The Gang of Five
The forum will have some maintenance done in the next couple of months. We have also made a decision concerning AI art in the art section.


Please see this post for more details.

War Crimes during the American Civil War

Chomper98

  • Grand Admiral
  • Member+
  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
When most of us hear war crime, we think of the Germans and Japanese in world war II, though I have come across several war crimes that occured during the American Civil War. (Sherman's march to the sea and Sheridan's valley campaigns are not war crimes, but campaigns to end the war, similar to the bombings of Germany and Japan during World War II)

On the other hand, the prisoner of war camps were very similar to the Concentration Camps, especially with the brutality and mortality rates. I saw a picture of a Union prisoner of war soldier that if you showed to someone, they would think it was from world war II.

Many confederates commited war crimes in attacks on the North. Jubal Early's burning of Union towns is one, as were the atrocities commited by Silas Gordon, Champ Ferguson, James Keith, William "Bloody Bill" Anderson, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and William Clark Quantrill.

Don't know about these? I have a link right here: 10 War Crimes of the American Civil War

Does anyone know of any others?


Nick22

  • Administrator
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 41625
    • View Profile
well, for one, those are war crimes by modern definition, when the civil war started, there was really no such thing as war crimes, the winners could pretty much do to the losers as they saw fit. indeed, the first germs towards the Geneva conventions came out of the civil war, due to the carnage and actions on the south's part. history teaches us that context is important, we cannot impose the judgement of modern society, which has the benefit of hindsight, on the past. so to modern sensibilities many actions taken during the Civil War crossed the line, you have to remember there was no international standard for conducting war at that time. burning villages was simply a way to eliminate the opposition and compel them to submit.
Winner of these:


Runner up for these:




Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
Nonetheless the murdering of enemy soldiers who had surrendered was considered a "no go" at the time already (as early as 1415 the murdering of prisoners of war who had previously surrendered and laid down arms during the battle of Agincourt was considered a... well they didn't use the word crime, but that's what it comes down to).
Quote
On the other hand, the prisoner of war camps were very similar to the Concentration Camps, especially with the brutality and mortality rates. I saw a picture of a Union prisoner of war soldier that if you showed to someone, they would think it was from world war II.
True, but for the sake of completeness one should point out that the treatment of prisoners was not a source of glory for either of the two parties in the war. The commander of the most notorious confederate prison camp Andersonville was the only person to be tried and executed for his activities during the civil war after the end of the war. Critics say that the fact that this commander, Henry Wirtz was Swiss born rather than born in America played a role and that he was incompetent but not deliberately sadist (as often claimed). In the later phases of the war rations in the prisoncamps in the south were horribly small, but the picture would be incomplete without pointing out that the rations of the guards weren't any higher. Many prisoners enclosed in a very narrow space with only a tiny poluted water stream in the camp were a breeding ground for diseases (which took about twice as many lives as combat did during the Civil War). About 13 000 of 45 000 northern prisoners (some 28%) died in Andersonville which was but one out of several (Libby prison in the confederate capital Richmond was another notorious one).
Unfortunately the situation was not much more glorious in many of the northern prison camps either. The deathrate at Elmira Prison / NY also was about 25% because of a combination of malnutrition (though food would have been available in larger quantities there) and coldness.
During the first years of the war prisoners had often been paroled or exchanged (there were exchange rates about how many common soldiers were to be released for a general and stuff like that). However, after the proclamation of emancipation and the setting up of African Americans Regiments the South refused to let African American soldiers be part of that prisoner exchange program (since it would have constituted a de facto recognition of their freedom) while Lincoln was consequent enough to insist on his black soldiers to be included. Since no agreement was reached about this the exchanging stopped entirely and prison camps started to become notorious from 1863 on. Concerning African Americans there had been the threat on the part of the South of turning every African American prisoner into a slave again and and executing any white officer in command of African American troops as an agitator who incited slave revolts. The second half of that threat in particular did not become official policy in the South after all, but it is rather safe to assume that Lincoln't threat of executing a southern officer for any northern officer executed played a large role in this.
Quote
Sherman's march to the sea and Sheridan's valley campaigns are not war crimes, but campaigns to end the war, similar to the bombings of Germany and Japan during World War II
For the sake of completeness it should be mentioned that there had been plenty of individual cases of civilians being murdered or raped that were not very harshly persecuted and that would by our definitions constitute war crimes.

