Replies

I almost had to wipe the tears from my eyes. Why not post the document?

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.

"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!"

Martial law is a wartime necessity in areas where the civil administration has broken down. It displaces what ever civil law might have existed, prior to the area becoming a war zone. The resident civilians, as explained in Dow answer not to "the civil law of the invaded country ... not the civil law of the conquering country ... [but to] military law - the law of war."

If General Milroy told them to turn in their guns, shut up, and to cease giving aid to the enemy, and they violated that order, it is pretty much in the hands of the General to decide how to respond. His word was law. No lesser civil court had jurisdiction, and the USSC was not about to get involved in a martial law issue (ref. Luther v. Borden).

I don't know what Mr. Moses Pittman's history was, but his actions may have amounted to reprisal for prior abuse. Who knows? You have not presented sufficient information.

"Burning families out of their homes in the middle of winter is "prudent intelligence," capitan? Your Stalinist qualities are showing again."

Allegations made with providing any background. the prudent intelligence" comment referred to identifying potential guerrillas. But burning partisan's homes, if that is what they were, certainly tends to suppress dissent.

"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."

It is called "summary execution." If the so-called civilians were partisans, guerrillas, or spies, summary execution was appropriate. You have not provided enough information to affirm or deny their status.