[wasp69]

Maryand would have to be assumed as hostile as the other southern states and Scott would have been ordered to act accordingly.

True and no argument here. However, there is no reason to shell cities. Armed troops ending civil strife is good, the shelling of a population center is not.

[Non-Sequitur]

It may been a bit of hyperbole on Lincoln's part but it would also have depended on the situation. Take Vicksburg, for example. Grant had little choice but to shell sections of the city since the confederate army chose to hole up there. Had confederate troops taken over Baltimore or Annapolis, very real possibilities, extreme measures could have been called for.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Armed troops ending civil strife is good, the shelling of a population center is not.

Civilians can leave a city. They are not forced to remain, unless they are slaves.

And cities are legal military targets. The British, and to some degree, the Americans bombed cities in WWII with the express view of killing war workers, it being seen that a war worker was just as valuable to the war effort as a soldier on the front line.

But the Germans could and did evacuate all non-essential persons. Your statement is simply not correct.

Walt