerable number were white troops. Here is a Link to a site that details all the Union regiments during the war, including those from southern states.
Yeah, and for a reason - there are certain times when one may justly take the life of a non-innocent, for example a murderer. Heck, even unintended civilian casualties in a war can, in certain times, be tolerable so long as you are making a conscious effort to minimize them in every way possible (kinda like Bush did in Iraq). But intentionally going out of ones way to wage warfare upon innocent civilians like Lincoln and his henchmen did is out of the question.
Let me simplify. In war, you have the right to kick the crap out of the enemy and to utterly destroy his war-making capacity.
Right? And exactly who gave you that "right," capitan?
Interesting that you would mention Thomas Jackson. Jackson was an early proponent of fighting a "psychological" war - one designed to break the will of the enemy.
Indeed he was, and all for the better. Jackson's psychological attack was to "show them the bayonet" as he often said. And the recipients of that bayonet being representative of a morally unjust effort of conquest, he was absolutely right in doing so. The soldier who I meet in battle is not always a perpetrator of evil - he shoots not because he hates me or wants something of mine, but rather for the same reason I shoot at him: the fact that if I do not, I will certainly get shot myself. The criminal who violates my land and property with an intent to physically harm me, however, is different as are armies composed of him. By making the initial violation in his very presence and intent of being there, he forfeits any claim he might have had to mercy on the battlefield.
There were a great many southerners in the areas I listed who "sat out" the war.
Then provide statistical data, that is if you can.
Yeah, and for a reason - there are certain times when one may justly take the life of a non-innocent, for example a murderer. Heck, even unintended civilian casualties in a war can, in certain times, be tolerable so long as you are making a conscious effort to minimize them in every way possible (kinda like Bush did in Iraq). But intentionally going out of ones way to wage warfare upon innocent civilians like Lincoln and his henchmen did is out of the question.
Let me simplify. In war, you have the right to kick the crap out of the enemy and to utterly destroy his war-making capacity.
Right? And exactly who gave you that "right," capitan?
Interesting that you would mention Thomas Jackson. Jackson was an early proponent of fighting a "psychological" war - one designed to break the will of the enemy.
Indeed he was, and all for the better. Jackson's psychological attack was to "show them the bayonet" as he often said. And the recipients of that bayonet being representative of a morally unjust effort of conquest, he was absolutely right in doing so. The soldier who I meet in battle is not always a perpetrator of evil - he shoots not because he hates me or wants something of mine, but rather for the same reason I shoot at him: the fact that if I do not, I will certainly get shot myself. The criminal who violates my land and property with an intent to physically harm me, however, is different as are armies composed of him. By making the initial violation in his very presence and intent of being there, he forfeits any claim he might have had to mercy on the battlefield.
There were a great many southerners in the areas I listed who "sat out" the war.
Then provide statistical data, that is if you can.