[Non-Sequitur]

Hey, 4CJ, maybe you can help us out here. In the DiLorenzo article that billbears provided the link to, Tommy claims that the "Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army." Now I've looked and looked and I can't find those provisions in any of the conventions that came out of Geneva in either 1863 or 1864. So, do you suppose DiLusional was either too drunk or too ignorant to notice that they were missing? Or was he just plain lying?

[4CJ]

In this case I would have to leave it to DiLorenzo to justify his assertion, and provide supporting documentation if this was from the published documents, or from some other source under consideration.

The protection of civilians and their property has fluctuated wildly - from complete and utter destruction of belligerents in ancient times, to the recent policies of protection. Plunder and pillage was prohibited by the 1806 Articles of War. I do know that during the time frame in question this was instituted:

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.

A soldier, officer or private, in the act of committing such violence, and disobeying a superior ordering him to abstain from it, may be lawfully killed on the spot by such superior.
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (aka The Lieber Code), 24 Apr 1863.