Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?
 

I don't think you can compare the Confederate states to Islamic terrorism.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/1...ex.html?hpt=C2

Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. The rationale is irrelevant, it could be something benign like fighting for one independence, but if the tactic used is terrorism, it's the method is wrong, but not the aim.

Now, the KKK was definitely a terrorist organization. Their brutal tactic in spreading fear is a text book definition of what is a terrorist organization.

Ugh. This writer does not understand history nor military philosophy.

Rick Santorum, the former Senator from Pennsylvania who is quite conservative, had this quote in 2006. "Some say we're fighting a war on terror. That's like saying World War II was a war on blitzkrieg. Terror, like blitzkrieg, is a tactic of war used by our enemy; it is not the enemy."

As far as the author of the story that the OP linked to, his argument is very weak. The 3 things that he says are common to the Confederacy and Bin Laden/Taliban are very general and are grievances that are common to many groups, e.g German occupied Holland.

To identify Confederate soldiers with Bin Laden, he had to find things that were unique to the 2 groups, which he didn't because he can't.

i wonder what the british thought of our "patriots."

I've read English texts that refer to our revolution as a rebellion.

THIS...IS...SPARTA!!!!!!!
 

I didn't read the article but have a general statement.

It's all about frame of reference. Such dynamics and hypocrisy go back to the beginning of time--centuries before America even existed.

A lot of things that are considered "patriotism" and "nationalism" by Americans are really just "terrorist" (or something else before terrorism was such an overused term) if viewed from a different lens.

The problem is that America is so used to being the HNIC (Head Nation In Charge) and imposing its power and influence (usually by force rather than charisma) on other nations. This is one reason why every instance of another nation imposing its power on America has gone down in history. Sept. 11 was horrific and still saddens and outrages me. But, I also can't say definitively that America has never done a version of that to another country REGARDLESS of the supposed reason behind doing it.

I agree.

When rebels win, it is a revolution. When rebels lose, it's a civil war.

I think the author is comparing oranges to apples. More Union soldiers fought in the Southlands than Confederates in the North. If you have to name a Confederate terrorist, it would be Moseby's Rangers, but when you consider Sherman, that's a stretch.

*Whacking myself upside the head!*

Terrorism according to webster is The CSA fought a defensive war for the most part. The Union attacked them in order to preserve the Union, not the other way around.

Sorry Vito, I love you to pieces, but I hate hate hate hate hate that definition of terrorism. This is why there are 800bajillion definitions - all of them are wrong.

But I agree with your point.

If Sherman's soldiers didn't engage in terrorist tactics, then I don't know who did! And I totally agree about the KKK ...

"Confederates for their involvement in the Civil War -- which was based on the desire to continue slavery" ...That's what the whole civil war was about?

Just like any other war, it was fought for the same old reason: Money. In this case, the use of slavery was part of the money. Yet, when Abraham Lincoln signed the Emacipation Proclamation, it did NOT free any slaves in non-Confederate states. And don't get me started on how the Maryland Legistlature wasn't permitted to hold a vote on joining the CSA. Lincoln himself was fond of the "n" word.

Well while everybody focuses on slavery, it was actually a relatively minor issue. The South wanted the right to govern themselves, especially with internal issues like slavery. Lincoln didn't really care about the slaves. He fought to preserve the Union.

On an unrelated note:

If you want to protest the Confederate flag because of it's somehow connection to "slavery" and "racism" (both false, but whatever), then perhaps you should be protesting the American flag...which was the flag flying on the ships which brought the slaves here.

Just a thought.


And no, the Confederates were acting defensively and we're occupied territory. Sort of like Iraq or Afghanistan now.

Maybe some people protest the Confederate flag because of its connection, not necessarily to slavery, but its connection to violence from terrorist organizations that are still allowed to demonstrate hatred towards other Americans (true, but whatever). Just a thought.

And my random thought is I wonder how it would have changed history if the French got involved in the Civil War like they almost did, joining the South. Hmm, we'd probably be divided like European countires. Maybe, maybe not.

This.

Yep, which is why I don't celebrate Lincoln. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

As for the rumors that he was mixed with Black, that may or may not be true, but a lot of people were (secretly) mixed with Black then and now. We have enough people of the African diaspora in the world. We don't need to go fishing for any more.

While I think you have a point, I wouldn't go so far as to say slavery was "relatively minor." There were a number of factors that led to the war -- economics (as honey has mentioned) and differing constitutional understandings and ideas of federalism being among the leading factors. But these factors were all inter-related, and slavery was deeply woven into the woof and warp of them all.

While it's probably not accurate to say the slavery was the reason for the war, I don't think it's accurate either to say it was a relatively minor issue. It was the common denominator in all the factors the lead to the war.

Yeah yeah yeah. As some one born and raised in the south...about as Southern as you can get really, the protestations that the Confederate flag doesn't represent a racist ideology. It may not mean that to every person, but its meaning has been purposefully tainted to become offensive to black people and other non-white, Protestant minorities. When I was in high school, a bunch of senior boys ran around with t-shirts air brushed with a confederate flag on the front emblazoned with "It's a white the you wouldn't understand" with KKK nicknames on the back like "Grand Wizard." They almost started a race war all because they didn't like the t-shirts the black kids wore that said "It's a black thing you wouldn't understand" and "A Black mind is a terrible thing to waste."
personally, I wish the south would stop wallowing in the "glory" of the civil war. It's over...we lost. Get over it already and move on!

This isn't the Confederate Flag, itself. This is people's dumbness being added on.

Not every Black person is offended by the Confederate Flag. I, for one, am not.

