home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.military
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ciss!law7!military
- From: David Spencer <spencer@panix.com>
- Subject: Re: Internal/External (was Re: Scope of Action-US Military)
- Message-ID: <C1H2zy.FCG@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Sender: military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Sci.Military Login)
- Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
- References: <C19nxy.3Fz@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> <C1F7Aw.LDI@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:52:46 GMT
- Approved: military@law7.daytonoh.ncr.com
- Lines: 60
-
-
- From David Spencer <spencer@panix.com>
-
- >From PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.EDU>
-
- >: >Yes, I have, though I thought since the Confederacy seceeded from the
- >: >Union, they weren't considered a part of the United States any more (de
- >: >facto, a foreign power, thus within the scope of the ability of Congress
- >: >to declare war.)
-
- The United States did not declare war. That would have implied a
- foreign sovereign, which of course the US denied. It was an
- insurrection.
-
- >This discussion has led into another interesting area. At what point in a
- >rebellion does the issue stop being an internal affair, and in theory not the
- >concern of third parties, and become a dispute between nations.
-
- Practical answer: when third parties get interested for their own
- reasons. France intervened in the American Revolution when it saw that
- the US had a chance of winning if France intervened, and it could see
- that it might accrue some benefit from intervention (whether or not
- the US won).
-
- Technical anwswer (I don't have the conventions immediately to hand,
- so this is by memory): A belligerent need not be a sovereign to
- entitle its soldiers to the benefits of the conventions or to the
- customary international law of belligerency. I believe the test is
- whether the soldier is subject to military discipline and conspicuously
- identifies himself as a combatant. (One normally does this by wearing a
- uniform, although the IRA has been trying to push the envelope on this
- for years.)
-
- >It could be argued that the Confederacy showed almost all the attributes of
- >a sovereign state and, therefore, alliance with a European power would have
- >not constituted interference with internal U.S. affairs. The critical area
- >that the South never controlled was its own foreign trade, which the North
- >kept under its control with the crude tool of a blockade.
-
- Lincoln early on decided to treat the rebels as belligerents, at least
- insofar as granting them the normal rights of prisoners. As I've
- pointed out before, however, it's a very good idea to treat your
- prisoners well. If you give them the choice of a (reasonably)
- comfortable captivity, they're less likely to fight to the last man
- and bullet than if you tell them you're going to hang them for
- treason.
-
- The Trent affair reinforced this decision ....
-
- BTW, in the early stages of the war, Lincoln was somewhat careful
- about what he called the "blockade". He was concerned that "blockade",
- as an act of war, might be interpreted as recognition of rebel
- sovereignty. He also was (correctly) advised that neutrals need not
- respect a blockade if the blockade cannot be made effective. Until
- well into the war, the USN did not have the vessels to make it
- effective. If he called it "policing the coast", he didn't (in theory)
- need to make it effective.
-
- dhs spencer@panix.com
-
-