Did the Union soldiers commit war crimes against the south during the Civil War?

Question

In reading up on the American civil war, i am trying to find a legal justification for the burning of Atlanta, but can't. My history professor insists the Union was justified in its actions. Could the burning of Atlanta be concidered a war crime? I suppose the Unions and Confederacy were equally guilty in mistreatment of POWs....But it just seems that history books play down the way the union mistreated southerners..My Prof insists i am mistaken-for one thing, he maintains the south had no right to declare independence- I think their action was actually supported by the Constitution...Again, my Prof insists i am wrong...

Did the Union soldiers shoot only Confederate soldiers, or did they shoot civilians as well?

Answer 1

I was taught that the Confederate soldiers set fire to the warehouses at Five Points in Atlanta to keep the Union men from getting the food, clothing, ammunition, and other provisions that were stored there. The fire (naturally) spread rapidly.
As for war crimes committed by the Union soldiers, I guess that depends who you ask. My great great grandmother left a diary saying that she understood they needed food for the men, but didn't understand why they burned the immature cotton (I guess so it couldn't be sold later) or why they broke furniture and dishes in the homes they forced their way into, or set fire to the ones they couldn't get in, with the occupants still inside. I can't think of a justification for that.

Answer 2

Your professor is correct that the Union did not commit war crimes, but not because the actions were justified. The reason is that there was no such thing as a "war crime" then. No ex post facto and all that jazz.

However...if you presume that the Union position was correct that the South could not secede under the Constitution, then the actions of General Sherman and all under him in killing everything that moved and burning everything made by man were, indeed, crimes.

If the Civil War was indeed a war, it could only be so because the South did have the right to secede. If they did, then the war was an illegal war, an invasion of a sovereign state. If they did not have the right to secede, then the only valid opponents were the insurrectionists, and hostilities against anyone else would be a criminal assault on US Citizens.

By the way... the 9th and 10th Amendment say that the South did have the right to secede. Since the Union was not made permanent, the right to leave at will was reserved by the states.

edit: Sherman didn't just burn Atlanta. He burned everything on the way there, too.

Spice is almost correct on the treatment of the postwar South. Native Americans were treated worse, but no other defeated enemy besides them were treated worse. The "Reconstruction" totally vindicated the desire of the South to have no further part of the Union.

Answer 3

I believe Sherman burned Atlanta because that is where the South's major railroad hub was. Medicine was "contraband" per Lincoln, so the South wanted Union doctor's to cross the line and treat the Union prisoners. This was rejected as the Union felt the doctors would be signing their own death certificates.The Union felt that if the south had more and more mouths to feed as prisoners, this would shorten the war. The Union generals gave orders to devastate crop fields in the south so there would be a food shortage. Ports were blockaded and soon the south was starving. Also with misuse of the Union prisoners circulating in the North where the war had become unpopular, people became enraged and thus the war was prolonged. There were rejections as to prisoner exchanges because the Union believed that the resources of the south would be further depleted. In 1864 the Southern official tried to institute the return of all prisoners but this was also rejected as a step to make the south surrender.With lack of food, supplies and medications the prisoners died in great numbers. As far as secession, I personally feel the south had the right to secede but many people at that time felt that democracy forbids secession and in order for a democracy to work all involved must accept majority rule.

Answer 4

well...

a professor has a viewpoint and an opinion just like anyone else. what matters if his viewpoint effects the way he tests the class on the presentation of his materials.

whats interesting is the viewpoints of professors in the regions where they teach. In southern Mississippi colleges, the view point was that the south was totally justified in succeeding from the union. In the northern college i attended, the opposite was true. both sides made excellent defenses on the position by the way. Personally, i believe the south was right. so this is my opinion: but it does not effect things either way.

on whether Atlanta was deliberately burned by Sherman is quite a controversy: some say it was the southerners burning the supplies that got out of hand, some say the unions did it as retaliation. perhaps this piece kinda determines that it may have been as the result of evacuation of the city of citizens, and the removal of it war related industries:

" With four Corps of troops in two columns, in November 1864, Sherman began his infamous March to the Sea. Prior to leaving Atlanta, he set fire to munitions factories, railroad yards, clothing mills, and other targets that could be resourceful to the Confederacy. Sherman never intended to burn the whole city, but the fire got out of hand and spread throughout the city."

this was probably due to his enforced evacuation of the people that could have stopped the fires.

Sherman wrote at least one letter that i have found that exactly lays out his intentions. although intended for the city council of Atlanta, it pretty much spelled out his whole philosophy and intentions for the south. you can read it at the below link.

a war crime? i don't believe so. burning city's had been a favorite tactic of every conqueror known to man. Even the people of Richmond burned their city least it be given to the Union whole.

Answer 5

Not only did the Union conduct warfare on the civilians of the Confederacy at the time of the war, but discriminatory practices stayed in place for years and years. Never has the US treated a defeated people in the punitive way the South was treated.

You are right and your professor is mistaken.

Shooting civilians might have been more humane than starving them. I don't know the factual answer first hand, but Sherman's troops were marauders whose mission was to lay waste to the South and leave a swath of destruction. They took the war to the civilian population. That was the strategy, not the effect of "collateral damage."'

Answer 6

The US did commit war crimes against the Confederate States of American, both military and civilian. The only reason session of the CSA did not succeed was by might, not right.

The people of the South are still mistreated today. We are like other subject peoples in the world where the victors want to keep us in our place and ever under their heel. But, like the Irish, we will overcome and gain our independence.

Answer 7

American Civil War Crimes

Answer 8

War crimes? War crimes under what document? The Geneva convention that happened a few hundred years later?

"All is fair in love and war."

The guy below me is a moron... the "crackers" are evil? Didn't we fight for the freedom of the black man?

Pfft.

Answer 9

It's over. They're all dead. Happy? And, yes, the Crackers are still inherently evil beasts. Why do you think real estate is so cheap down there??! Har.