What has always bothered me is this. Why did South Carolina have the right to secede from Great Britain in 1776, but did not have the right to secede from the United States in 1860?

Either they had the right both times or they did not have the right both times. To say that they had the right one time but not the other is Special Pleading.

This is going to sound worse than I intended, but perhaps you should.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession.htm
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/missi...eclaration.asp
http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordi...n.htm#Virginia

There wasn't a state in the Confederacy that didn't include slavery or 'the right to own property' as one of it's reasons for secession from the Union.In fact, most of the Confederate states identified themselves as slave-holding states in thier letters of secession as to distinguish themselves from the North. If the Confederate flag represents the Confederacy, the the Confederate flag reperesents slavery.
Of course you have the right not to be offended. But understand you are in the shrinking minority especially after the recent comments by the governors of Miss. and Virginia.

Not at all. While the two actions have some similarities, they also have differences.

South Carolina didn't "secede" from the United Kingdon in 1776, it declared its independence from the UK. It was a colony of the UK, not a constituent part of the UK. And the only "right" it possessed to declare its independence was what some might describe as a moral or natural right. There certainly was no legal right. Independence was won only by revolution and by treaty at the end of a war.

By contrast, South Carolina in 1860 had ratified the Constitution and thereby esyablished itself as one of the United States. South Carolina's actions in 1860 brought what before had been a hypothetical constitutional question to a head: Could a state that had ratified the Constitution later withdraw that ratification.

Following the Civil War, the Supreme Court in Texas v White held that once a state has entered the Union by ratification of the Constitution, it cannot revoke that ratification. Note this portion (with emphasis added):

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Based on this, the Court held that the articles of secession were null and void as a matter of law.

France and Great Britain also had slaves but, their flags didn't/don't represent slavery. I just think the Rebel flag represents violence. At least it does, now.

Agreed.^^ Personally, I don't think the Confederates were terrorists as much as they were traitors to the United States of America who committted treason. Just because they were never charged, doesn't mean the acts were legal.

Ugh. I always hate having/reading confederate flag discussions close to prom season because all I can think about is this:


http://slrc.sitemirror.us/site/image...bflagdress.jpg

That's a little brash, given how much the man did for the country at that time. And yes, he was for ending slavery. One of the factors to the lead up to sucession was Lincolns winning of the election. It was known that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery while he was in office, it wasn't until war was obviously coming did he put that aside and focused on preserving the union.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it...

Don't get me wrong - I think Lincoln was a skillful and one of the best Presidents. I just get sick to death of the constant diefication of him at times, especially for things he didn't say or do.

I get your point and agree about "constant deification." Lincoln was human, just like the rest of us.

But I do think if you're going to use that quote, it needs to be used in context. Standing alone it can convey quite a different meaning from what I think Lincoln intended.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

Glad you brought that up because I had to pull this link last week:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp

Yeah, which is what people don't understand. Slavery in it's self, he didn't care one way or another. Only reason he destroyed slavery was that he felt that was the only way he could preserve the Union. I do agree with the constant deification, but I do admire him. He was a hard man, and took his oath to protect and serve the constitution very seriously.

Again, I think this is an overstatement. He said very clearly in the "Peoria Speech" (1854, concering the repeal of the Missouri Compromise) that slavery was a "monstrous injustice." He was an abolitionist, albeit an abolitionist who valued political expediency.

He did care one way or the other. It's just that once secession and war were realities, he cared much more about preserving the Union, and everything else was viewed through the lens of whether it would hasten or delay, secure or end any chance of the preservation of the Union.

I wrote my comment to express my belief in self determination for all people, even Southerners if they chose to exercise it, and the logical problems to which that those who deny self determination must resort. Notice that I do not refer to any legal problems, since we know that any great evil done by a government is always legal to that government and its courts.

Since you took some time to declare me wrong and since your reply is a good example of these problems, I will respond.

Considering the Colonies - America, Great Britain and South Carolina in particular. After we abstract away the redundant, we get this.

SC can leave GB but SC cannot leave A because we are A. This is the definition of Special Pleading i.e. we can do it to them, but you can not do it to us, because we are special.

Except in the case of Virginia and its western counties. V can leave GB but V can not leave A because we are A, except that the western counties of V can leave V because they like A. Twice Special Pleading.

This is a common myth, though.

Slavery was practiced worldwide before the Americans did it. That didn't make everyone else right either. America gets the 'Bloodiest Hands" award because of the extremity, not because we did it.

American slavery was unique to modern times because of it totality, it's brutality, it's lenght and it's depth. No other race in modern times was killed and/or enslaved on sight, and subjugated to a systematical erasure of it's culture,history and religion. Not to mention the whole raping thing.

It has been well documented the differences between pre-colonial slavery and the Middle Passage. More than a few researchers have concluded that the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery simply could not fathom the level of brutuality that was to occur, simply becasue it hadn't happened since Biblical times.

No, it's not special pleading, it's a different situation to begin with. It's different because SC did not have the same relation to the UK as it did/does to the US. The political relationships were different at the outset.

It's also not the same because SC did not secede from the UK, it revolted. There is a difference between the two. If you'll note, Texas v White pretty much says that states can't secede and that the only way they can sever ties with the Union is with the consent of the other states or revolution. By that Supreme Court holding, it would appear that SC could leave the Union exactly the way it left the UK -- not by secession but by revolution.

I see what you're saying in terms of logical problems and philosophical considerations. But when you term it as "rights," I don't think it's surprising for a response to be framed from a legal perspective.

You're new here. Girard is nothing more than the latest incarnation of a guy who's been banned so many times we've all lost count. If the past is any indication, a mod will ban him and delete all of his posts before midnight.

It's best not to feed him. ;)