I wonder how many people are going to be tried after the war for not only treason but war crimes.
Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War
- Thread starter Red_Galiray
- Start date
Was there an internationally recognized idea of war crimes in the 19th century? I thought that sort of thing started coming up during and after WWI.
While there wasn't much of a concept of "War Crimes" at this point in time, there were many international agreements intended to curb cruelty which were then solidified at the Hague Conventions 1899 but were in no way enforceable.
There was no real way to appeal to the international community or to an international court to investigate war crimes until after WW2. Nations and empires would usually punish war-criminals themselves if they got their hands on them.
Funnily enough, one of the first people on record to be held accountable specifically for a 'War Crime' in the modern era was a CSA Officer who was hanged for mistreating captured US soldiers.
Please correct me if I'm wrong though, the 19th century is not known for having accurate records.
Here is an interesting website on the subject.
https://www.nps.gov/ande/learn/historyculture/wirztribunal.htm
https://www.nps.gov/ande/learn/historyculture/wirztribunal.htm
East Tennessee is certainly possible. As for Texas, support for the Confederacy was overwhelming there, as demonstrated by the referendum in favor of secession. And thanks!
War crimes are a possibility. Massacres, guerrilla campaigns, selling Black prisoners of war into slavery or executing White commanders of Black regiments, outright murdering African-Americans and Unionists... A more radical North is bound to produce a reaction in the Confederacy, with bloody consequences.
Not sure if there was any in the US, but some regimes, countries or commanders did make codes about the conduct of war. Simon Bolivar, for example, signed in 1820 a Treaty for the Regularization of War that prohibited the killing of civilians or captive soldiers, and respected civilian property. I can see the Union creating a similar code, and since the official position is that the Confederate states never existed in the first place and that they remained part of the Union, applying it to punish Confederate officers.
It's a gray area. The Lincoln administration never deviated from its position that they were rebels and that the Confederate never existed as an independent nation (he never said "President Davis" for example); however, it could not ignore that there was in fact a Confederate government, that it had an army and navy, and control of a territory. It was a country de facto, and also a belligerent. For that reason, Lincoln took actions that didn't exactly conform to the idea that it was only an insurrection, such as treating the Confederates as prisoners of war or organizing formal prisoner exchanges. Most of it is just general humanity. After all, to treat the rebels as rebels were usually treated in that era would just cause bloodshed. For example, when Lincoln threatened to hang Confederate privateers as pirates, Davis answered with his own threat to execute a Yankee for every man hanged. Now, of course, Lincoln would not recognize this as a conflict with another country, he will always assert that it was just an insurrection. Consequently, they wouldn't be "war crimes" de jure, but would be recognized as such de facto.
That would be The Lieber Code of April 24, 1863, also known as General Order No. 100
ninja'd by @piratedude . There were also the Winchester Accords in 1862, initially just for the Eastern Theater, which neutralized medical personnel on both sides and provided for their return to their army when no longer needed without parole or exchange. Both sides were also familiar with the initial discussions about the establishment of the Red Cross and neutrality of medical personnel, and respect for the wounded.
Murder of surrendered troops (like at Ft Pillow) was considered just that, murder, and the enslavement of free blacks (civilians or soldiers) was also a criminal act of kidnapping.
Murder of surrendered troops (like at Ft Pillow) was considered just that, murder, and the enslavement of free blacks (civilians or soldiers) was also a criminal act of kidnapping.
More guerrillas than OTL thats for sure seeing as how the Rebs aren't gonna be let up easy here.
