Lucid points, well delivered; thank you.

But I shall continue to man my position until completely overrun.

I concede to your points regarding "law" as commonly perceived. But how to define "law"? Common decency and accepted behavior dictate that I might not kill my neighbor; most religions bar it as well; lofty tomes from great pens denounce it; yet only Kentucky statute 1798.1815.1 really keeps me from doing so, in no uncertain terms. Enforcement and punishment mean "law" to me.

I readily grant that popular conventions of behavior, both for officers and men, (though I think the differences between the two do exist) dictated a more restrained level of violence. But let Mr. Graves accuse the French in Spain, but the same men, professional officers, were guilty of spectacular murder at Ballinamuck in 1798. There, the French were accorded every courtesy and protection after their surrender, yet the Irish rebels were murdered with glee. General Lake, still smarting from Castlebar, and everyone's Peninsular darling Black Bob Craufurd felt no constraint in ordering (ordering, now, not just allowing) the slaughter of surrendering Irish rebels. The penultimate professional, Cornwallis, would have prevented it, if only he had reached the field.

"Tradition" allowed that slaughter, and the demonization of the Irish gave it more more force. The "laws of war", that most hollow of phrases, were ignored there, and in countless other instances.

I'm growing preachy; my excuses. Sure and its the tea talking.

With my respect and regards........Mark