Discipline in American Civil War Armies

[Barrister]

At war with a rebellious section of the country. How is this complicated?

How is it not? The Union hadn't declared war. There was no legal entity to be at war with.

Is the US at war with a single violent criminal? Probably not. A hundred criminals? A hundred thousand criminals? Well... The line isn't obvious to me.

Under the Geneva Conventions, they apply once one you start forming armies, wearing a uniform, etc.

Even if two states are at war, if one soldier takes off their uniform and starts committing crimes behind enemy lines they can be tried as a criminal, not captures as a POW.  And the flip side, eve if you don't recognize the legality of a state (such as ISIS), if they are armed combatants wearing uniforms you're supposed to give them those protections.

[Razgovory]

At war with rebels.  I'm not seeing the problem here.  If the Union recognized the Confederacy as a independent state, then they would have no grounds to claim that the Confederate states are part of the US.  Do other countries give diplomatic recognition to insurrections in their own territory?  I don't think Syria built an Embassy and sent official ambassadors to ISIS.  Ukraine has not done so for either the Dontsk People's Republic or the Luhansk People's Republic.

Why would the Union recognize the Confederacy?

Likely other countries do not operate under US law, and I don't know much about for instance Syrian or Ukrainian law.

No, other countries do not recognize US law, but most agree that you can not declare war on things that do not exist.  A declaration of war is a de facto admission of existence.  If the Confederacy exists then it is not part of the US.  This is why third parties of the time did not recognize the Confederacy either and why people sent by the confederacy to third powers wanted to convince them otherwise.

Is this different in Sweden?  Did Swedish monarchs recognized claims of sovereignty over Sweden by others?

[The Brain]

At war with a rebellious section of the country. How is this complicated?

How is it not? The Union hadn't declared war. There was no legal entity to be at war with.

Is the US at war with a single violent criminal? Probably not. A hundred criminals? A hundred thousand criminals? Well... The line isn't obvious to me.

Under the Geneva Conventions, they apply once one you start forming armies, wearing a uniform, etc.

Even if two states are at war, if one soldier takes off their uniform and starts committing crimes behind enemy lines they can be tried as a criminal, not captures as a POW.  And the flip side, eve if you don't recognize the legality of a state (such as ISIS), if they are armed combatants wearing uniforms you're supposed to give them those protections.

For the sake of simplicity I'll rephrase:

Would the US of the early 1860s be at war with a single violent criminal? Probably not. A hundred criminals? A hundred thousand criminals? Well... The line isn't obvious to me.

[The Brain]

At war with rebels.  I'm not seeing the problem here.  If the Union recognized the Confederacy as a independent state, then they would have no grounds to claim that the Confederate states are part of the US.  Do other countries give diplomatic recognition to insurrections in their own territory?  I don't think Syria built an Embassy and sent official ambassadors to ISIS.  Ukraine has not done so for either the Dontsk People's Republic or the Luhansk People's Republic.

Why would the Union recognize the Confederacy?

Likely other countries do not operate under US law, and I don't know much about for instance Syrian or Ukrainian law.

No, other countries do not recognize US law, but most agree that you can not declare war on things that do not exist.  A declaration of war is a de facto admission of existence.  If the Confederacy exists then it is not part of the US.  This is why third parties of the time did not recognize the Confederacy either and why people sent by the confederacy to third powers wanted to convince them otherwise.

Is this different in Sweden?  Did Swedish monarchs recognized claims of sovereignty over Sweden by others?

I don't know what you're after with this line of discussion, if I did I might give you a better answer. FWIW I think it would have been extremely retarded by the Union to recognize the Confederacy, but since it didn't we can thankfully ignore that scenario when trying to ascertain the legal status of the conflict as it actually happened.

[Razgovory]

I am quite baffled by this as well.  You stated

How is it not? The Union hadn't declared war. There was no legal entity to be at war with.

This indicates to me that you have some understanding.  There is no legal entity to be at war with.  If the Confederacy was legal entity, why would the US be at war with it?  It can't be because Confederacy controls US territory because if the Confederacy is a legal entity that their claim to the territory is just as good as the US claim if not better.  Is it because the Confederate government shot at US soldiers and took US forts and arsenals?  They were in Confederate territory.

[alfred russel]

But doubling the ANV at the end of the war wouldn't help the south. The ANV was down to 30k because they were losing the war. Twice as many of very little doesn't change anything.

Agreed, though Sherman for example was concerned not that it would change the outcome but extend the war.

But while 30k in 1865 is pointless, in 1863 it increases the ANV's infantry at Gettysburg by 50%.

At a certain point the idea is irrelevant because the war was decided. Early on, for example when Ewell made his recommendation in July 1861, it is irrelevant because there was no conceivable way for it to happen (I can just imagine the response of Jefferson Davis saying, "Hey guys, I know we like slavery, and the north has states with slavery, but we need to free all our slaves.")

I think the interesting question is whether there is a point where it would become possible and there was a chance of it changing the outcome of the war. I think the answer is no. For the south to give up slavery (at least for those slaves and their families willing to fight), they had to understand they were losing. I think that understanding came shockingly late. The Cleburne proposal was in January 1864--whether that could have been accepted and quickly acted upon is highly doubtful, and it is possibly too late to make a difference, but it was probably the most promising option at that point.

