Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

[naraht]

As far as I've been able to tell, there was almost no difference in the rules of war that the Confederates fought under versus the ones that the Union fought under (and *those* were not that different than the ones in the European wars of the 1850's,'60s and '70s such as the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War).

As far as I can tell, a *higher* percentage of the Confederate generals were West Point graduates than the Union generals. Grant not only didn't take Lee into custody when Lee surrendered, he didn't even take Lee's sword when offered. General Grant afforded General Lee the highest respect at his surrender, I don't think there is any indication that Grant considered Lee anything close to a terrorist. (And was certainly willing to be seen with him after the war)

To pick some examples given earlier...

Grant: The major difference between Grant and Lee was that Grant was willing to use the fact that his troops outnumbered Lee's by a large enough ratio that he could lose a greater number of troops than Lee in battle and still be better off. If Grant had 9K troops and Lee 6K and during battle Grant lost 5K troops and Lee 4K, then Grant is in even better shape after the battle (now 4K to 2K) than he was before. The confederacy simply didn't have the troops. Prior Union Generals had been unwilling to make that decision.

Sherman: What Sherman did wasn't terrorism, it was rather "total war", During Sherman's march to the Sea, and especially during the trip North after he got to Savannah, people were *very* aware he was coming. If you personally got out of the way, you were fine. Your removable property, OTOH....

Mosby's Raiders. The confederates considered themselves partisans, and they *were* under the CSA command structure. The Union tended to refer to them as guerillas or at worst "thieves".

There was only *one* confederate official convicted of War Crimes and executed and *he* (Henry Wirz) wasn't even on the battlefield (commandant of the Andersonville POW camp). (Frankly, I think he was more overwhelmed and neglectful than anything else, but that's a separate issue).

Having said all this, I am *quite glad* the confederacy lost.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by naraht

As far as I've been able to tell, there was almost no difference in the rules of war that the Confederates fought under versus the ones that the Union fought under (and *those* were not that different than the ones in the European wars of the 1850's,'60s and '70s such as the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War).

As far as I can tell, a *higher* percentage of the Confederate generals were West Point graduates than the Union generals. Grant not only didn't take Lee into custody when Lee surrendered, he didn't even take Lee's sword when offered. General Grant afforded General Lee the highest respect at his surrender, I don't think there is any indication that Grant considered Lee anything close to a terrorist. (And was certainly willing to be seen with him after the war)

To pick some examples given earlier...

Grant: The major difference between Grant and Lee was that Grant was willing to use the fact that his troops outnumbered Lee's by a large enough ratio that he could lose a greater number of troops than Lee in battle and still be better off. If Grant had 9K troops and Lee 6K and during battle Grant lost 5K troops and Lee 4K, then Grant is in even better shape after the battle (now 4K to 2K) than he was before. The confederacy simply didn't have the troops. Prior Union Generals had been unwilling to make that decision.

Sherman: What Sherman did wasn't terrorism, it was rather "total war", During Sherman's march to the Sea, and especially during the trip North after he got to Savannah, people were *very* aware he was coming. If you personally got out of the way, you were fine. Your removable property, OTOH....

Mosby's Raiders. The confederates considered themselves partisans, and they *were* under the CSA command structure. The Union tended to refer to them as guerillas or at worst "thieves".

There was only *one* confederate official convicted of War Crimes and executed and *he* (Henry Wirz) wasn't even on the battlefield (commandant of the Andersonville POW camp). (Frankly, I think he was more overwhelmed and neglectful than anything else, but that's a separate issue).

Having said all this, I am *quite glad* the confederacy lost.

Nicely put. I only want to add a little to what you so superbly explained.

Grant, Lee, Johnston, Sherman and others all served together in the Mexican/American War. They were all very familiar with each other and that is a huge factor in the way Lee and Johnston were treated when they surrendered. The Generals considered themselves "Brothers in Arms".

My understanding is that Sherman did not really want his troops to lay waste during the "March to the Sea". Instead some believe that he was a weak disciplinarian and would not stop what was being done.

Per Moseby's Raiders one must remember that the Cavalry during this time was designed to circle behind the armies and disrupt supply lines tear up communications and create holy hell. They lived off what they could steal and/or take. Both sides did it as evidenced also by Colonel Benjamin Griersons extended cavalry raid through Mississippi during the flanking of Vicksburg. These were search and destroy missions from both sides.

To a previous posters concern about France coming in on the side of the Confederates. The real concern was Great Britain helping the South. France was very weak at the time and did not pose too much of a threat. Too many wars of conquest and too many defeats. Witness the defeat of the French at the Battle of Puebla in Mexico while under Napolean the Thirds reign.