I agree, but the slaughter of unarmed civilians by military force is - a policy adopted by the union forces. Per Lincoln's Lieber Code, the attempted assassination of President Jefferson Davis and cabinet was illegal, yet such was attempted. Such measures were appaluded, but these same sanctimonious, hypocritcal yankees then decry retaliatory measures, which were legal per Lincoln's own Military Code*.
[*Note: Admin Moderator - no one is advocating assasssination, this is a recitation of historical fact - I do not sanction the assassination/murder of a President, the Pope, public officials, unarmed civilians or anyone else*]
As for your accusations, show we discuss the slaughter of Germans in Texas, or Black troops?
As for assassination of leaders, the reason we have outlawed it in this nation is because it does open your own leaders to retaliation.
If the assertion could be proven that Lincoln approved of actions to kill Davis,(which is highly unlikely), then he was indeed wielding a double-edged sword that could cut both ways.
Ofcourse, even with that there is a context, since by April the war was for all intents over.
Killing Lincoln (and othe government officals) would simply be an act of revenge not a means to change the outcome of the war.
Under no circumstances was the slaughter of unarmed civilians the policy of the United States military. Had you actually read General Orders No. 100 (Lieber Code) you would have seen the policy on Insurrection - Civil War - Rebellion in Section 10, Articles 149 to 157, inclusive.
First, no resident in a rebellious, "seceded" state was entitled to any Constitutional protections. Those states had thrown off the Constitution and were in rebellion. As such, they were subject to the Laws of War. The "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field" - Lieber Codes of April 1863 - sought to compile and explain the rules of war as applied to the rebellion.
Article 155 talks specifically about the policy regarding civilians:
All enemies in regular war are divided into two general classes - that is to say, into combatants and noncombatants, or unarmed citizen of the hostile government.The military commander of the legitimate government, in a war of rebellion, distinguishes between the loyal citizen in the revolted portion of the country and the disloyal citizen. The disloyal citizen may further be classified into those citizens known to sympathize with the rebellion without positively aiding it, and those who, without taking up arms, give positive aid and comfort to the rebellious enemy being bodily forced thereto.
Article 156 continues:
Common justice and plain expediency require that the military commander protect manifestly loyal citizens, in revolted territories, against the hardships of the war ad much as the common misfortune of all war admitsThe commander will throw the burden of the war, as much as lies within his power, on the disloyal citizens, of the revolted portion or province, subjecting them to a stricter police than the noncombatant enemies have to suffer in regular war; and if he deems it appropriate, or if his government demands of him that every citizen shall, by oath of allegiance, or by some other manifest act, declare his fidelity to the legitimate government, he may expel, transfer, imprison, or fine the revolted citizens who refuse to pledge themselves anew as citizens obedient to the law and loyal to the government.
Whether it is expedient to do so, and whether reliance can be placed upon such oaths, the commander or his government have the right to decide..
Article 157 states:
Armed or unarmed resistance by citizens of the United States against the lawful movement of their troops is levying war against the United States, and is therefore treason.
"Per Lincoln's Lieber Code, the attempted assassination of President Jefferson Davis and cabinet was illegal, yet such was attempted."
Assassination is addressed in Section IX, Article 148:
The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such intentional outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.
With regard to the failed raid led by Col. Dahlgren, you have yet to show that Dahlgren was under "orders" to assassinate Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. His "orders," as can best be derived from the prepared speech to the raiders, was to free Union prisoners, to burn Richmond, and disrupt the confederate war effort - which is a reasonable and lawful military goal. From the "speech": "We hope to release the prisoners from Belle Island first, and having seen them fairly started, we will cross the James River into Richmond, destroying the bridges after us and exhorting the released prisoners to destroy and burn the hateful city; and do not allow the rebel leader Davis and his traitorous crew to escape."
I tend to believe that the existing papers are not faked, but given that they are real, they only show what Col. Dahlgren had in mind. This does not represent any policy or plan of the government of the United States, but only the exuberance of a young colonel.
I would like to know which Article of the Lieber Codes you cite as authority for retaliation.
Without saying so, explicitly, you seem to be justifying Lincoln's assassination by a civilian conspiracy (led by John Wilkes Booth, after Lee's surrender and the flight of the confederate government), as a "retaliatory measure" for a wholly military raid made during hostilities.
Possibly, if you have the cajones, you could explain yourself more fully.