The reality is that a sustained guerilla campaign isn't in the cards, especially given that the Union is not going to be in any way disposed to anything but a hard reconstruction. There will be a large army presence, the freed black population will be armed and more than cooperative with the Union Army. The bulk of the population is going to want to just farm their land and do their lives in peace. The odds are excellent that cooperating civilians (Mao's sea for the insurgent fish) are likely to see their farms burned, and the men hauled off to jail. OTL the reason the Klan and other organizations like them were able to succeed was basically because the Union presence in the south was spread too thin and the freed blacks were not adequately empowered (forming armed self protection militias for example). It must be remembered that 3/4 of southern households had no slaves at all, not even one. Those families are not going to be happy about losing the war to be sure, but almost none of them are going to be willing to risk everything to keep fighting a war for a system which they really had little investment in. Sure they may be some guerilla die hards, but they won't last long - and captured guerillas are likely to face a short court martial and then the long drop.
This is why a sustained propaganda campaign and redistributing land amongst both poor whites and freed blacks from the plantations is a good idea. It could make them blame the war on the greedy plantation owners who wanted increase their own profits at their expense.
And easier punishment that's hard to roll back.
Guerrilla movements need a few things to be truly effective:
1. A backer, usually a country. Not happening here, because well, it's tossing good money away after bad.
2. Good grasp on public relations. Not a factor if done well.
3. Support from the locals. After they got their asses kicked in the field, I sure as hell wouldn't back the idiots insisting they could still win this.
Honestly I've always supported conciliatory policies for the common man, and crafting the narrative that the cruel war is the fault of an aristocracy that hates the yeomen as much as they hate thr Blacks.
Anyway, I'm sorry but I don't think I will be able to write an update this week. I have a couple of long assingments, and I'd rather wait and put out a good update than turn to mediocrity.
Anyway, I'm sorry but I don't think I will be able to write an update this week. I have a couple of long assingments, and I'd rather wait and put out a good update than turn to mediocrity.
McDowell isn't going to last long in command in this war, no matter what.
The war *did* have a way of determining, the hard way, who was suited for command, and who was not. And unless you had the kind of political protection that "Spoons" Butler did, you'd end up fighting Indians or on garrison duty somewhere before too long if you were found wanting.
Most households didn't own slaves. Many more than that rented seasonally. It adds up to the majority of the white population who relied upon slave labor.
Since the economy of the south was based on plantation slavery, with a small amount of industrial slavery thrown in, in a sense everyone relied on slave labor and this included the free states as well which drew some economic value from slavery. Yes, slaves were rented for seasonal and other work but the reality was that small farmers, store owners etc were not in a financial position to rent slaves (which also meant providing for room & board in addition to the cash payment to their owner). Renting slaves remained the province of the more affluent who had plantations or businesses with seasonal needs above and beyond a labor force they could keep employed full time. The book "Master and Slave at Buffalo Forge" looks at this at a small ironworks as an example.
Even with the rental of slaves by persons who owned no slaves, the majority of households in the south did not have a slave working for them permanently (owned) or temporarily (rented). This does not mean that these folks did not have a stake in the "peculiar institution", simply that the amount of personal skin they had in the game was much, much less than the elites who pushed secession. I sincerely doubt that many of the 3/4 who were not owners, of whom a minority were renters, would risk having their homes/farms burnt and jail/execution to support an insurgency after the CSA had been defeated militarily. The reason that the Klan and similar groups were able to operate as Reconstruction ended was that the Union simply did not want to invest the effort in crushing them. Had the USA put the effort in to it, they would have been marginalized if they continued to exist at all.
Even with the rental of slaves by persons who owned no slaves, the majority of households in the south did not have a slave working for them permanently (owned) or temporarily (rented). This does not mean that these folks did not have a stake in the "peculiar institution", simply that the amount of personal skin they had in the game was much, much less than the elites who pushed secession. I sincerely doubt that many of the 3/4 who were not owners, of whom a minority were renters, would risk having their homes/farms burnt and jail/execution to support an insurgency after the CSA had been defeated militarily. The reason that the Klan and similar groups were able to operate as Reconstruction ended was that the Union simply did not want to invest the effort in crushing them. Had the USA put the effort in to it, they would have been marginalized if they continued to exist at all.