[4CJ]

If you'll notice the intent of the '64 convention was laid out in the '63 conference. So no, DiLorenzo did not make a mistake. I imagine by '64 Grant was either too drunk or too ignorant to understand so they had to spell it out for him again a little clearer.

ROTFL!

[Non-Sequitur]

Hey, 4CJ, maybe you can help us out here. In the DiLorenzo article that billbears provided the link to, Tommy claims that the "Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army." Now I've looked and looked and I can't find those provisions in any of the conventions that came out of Geneva in either 1863 or 1864. So, do you suppose DiLusional was either too drunk or too ignorant to notice that they were missing? Or was he just plain lying?