Quote please. I’ve provided you with a link to the Lieber Code. Quote the article or articles that you are referring to.
Art. 11.
The law of war does not only disclaim all cruelty and bad faith concerning engagements concluded with the enemy during the war, but also the breaking of stipulations solemnly contracted by the belligerents in time of peace, and avowedly intended to remain in force in case of war between the contracting powers.
It disclaims all extortions and other transactions for individual gain; all acts of private revenge, or connivance at such acts.
Offenses to the contrary shall be severely punished, and especially so if committed by officers.
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. 23.
Private citizens are no longer murdered, enslaved, or carried off to distant parts, and the inoffensive individual is as little disturbed in his private relations as the commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war.
Art. 25.
In modern regular wars of the Europeans, and their descendants in other portions of the globe, protection of the inoffensive citizen of the hostile country is the rule; privation and disturbance of private relations are the exceptions.
All of these sections can fairly be considered to be violated by an order to shoot civilians AT RANDOM without any showing that they were in any way involved in guerilla activity.
So you chose to quote from the Section 1 of the Lieber Code. Fine, let's look at that. Article 11. I'm not seeing the relevance. Disclaim cruelty and bad faith? As a wise man once said, "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out." Civilians suffer in war, and civilians in Civil War tend to suffer worst of all. Did the Union armies deliberately set out to make Southern civilians suffer? In some cases perhaps, as Confederates did the same to Union civilians. But it wasn't established policy.
Article 16. Again, not sure of the relevance. While your opinions will no doubt lead you to the contrary I'm not sure what facts support your claim of this article's applicability.
Article 22. This has the disclaimer "as far as the exigencies of war will permit." Goods that supported the Confederate war effort were legitimate targets be they food, cotton, slaves, transportation infrastructure, or cities that the Confederate army barricaded themselves in.
Article 23. No doubt you are referring to the tale of the Roswell women, whose story has been so inflated over time that I have no idea what the real circumstances are. But considering the rebel army had a tendency to kidnap free blacks during their campaigns in Maryland and Pennsylvania and return them south to slavery then I believe this is an article that both sides could fairly be accused of ignoring. Partial credit to you.
Article 25. Protection of innocent civilians was the rule in the Union army. Were there exceptions? Certainly. To quote the great man once again, "If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking." But for the most part civilians were protected. Their property was respected. And their suffering kept to a minimum. Your opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.