Command Responsibility and War Crimes: general discussion

[Rifleman]

Moderator's Note

This thread's title 'Was William T. Sherman a war criminal?' which covered this thread's discussion, but in August 2013 it became a wider topic and JMM99 suggested we retain this thread to discuss what is now called 'Command Responsibility and War Crimes: general discussion' (ends).

First, a disclaimer. Perhaps this thread belongs in the historical section but I thought it might fit here too. And I didn't find anything relevant when I searched Sherman's name here.

Was William T. Sherman a war criminal?

Neo-Confederates and Confederate apologists say so. But when the morality of bygone slave owners comes up the Neo-Confederates and Confederate apologists also like to point out that you should judge a man in his era and against the background of his cultrual norm and not by a later generation's standards. Don't we have to judge Sherman the same way?

Never mind how such actions would be preceived now. Or how insulted and violated someone's great-great grandma felt at the time her barn was burned.

Was it criminal at the time it happened?

[jmm99]

but I'd love to discuss Sherman, the Lieber Code (GO 100), the Civil War and Reconstruction in terms of "War Crimes", etc.

(Upon limited reflection, I think the Historians forum might be the better place - since Law Enforcement is pretty much a current affairs forum. That call is up to David et al. (Thread moved by davidbfpo)

As to Sherman, why don't you put together a complaint vs WTS based on the "Neo-Confederates and Confederate apologists" viewpoint ? That doesn't seem to be your bottom line, but why not play devil's advocate.

BTW: ceased active private legal practice on 1 Jun, with only a couple of bramble bushes, closing books and final tax returns to complete. So, on 19 Sep and thereafter, every day should be a Saturday.

Regards

Mike

[Ken White]

Congrats on the well deserved retirement, Mike. Enjoy it...

Ken

To return to the thread with an answer from this dedicated Southerner; No, he wasn't. Nor were Nathan Bedford, John Hunt Morgan, Ben Grierson and dozens of less well known folks...

War is war.

[jmm99]

"warfare" is "warfare"; but as to the latter, the rules they do change - as to strategy (probably the least), tactics and "war crimes".

For example, one of our favorite generals (Subotai) employed the "wagon wheel test" to separate the "goats" from the "sheep" - too tall and your head was removed to put you in the eternal "sheep class". His problem (in occupying adverse territory) was that he had too few troops to "clear and hold" (much less "build"). So, all potential insurgents had to be removed.

What was "acceptable" to that non-Mongol would scarcely be "acceptable" today; but what is "acceptable" today has many variants (compare EU vs US and have fun). "Old Law" is not necessarily bad - especially where it had clarity.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

Moved from law Enforcement to Historians and title amended, so subject is far clearer.

[Ken White]

"Old Law" is not necessarily bad - especially where it had clarity.

who have clarity...

All true. Nor is all change necessarily good, yet, it is. Onward and upward we go.

[Bob's World]

In a conversation the other day a person made the observation that "corruption" is taxation where formal taxation structures don't exist.

In that context, In the newly developing "war between nations" (as opposed to war between Kingdoms), where the will/morale and ability of the populace to support a war is so critical to achieving true defeat, deep raids targeting that aspect of the populace were "strategic bombing" before bombers existed.

Grant sent Sheridan into the Shenandoah on the same mission, though the history books seem to focus on Sherman; and all seem to miss that it was on Grant's orders to execute Grant's strategy that both these trusted lieutenants acted.

Grant had a comprehensive grasp on the realities of modern warfighting as it was developing around him, that great tactical leaders like Lee did not appear to grasp. I suspect that if Grant had focused solely on the defeat of Lee's army or the capture of Richmond that the war would have been much more likely to have devolved into a decades long insurgency.

[Rifleman]

As to Sherman, why don't you put together a complaint vs WTS based on the "Neo-Confederates and Confederate apologists" viewpoint ?

LOL, don't know where I'd begin. I suppose I could find something on the League of the South website to cut and paste but I'm not sure I'd want to do that.

That doesn't seem to be your bottom line, but why not play devil's advocate.

Because if I was advocating, I would advocate that he was not.