[The Brain]

I am quite baffled by this as well.  You stated

How is it not? The Union hadn't declared war. There was no legal entity to be at war with.

This indicates to me that you have some understanding.  There is no legal entity to be at war with.  If the Confederacy was legal entity, why would the US be at war with it?  It can't be because Confederacy controls US territory because if the Confederacy is a legal entity that their claim to the territory is just as good as the US claim if not better.  Is it because the Confederate government shot at US soldiers and took US forts and arsenals?  They were in Confederate territory.

What is your goal with this line of discussion? The scenario where the Confederacy is recognized by the Union doesn't interest me since AFAIK the Union didn't recognize the Confederacy.

[alfred russel]

I imagine Lt. Cushing, twice wounded and using a hand to hold in his intestines, unwilling to leave his battery because there was too little manpower after it had taken 50% casualties, with 12,000 men concentrating their assault on his position, thinking, "thank god this isn't a real war, because the confederacy lacks legitimate legal standing."

[Berkut]

At war with a rebellious section of the country. How is this complicated?

How is it not? The Union hadn't declared war. There was no legal entity to be at war with.

Is the US at war with a single violent criminal? Probably not. A hundred criminals? A hundred thousand criminals? Well... The line isn't obvious to me.

Who says you need a legal entity to be at war with?

And no, the "Union" did not declare war, because there was no such entity, legal or otherwise, defined as the "Union" to begin with - that is just a description of the parts of the United States that were at war with the other parts of the United States that were in a state of rebellion.

There was no declaration of war, because, as you say, there was nobody to declare a legal war against, what with not being able to declare war on yourself and all.

[Berkut]

I am quite baffled by this as well.  You stated

How is it not? The Union hadn't declared war. There was no legal entity to be at war with.

This indicates to me that you have some understanding.  There is no legal entity to be at war with.  If the Confederacy was legal entity, why would the US be at war with it?  It can't be because Confederacy controls US territory because if the Confederacy is a legal entity that their claim to the territory is just as good as the US claim if not better.  Is it because the Confederate government shot at US soldiers and took US forts and arsenals?  They were in Confederate territory.

What is your goal with this line of discussion?

That is a really good question...but one I would direct at you.

I'm not really clear on your point or idea here.

[The Brain]

I am quite baffled by this as well.  You stated

How is it not? The Union hadn't declared war. There was no legal entity to be at war with.

This indicates to me that you have some understanding.  There is no legal entity to be at war with.  If the Confederacy was legal entity, why would the US be at war with it?  It can't be because Confederacy controls US territory because if the Confederacy is a legal entity that their claim to the territory is just as good as the US claim if not better.  Is it because the Confederate government shot at US soldiers and took US forts and arsenals?  They were in Confederate territory.

What is your goal with this line of discussion?

That is a really good question...but one I would direct at you.

I'm not really clear on your point or idea here.

I'm glad you asked (non-sarcastic). My interest stems from a curiosity about legal questions that aren't obvious to me. I find US law especially interesting because law is a subject of lively discourse in the US and things like the Constitution etc actually mean something, which I FWIW find very sound in a society. As an aside, Swedish legal stuff isn't as interesting to me because Swedes don't take law seriously, so what the law says doesn't matter as much. In many American discussions (my experience here and elsewhere) details of law are important and rarely left completely to a "uh but it feels like A...".

And to me it isn't obvious what the legal status of the conflict of the ACW era was in the US. It isn't obvious to me that it was war in a legal sense, and I'm intellectually curious about the legal mechanism that made it a war if in fact it was one.

[alfred russel]

The official US records of the war use the name "War of the Rebellion" if that helps anything.

[The Brain]

At war with a rebellious section of the country. How is this complicated?

How is it not? The Union hadn't declared war. There was no legal entity to be at war with.

Is the US at war with a single violent criminal? Probably not. A hundred criminals? A hundred thousand criminals? Well... The line isn't obvious to me.

Who says you need a legal entity to be at war with?

And no, the "Union" did not declare war, because there was no such entity, legal or otherwise, defined as the "Union" to begin with - that is just a description of the parts of the United States that were at war with the other parts of the United States that were in a state of rebellion.

There was no declaration of war, because, as you say, there was nobody to declare a legal war against, what with not being able to declare war on yourself and all.

So what made it a war in a legal sense?

[The Brain]

My impression from reading history and what little I happen to know about Swedish law is that often putting down rebellions is a domestic police action and the rebels are criminals. I don't know the exact legal situation in the US in the mid-19th century, hence my questions.

[alfred russel]

My impression from reading history and what little I happen to know about Swedish law is that often putting down rebellions is a domestic police action and the rebels are criminals. I don't know the exact legal situation in the US in the mid-19th century, hence my questions.

There were a few reasons the leading confederates weren't tried for crimes:

1) it wouldn't have promoted reconciliation after the war, which was a priority,
2) in the US you get a trial by jury in the place you committed the alleged crime, and a conviction of leading confederates in jury trials to be held in the south was far from certain,
3) for those with military positions, the terms of surrender often included not being tried.

There were a few efforts to prosecute former confederates after the war, but for the most part they went no where.