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

To: agrandis
Go to the bottom line. War is about breaking the enemy's will to fight. Burning civilan homes and crops, yes, by all means if it will end the war and stop the slaughter.

You armchair Generals did'nt live in the time, did'nt bury the bodies, and did'nt see the maimed on a daily basis as did those who had to fight that war. "Civilized" warfare died bewteen 1861-1865. Kill your enemy , burn his houses, crops and farms.

Destroy his will to fight, or end up like we did in Vietnam, "nuetered" by a politcal policy that favored "civilized warfare"--50,000 dead to follow the "rules"...What an idiot concept. And I'm not talking about rape, execute the bastards who do that. Wholesale property destruction to save your and my son's lives? Absolutely.

Johnston and Hooker failed in their orders to stop Sherman. Sherman did what he knew would end the war as quickly as possible.

Damn Hooker and Johnson for failing, not Sherman for winning.

127 posted on 06/23/2002 12:30:58 PM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]


To: Rebelbase
"Civilized" warfare died bewteen 1861-1865. Kill your enemy , burn his houses, crops and farms.

Probably so. The following 1863 instructions for US Army behavior in the field seem to have been disobeyed (or else appropriate Federal officers authorized barbarism).

Art. 16. 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. It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult.

Art. 22. Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit.

Art. 24. The almost universal rule in remote times was, and continues to be with barbarous armies, that the private individual of the hostile country is destined to suffer every privation of liberty and protection, and every disruption of family ties. Protection was, and still is with uncivilized people, the exception.

Art. 38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the army or of the United States.

If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.

Art. 44. All wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded country, all destruction of property not commanded by the authorized officer, all robbery, all pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force, all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing of such inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense.

%$#@* Federal barbarians.

128 posted on 06/23/2002 2:12:16 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies ]

To: Rebelbase
Re:#127...Hooker=Hood.
129 posted on 06/23/2002 5:05:03 PM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies ]

To: Rebelbase
When did this 'civilized' warfare ever begin? European armies burned, looted, plundered, raped, and pillaged from one end of the continent to another for centuries prior to the Civil War. Spanish, English, and French settlers exterminated Indians by the carload in North America, and did the same throughout Asia. Napoleon's army commanders were noted plunderers. This whole idea that somehow civilians were protected prior to the Civil War is wishful thinking.
131 posted on 06/23/2002 5:33:26 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies ]

To: Rebelbase
i would guess then that you favor WAR CRIMES?

savagery in war only makes for hatred among the vanquished;that savagery is why we southrons after almost 150 years are still desirous of LIBERTY from the northern oppressors.

FREE the south NOW,sw

134 posted on 06/24/2002 8:25:11 AM PDT by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | 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