The list of war crimes in the civil war is interesting, but if fails to mention the probably largest of all. The largest prisoner massacre during the Civil War is something of a taboo topic in many discourses, probably because it was not committed somewhere far west by some ragtag guerilla force, but by Robert E. Lee's celebrated army of Northern Virginia. During the Siege of Petersburg in 1864 a mine was used to blow up part of the Southern fortifications. The following northern attack was a disaster since in a last minute change the black troops who general Burnside had planned to lead the attack (and who had been specifically trained and instructed for this) were exchanged for unprepared white units under the command of very incompetent officers (one of whom lay drunk in his tent during the battle and was therefore dishonorably discharged). The reason for this change was that the black troops were deemed too green by Army of the Potomac commander George Gordon Meade and for Ulysses S. Grant there was also the fear of standing accused of using black troops as canonfodder in case the attack failed. The last minute change ensured the failure however since the unprepared white troops didn't charge past the crater to widen the breach but rather descended into the crater all fascinated by the spectacular sight. Southern troops rallied and under the command of William Mahone charged the crater totally defeating the federal troops at the bottom of that pit. The black troops had been sent in too but couldn't turn the tide anymore. Many northerners surrendered but the southerners refused to take any black prisoners and started shooting and bayonetting them. White federal troops, in fear of being killed themselves started killing their own black comrades in an attempt to send a kind of "we don't like them either; please don't kill us" kind of message to the southern soldiers. The resulting massacre was the largest prisoner massacre of the entire war.
When in 2003 the Civil War movie "Cold Mountain" was made (the book version of which is much more detailed about war crimes) they started out with a scene about the battle of the crater (since blowing up a fort makes for a very spectacular movie scene) they also do show black soldiers (and a Native American on the side of the South; apparently as a kind of ballance), but they don't show the massacre. In a cut scene on the DvD of the movie one wounded black soldier crawling on the ground after the battle was shown getting shot by a white soldier, but that was it. The topic is still a taboo in the south.
If you are interested in war crimes during the Civil War I very much recommend the book: "Confederate Rage, Yankee Wrath - No quarter in the Civil War" by George S. Burkhardt to you. It gives a very detailed and thorough account of crimes committed on both sides and quotes many sources.


Chomper98

  • Grand Admiral
  • Member+
  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
Quote from: Nick22,Oct 6 2013 on  01:28 AM
well, for one, those are war crimes by modern definition, when the civil war started, there was really no such thing as war crimes, the winners could pretty much do to the losers as they saw fit. indeed, the first germs towards the Geneva conventions came out of the civil war, due to the carnage and actions on the south's part. history teaches us that context is important, we cannot impose the judgement of modern society, which has the benefit of hindsight, on the past. so to modern sensibilities many actions taken during the Civil War crossed the line, you have to remember there was no international standard for conducting war at that time. burning villages was simply a way to eliminate the opposition and compel them to submit.
Wow, so the geneva convention was somewhat caused by the Civil War, I did not know that. I also know that 'to the victor go the spoils' attitude has been used all the time in the past. Yes I know that atrocities were commited during the march, and those were war crimes, but the majority of Sherman's troops did not murder or harm civilians, just there property, which is far better then killing the civilians.

War crimes were not called war crimes at the time, though, but still they were war crimes in the sense of the word. Sherman's soldiers did commit atrocities, but not at the rate the SS, Japanese, or Soviets  did in world war II.

Also, when I mentioned the prison camps, I was talking about both Union and Confederate camps, as I knew both were horrible. Oh, and thank you Malte for reccomending that book to me.


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
The Geneva conventions as we know them were not directly triggered by the US Civil War. They were established in 1949, after the horrors of WW2 and were the so far last in a row of documents. The first Geneva conventions were in fact set up in 1864 (during the US Civil War), but the US were not involved in that process. They were mainly created on the initiative of Swiss Henry Dunant who, shocked by the slaughter in the battle of Solferino between France and Austria in 1859 had founded the red cross and worked hard to limit the horrors of war. The USA (sceptic about any international treaties because of the Monroe Doctrine) signed that convention only in 1882 (the UK and Russia too signed it only with a delay in 1865 respectively 1867). Clara Barton, who had worked for the American red cross during the Civil War, had worked hard to promote the signing by the US. This first Geneva Convention refered mainly to the status of the sick and wounded and didn't coin the legal term "war crime".
The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 were the next important step. They were a lot more precise in dealing with matters such as the treatment of civilians, POWs, partisans etc. They were probably influenced by the Lieber Code, a document signed by Abraham Lincoln in 1863. The Lieber Code was however a double edged sword whose rulings about insurrections and occupied territories were used as an excuse for the murderous kind of warfare conducted on the Phillipines by the time the first Hague Conventions were signed in 1899.
The Hague Conventions of 1907 were partly brought about by Teddy Roosevelt and were rather clear in outlawing many of the attrocities which were, a few years later, conducted by the nations involved in WW1 (e.g. the use of mines and I think there was even a passage about poisonous gas).
In the 1920s there was the "Geneva Protocol" (not to be confused with the convention) which prohibited any forms of chemical and biological warfare. While WW2 didn't see large scale use of chemical and biological weapons on the European theater of the war (though it was more commonly used in China) there was the everlooming threat of both sides holding such weapons in reserve.