Page 1 of 1

Treaty of peace concerning the "Civil War"

Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 1:46 am
by Geod Manson
What is the name of the treaty of peace concerning the Civil war?

Re: Treaty of peace concerning the "Civil War"

Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 6:55 pm
by Logos
As far as I know, there wasn't one; it was just a military surrender.

Re: Treaty of peace concerning the "Civil War"

Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 8:12 pm
by Geod Manson
What happens when there is just a military surrender, but there is no treaty of peace?
Does that mean that without a treaty of peace the military that has surrendered to the other military is now occupied by the winning military force or army?

Re: Treaty of peace concerning the "Civil War"

Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 8:35 pm
by Geod Manson
A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest.

The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law.

Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander in chief; or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same.


Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.

The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority.

Martial Law is simply military authority exercised in accordance with the laws and usages of war. Military oppression is not Martial Law: it is the abuse of the power which that law confers. As Martial Law is executed by military force, it is incumbent upon those who administer it to be strictly guided by the principles of justice, honor, and humanity - virtues adorning a soldier even more than other men, for the very reason that he possesses the power of his arms against the unarmed.

Martial Law should be less stringent in places and countries fully occupied and fairly conquered. Much greater severity may be exercised in places or regions where actual hostilities exist, or are expected and must be prepared for. Its most complete sway is allowed - even in the commander's own country - when face to face with the enemy, because of the absolute necessities of the case, and of the paramount duty to defend the country against invasion.

To save the country is paramount to all other considerations.

All civil and penal law shall continue to take its usual course in the enemy's places and territories under Martial Law, unless interrupted or stopped by order of the occupying military power; but all the functions of the hostile government - legislative executive, or administrative - whether of a general, provincial, or local character, cease under Martial Law, or continue only with the sanction, or, if deemed necessary, the participation of the occupier or invader.

Martial Law extends to property, and to persons, whether they are subjects of the enemy or aliens to that government.

Consuls, among American and European nations, are not diplomatic agents. Nevertheless, their offices and persons will be subjected to Martial Law in cases of urgent necessity only: their property and business are not exempted. Any delinquency they commit against the established military rule may be punished as in the case of any other inhabitant, and such punishment furnishes no reasonable ground for international complaint.

Martial Law affects chiefly the police and collection of public revenue and taxes, whether imposed by the expelled government or by the invader, and refers mainly to the support and efficiency of the army, its safety, and the safety of its operations.

Whenever feasible, Martial Law is carried out in cases of individual offenders by Military Courts; but sentences of death shall be executed only with the approval of the chief executive, provided the urgency of the case does not require a speedier execution, and then only with the approval of the chief commander.

Military jurisdiction is of two kinds: First, that which is conferred and defined by statute; second, that which is derived from the common law of war. Military offenses under the statute law must be tried in the manner therein directed; but military offenses which do not come within the statute must be tried and punished under the common law of war. The character of the courts which exercise these jurisdictions depends upon the local laws of each particular country.

In the armies of the United States the first is exercised by courts-martial, while cases which do not come within the "Rules and Articles of War," or the jurisdiction conferred by statute on courts-martial, are tried by military commissions.

A victorious army, by the martial power inherent in the same, may suspend, change, or abolish, as far as the martial power extends, the relations which arise from the services due, according to the existing laws of the invaded country, from one citizen, subject, or native of the same to another.

The commander of the army must leave it to the ultimate treaty of peace to settle the permanency of this change.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_centur ... r.asp#art1

My question is.
In a time where Martial law is in force upon an occupied land or country, Where no "treaty of peace" has been agreed to.
What holds a higher power? "Territorial Jurisdiction" or "Martial law"?

Re: Treaty of peace concerning the "Civil War"

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 5:16 pm
by Logos
Geod Manson wrote:
Thu Jan 02, 2020 8:12 pm
What happens when there is just a military surrender, but there is no treaty of peace?
Does that mean that without a treaty of peace the military that has surrendered to the other military is now occupied by the winning military force or army?
I think so. The territorial gov't now has a military apparatus capped on top to keep it in line.

Re: Treaty of peace concerning the "Civil War"

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 5:55 pm
by Logos
Geod Manson wrote:
Thu Jan 02, 2020 8:35 pm
My question is.
In a time where Martial law is in force upon an occupied land or country, Where no "treaty of peace" has been agreed to.
What holds a higher power? "Territorial Jurisdiction" or "Martial law"?
I knew it had to be the Lieber Code. The Martial Law apparatus is really for the gov't, than the people directly. I'd say either TJ or Martial Law can have the ascendency, depending on the situation and what you're trying to do.

The Martial Law in effect is ultimately for our benefit, I think. The Martial Law apparatus has to work through the civil gov't framework, for the most part--at least in how it relates to us, as far as I can tell.