I almost had to wipe the tears from my eyes. Why not post the document? How is anyone to know if the "civilians" were not spies or saboteurs, partisans or common criminals, under military occupation? If these supposed documents date from Milroy's duty in 1864 in Tennessee, the he was most probably reporting to Union General George H. Thomas, a loyalist from Virginia, and one of the finest commanders in the War.
"They note which houses have furniture that can be pillaged, which persons on it were hunters and therefore had firearms that could be confiscated in violation of the 2nd amendment, which farms had animals that could be stolen, and directions in virtually every case to torch the place after it was stripped bare of valuables. Remember that this was in the dead of winter - January - and they burned these people out of their homes."
Sounds like prudent intelligence. The area in question, although you are rather vague, was undoubtedly under marshal law. Tennessee had purported to secede and much of the state, at least, could be considered hostile territory. In these border states and re-occupied areas sabotage and guerrilla warfare were common. Farber notes that the Supreme Court "has never repudiated the view that martial law is an appropriate measure in contested or occupied territory."
In the Supreme Court case, Dow v Johnson (1879), Farber writes, "the Civil War, 'though not between independent nations (note: yet another authoritative denial of southern independence!), but between different portions of the same nation, was accompanied by the general incidents of an international war.' Therefore, when "our armies marched into the country which acknowledged the authority of the Confederate government,' they were governed only by military law. Although an invading army generally chooses to allow local laws to remain in force to regulate relationships between private citizens, these laws continue only on sufferance, 'unless suspended or superseded by the conqueror.' 'What is the law which governs an army invading an enemy's country?' the Court asked. 'It is not the civil law of the invaded country; it is not the civil law of the conquering country: it is military law - the law of war - and its supremacy for the protection of the officers and soldiers of the army, when in the service in the field in the enemy's country, is as essential to the efficiency of the army as the supremacy of the civil law at home, and, in time of peace, is essential to the preservation of liberty.'"
It is not a good thing to be on the losing side in a civil war.
Well, for starters i'd have to scan in about 20 pages of photocopies. The cite # for it is National Archives, Union Provost Marshall, Microfilm Collection 416, Roll 46
How is anyone to know if the "civilians" were not spies or saboteurs, partisans or common criminals, under military occupation?
For one, they were virtually all common farmers with known and fixed addresses making it unlikely that any were military agents, which tended to be mobile.
Second, we know they were not what you describe because Milroy stated his "grievances" against them in the death lists. Put another way, these people were executed for such crimes as owning guns, speaking unfavorable things about the north, being the mother of a confederate soldier, permitting confederates to take food from them prior to and after the nearby Battle of Franklin, and giving soldiers on dispatch a bed for the night.
Third, even if they were guilty of all the things you allege, it would take a courtroom of some sort to convict them and assign a punishment. Milroy gave them no such courtroom nor even a military tribunal and tended to assign "punishments" that were cruel and unusual by medieval standards let alone today - things like hanging people by slip knots in doorways and staging "accidental" shootings of a guy's wife. There was even one case where Milroy ordered his men to take a couple civilians prisoner, transfer them to a town up the road, and give them into the custody of a man named Moses Pittman, who was then permitted to do with them as he pleased (i.e. torture them) and dispose of them as he saw fit. Pittman was a union sympathizer who had been providing aid to Milroy and this was his "reward" from the general!
If these supposed documents date from Milroy's duty in 1864 in Tennessee, the he was most probably reporting to Union General George H. Thomas, a loyalist from Virginia, and one of the finest commanders in the War.
I don't recall who he was directly under at the time. He had just been assigned there after being relieved elsewhere for incompetancy (Milroy was another of those politically connected generals). His duty was on Sherman's supply line so ultimately he was under Sherman. There may have been somebody in between - possibly Thomas - but I don't recall at the moment or without doing further research.
Sounds like prudent intelligence.
Burning families out of their homes in the middle of winter is "prudent intelligence," capitan? Your Stalinist qualities are showing again.
The area in question, although you are rather vague
Milroy was assigned in the Tullahoma District so his activies were all over middle Tennessee. There was a lot going on in the area in late 1864 when he arrived, notably the Battle of Franklin.
was undoubtedly under marshal law.
Whether it was or not, executing civilians without any formal procedure and in a manner that is bizarrely cruel and unusual simply isn't justified or justifiable.