Front cover

pdf iconDownload PDF
 

Copyright

pdf iconDownload PDF
 

Contents

pdf iconDownload PDF
 

read more

Introduction: Crisis at Baltimore

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 1-8

Fort Sumter fell on April 14, 1861. Five days later, pro-Confederate mobs attacked Massachusetts infantry traveling through Baltimore en route to Washington, D.C., and the troops returned fire. To prevent further movement of U.S. troops through Baltimore, railroad bridges connecting that city to Washington and the North had been burned, not by saboteurs or guerrillas, but by organized members of the Maryland state militia acting with the approval of the mayor of Baltimore and the governor of the state. ...

read more

1. "With the Law of War in Time of War": Applying International Law to a Civil War

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 9-33

At the beginning of the Civil War, Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln had diametrically opposed views on the nature of the conflict and the laws that should apply to the conduct of hostilities and the treatment of enemy persons. The Confederate government argued that it represented an independent nation at war with another independent nation, and that their relations were regulated solely by international ...

read more

2. "Property, Both of Enemies and Friends, May Be Taken When Needed": Seizure and Destruction of Civilian Property

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 35-51

One of Lincoln’s earliest acts as commander in chief was to promise respect for the property of enemy civilians. In his proclamation of April 15, 1861, calling out 75,000 militia for federal service after the fall of Fort Sumter, the president deemed it proper to state that when these forces sought to repossess the forts, places, and property seized from the United States by the rebels, “the utmost care will be observed . . . to ...

read more

3. "Strong Measures, Deemed Indispensible but Harsh at Best": Retaliation and Guerrilla Warfare

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 53-76

Most of the house burning that bothered the president had been carried out, by both sides, as acts of “retaliation.” In theory, each was a response to a violation of the laws and customs of war by the other side, intended to deter future violations. Article 27 of the Lieber Code expressed the prevailing view: “The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation than can the law of nations, of which it is a branch. ...

read more

4. "War, at the Best, Is Terrible": Devastation and Command Responsibility

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 77-99

In defense of the order authorizing his soldiers to live off the land, General John Pope’s official report on his 1862 campaign in Virginia asserted that orders to subsist off the country were “common in the history of warfare” and that his orders were “well calculated to secure efficient and rapid operations of the army, and, in case of reverse, to leave the enemy without the means of subsisting in the country over which our army had passed, and over which any pursuit must be conducted.” Although ...

read more

5. "Can You Get Near Enough to Throw Shells into the City?": Personal Injury to Civilians

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 101-118

When President Lincoln wrote the order of April 25, 1861, authorizing bombardment of Baltimore, he may not have realized the full implications of the power he was giving General Winfield Scott. Errors in the order that are apparent when the full text is read suggest that it was written in haste and excitement: ...

read more

Conclusion: “Government Should Not Act for Revenge”

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 119-128

Under the standards of his time, President Lincoln did not authorize or condone any violations of the laws of war against enemy civilians. Beyond this generalization, the record suggests additional conclusions that may be drawn on Lincoln’s policies toward Southern civilians and how those policies reflect his leadership style and personality. ...

Notes

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 129-154

Index

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 155-165