and the hostile country itself with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit. " They agree "that it is a violation of the laws of war and the principles of humanity to murder, enslave, or carry off to distant parts private citizens, and that the inoffensive individual should be as little disturbed in his private relations as the commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling exigencies of a vigorous war. " They agree "that it was in remote times, and continues to be with vindictive, malignant, and savage armies at the present time, the rule that the private individual of the hostile country is destined to suffer every provision of liberty and protection and every disruption of family ties, and that in modern regular wars of the Europeans and" portions of "their descendants in other portions of the globe"-candor will not allow us to say all of their descendants-"protection of the inoffensive citizen of the hostile country is the rule, and privation and disturbance of private relations is the exception. " They acknowledge "that when men take up arms against one another in a public war they do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God.
These principles condemn the murder of non-combatants; the pillage of the farms and houses of persons who are not engaged in the war; the destruction of implements of husbandry, growing crops, mills, houses, fruit trees, and the filling up and destruction of ports and harbors of refuge; the expulsion of old men, women, and children, with limited supplies of money and clothing from their homes; the violation of cartels relative to the exchange of prisoners; the detention of prisoners for weeks and months, and even years, after their exchange, and the inciting of slaves to insurrection.
Had not other articles upon the mode of prosecuting the war than those been published by the Government of the United States, Order Numbers 100 would have been regarded as a solemn rebuke by the compilers of its code to those military authorities by whom and to whom it is addressed of their conduct and practices during this war. The assertion of dogmas of another class become, therefore, necessary to afford some sort of an apology for this conduct and these practices.
I proceed to sate these, that the two contradictory and opposed systems of what are designated as instructions, and what are selected as established rules and usages of war, may be confronted. "Military necessity," says Order Numbers 100, "admits of all direct destruction of life and limb of armed enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to the hostile Government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of al withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of appropriation of whatever an enemy's country affords for the subsistence and safety of the army, and of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good faith, positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into during the war, ore modern law of war to exist. " "War is not carried on by arms alone. It is lawful to starve the hostile belligerents, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy. " "Commanders, whenever admissible, inform the enemy of their intention to bombard a place, so that non-combatants, and especially the women and children, may be removed before the bombardment commences; but it