3 ms·
More specifically, if it demoralizes the leadership (Lincoln, and Congress), then they could surrender. Any Union generals still fighting after that are war cri
by NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
More specifically, if it demoralizes the leadership (Lincoln, and Congress), then they could surrender. Any Union generals still fighting after that are war criminals and the Union's leadership is obligated to stop them and put them on trial.
Or leadership could remain defiant, and they're little more than hostages. Disruptive to the war effort, but hardly the end of things.
- denton-scratch 3y agoGoing on fighting after your leaders have surrendered isn't a war-crime. It might be an ordinary crime, depending on what the law says.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoPretending to surrender, then not surrendering very much is a war crime. So the leadership gets to decide whether to be war criminals, or to go prosecute those who refuse as ordinary (or extraordinary?) criminals.
- denton-scratch 3y ago> Pretending to surrender, then not surrendering very much is a war crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(military)#False_surrender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(military)#False_sur... The very notion of a "war crime" only arrived in the 20thC. More generally (as Wikipedia notes) the act amounts to perfidy, which isn't a crime anywhere I know about.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoI don't know the etymology of the term, but claiming that the idea itself didn't exist until the 20th is absurd. I see no point in arguing with you anymore. So that you can feel better, you're 100% absolutely right, and you won this argument with me and all future arguments because of your plainly superior intellect and bright, friendly personality. Game over. Goodbye.