And I'd like to point something out to Southerners who think he is: what Sherman did to your Confederate ancestors wasn't too much different than what their ancestors a generation earlier did in campaigns against the Creek and Cherokee.

Whatever people believe they need to be consistent in their reasoning process.

[Ken White]

own namesake's tribe. Much less what his northern neighbors did to the Kiowa, Pawnees and others as they moved west...

And I'd like to point something out to Southerners who think he is: what Sherman did to your Confederate ancestors wasn't too much different than what their ancestors a generation earlier did in campaigns against the Creek and Cherokee.

Whatever people believe they need to be consistent in their reasoning process.

Unlikely to happen, we're all prone to bias and prejudice -- as well as flawed logic -- mine's more flawed than most but my bias (among other things) is tiny ...

[bourbon]

This is a broad generalization, but:

History is written by the victors; so war criminals are only on the losing side.

[Infanteer]

This is a broad generalization, but:

History is written by the victors; so war criminals are only on the losing side.

I was just going to post that very same thing.

"War criminal" is likely more of a liberal status for "loser" then any sort of strict legal catagorization.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob,

I suspect that if Grant had focused solely on the defeat of Lee's army or the capture of Richmond that the war would have been much more likely to have devolved into a decades long insurgency.

Have to agree to this statement, the only way to convince the South to surrender was too make the cost of continuing the conflict too much to bear. The strategy was appropriate, and while we can only speculate I suspect it reduced suffering the long run by limiting the duration of the conventional war.

As stated by ganulv, the insurgency did continue. The militants were the KKK, the subversives were various politicians who inacted laws (which the local police enforced violently) that continued to oppress the recently freed slaves until MLK led a mostly peaceful and successful revolt against legal discrimination, and much as our development efforts continue to fail in Afghanistan, or development efforts in the South largely failed due to resistance to industrialization and other factors.

The south now is becoming an economic powerhouse in its own right, and blacks in the south have considerable political power (at least in the larger urban areas). What facilitated that transformation? That might be helpful in determining how to facilitate social and economic change in foreign nations (since we seem determined to do so).

Taking it back to the topic, Sherman's march helped bring the war to an end, but it didn't solve the core issues that the war was fought over. In my opinion, if we desire to defeat the Taliban, then we need to carry the fight into their safehaven and make the price of continuing war too costly. If that is politically infeasible, then we probably need to change our policy and associated objectives. If you want the military to win, then you have to accept that war is war and endure the ugliness that comes with it.

Sherman was no war criminal, he was a soldier that executed his mission very effectively. A tactical mission tied to strategic ends.

[Rifleman]

This is a broad generalization, but:

History is written by the victors; so war criminals are only on the losing side.

Look at the two famous green dragoons from an earlier war: Banistre Tarelton and Henry Lee.

One account of the "Waxhaws Massacre" says Tarelton had a horse shot out from under him during the initial attack. His troops saw their commander go down and went wild. They cut down men trying to surrender before Tarelton could remount and get them under control. So Tarelton is remembered for "Tarelton's Quarter" which is to say no mercy.

Lee's Legion wore green uniforms similar to Tarleton's British Legion. They once overtook some Loyalists by surprise who thought Lee was Tarelton until the last minute. An incident similar to Waxhaws happened with Lee's men out of control and cutting down men who may have been trying to surrender. And Lee didn't have the excuse of trying to remount and gain control of troops that thought their commander had gone down. Historian Robert Bass commented, "The quality of Lee's mercy here was far worse than Tarleton's at the Waxhaws."

These two men seem to have been strikingly similar in many of their experiences and operational methods. Yet, "Bloody Ban" is remembered as a villain and "Light Horse Harry" as a hero.

[ganulv]

Whatever people believe they need to be consistent in their reasoning process.

A need most frequently honored in the breach, in my experience!

And I'd like to point something out to Southerners who think he is: what Sherman did to your Confederate ancestors wasn't too much different than what their ancestors a generation earlier did in campaigns against the Creek and Cherokee.

The actions weren’t too much different—the Sullivan Expedition has been called war on vegetables, after all—but the rules were that the rules were different when the adversaries were Indians (Wayne E. Lee has published a few papers on this topic). I’m not claiming that that wasn’t hypocrisy, but rather just trying to historicize things.