Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UofM-TKE

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.

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.

[UofM-TKE]

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.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UofM-TKE

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.

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.

[UofM-TKE]

Since you have twice chosen to inform me that I am in error, I will reply again.

An American 'legal perspective' is completely irrelevant to a Human Rights issue. The fundamental Human Right of Self Determination is independent of any court. In particular, it is independent of the American Supreme Court. Humanity has the right to choose their own form of government no matter what the USSC says. They had this right before the USSC came into existence and they will have it when the USSC is history.

Quoting a USSC decision from just after the war is merely Victor's Justice. If Ewell had taken Culp's Hill at Gettysburg, that case would never have been heard. But in any case, the hearing of it or the non-hearing do not effect the right of people to govern themselves.

In logic, we abstract away to get at the underlying form of the argument. Many words that seem different are really the same from the point of view of the analysis of the form of an argument. Saying that secede and revolt are different is ingenuous as born out by the firing on Fort Sumpter, which was surely a revolt. Both words can be abstracted to leave. Then saying that the US has the right to leave GB, but that the South cannot leave the US, is the very definition of Special Pleading.

Saying that the relationship was different, is irrelevant. No mater what the previous form of the relationship, we all have a right to Self Determination which is a right not granted by the USSC, but rather by, in Jefferson's words "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".

Since you keep using the wrong name for England at that time, I will expand on that. In 1776, our opponent was Great Britain. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland came into existence on Jan 1, 1801, at least from the English point of view. From the Irish point of view, it was meaningless as the native Irish recognized neither the Kingdom Of Ireland nor the UK. The Irish, the Americans and every other country within the British Empire and every other place on earth had the right of Self Determination which did not depend upon any court.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[XODUS1914]

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.

[SydneyK]

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

[DaemonSeid]

@VandalSquirrel I heard of him and if I remember correctly he had to retract a whole lot of that hooey he said.

He's anti gay too if memory serves...

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

@VandalSquirrel I heard of him and if I remember correctly he had to retract a whole lot of that hooey he said.

He's anti gay too if memory serves...

Oh the school he runs is just strange, I love the code of conduct about narcing on others and not listening to popular music.

[DaemonSeid]

One last point too...compared to the man who beat his dog to death, well:

1. When you are, in some instances, paying tax on a property, what does it benefit you to kill it and lose all that hard earned money that you spent getting that free labor/breeding program out of?

and on the other hand...

2. How many acounts are there of slave masters killing their slaves and no one batted an eye?

[XODUS1914]

Naraht - Very good synopsis. It's always nice to read the thoughts another CW history Buff. Sherman's actions after Atlanta was as you described, but many Southerners would beg to differ as far as the Atlanta Siege is concerned. Ultimately though, he was looking to destroy property primarily. However, Atlanta civilians did die at his hand, and so , he is the target of many a Southern ire. I have heard him being referred to as a terrorist because of these actions.

[starang21]

LMAO @ comparing slavery.

da hell?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UofM-TKE

Since you have twice chosen to inform me that I am in error, I will reply again

Wow. Taking this too seriously much? People can't disagree and discuss?

But if you want to be informed that you are in error . . .

Since you keep using the wrong name for England at that time, I will expand on that. In 1776, our opponent was Great Britain. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland came into existence on Jan 1, 1801. . . .

The United Kingdom of Great Britain (England/Wales and Scotland) came into existence with the Acts of Union, effective May 1, 1707. They had, of course, shared a monarch (personal union) since the accession of James VI of Scotland as James I of England in 1603, but the Acts of Union created political union, with a single parliament, between the two kingdoms. England and Scotland (and Wales), nevertheless remain separate countries, despite being one state. The second Act of Union in 1800 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which is now, of course, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

While Great Britain and the United Kingdom can be used interchangeably for that period of time (1707-1801), and while Great Britain (or just Britain or even England) was certainly the more commonly used term, my use of UK was deliberate. I was only talking about how SC's independence from the UK differed fundamentally, in my view, from SC secession from the United States, and whether special pleading was going on. It related directly and pretty much only to the fact that SC was a colony and not a constiuent entity of the UK.

As I see it, the special pleading would arise if we recognize the thirteen colonies' natural right to independence but refuse independence to, say, Puerto Rico, Guam or American Samoa. South Carolina as a state of the United States is, on the other hand, comparable to England or Scotland, whose parliaments entered into the Union, wishing to unilaterally withdraw from the United Kingdom. (Ireland, as you suggest, and Wales are perhaps a bit stickier historically.)

While you think that distinction is irrelevant from a human rights/self-determination point of view, I think it is relevant from a logic point of view. It could, I suppose, be framed a different way: Does a state relinquish some future right to self-determination when it exercises its right to self-determination by choosing to voluntarily enter into union with other states, as SC did by ratifying the Constitution? When it has done so, it has cast its lot with those other states and created some interdependence; must the rights of those other states also be taken into account if one state wishes to withdraw?

That's the extent of my point. Not that big a deal really, and certainly off topic.

[XODUS1914]

Elephant Walk- I think everyone understood who I was referring to when I said 'Native Americans'. That's term has never been used for anybody outside of North America. You say millions of native South and Central Americans being killed. Really? By whom? and When? If you are talking about the African slaves and thier descendents, then you are proving my point.

And something else. The days of slavery may have been numbered due to the Cotton Gin. But only in the form that we know it. Even if the South won, the attitudes of 300+ years of institutionized brainwishing and perennial second-class citizenship doesn't just disappear overnight just because there's no work to be done. Perhaps the South could have used all of the free manpower to man and build factories and compete with the North as an industrial giant. Who knows?
Hell, the South lost and Blacks didn't get full legal equality until 100 years later. What makes you think if the South won, they would not have been treated 10X worse, having a won a war over the ability to own another person as property?

And stop with this "All salvery is inhumane, so all salvery is equal". That is just pure nonsense and proven historically over and over again to be false. Slavery in America was the first time one group of people targeted another group of people based on skin color, for perpetual enslavement with a wholistic focus on wiping out the culture, language and history of the group being enslaved. Not for a finite purpose, or by terms of surrender or for religious conversion (all which requires a level of humane treatment), but for expressed consent of creating a permanent underclass to be the engine of building a new country.

Your relatives left Russia to escape slavery, right? And they were able to blend in with the Germans to escape detection, right? Them along with millions of other folks, correct? When an African slave escaped from a plantation or jumped off a boat comming from America, where were they supposed to go?

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

Elephant Walk- I think everyone understood who I was referring to when I said 'Native Americans'. That's term has never been used for anybody outside of North America. You say millions of native South and Central Americans being killed. Really? By whom? and When? If you are talking about the African slaves and thier descendents, then you are proving my point.

You've got to be joking. Are you that ignorant of history? That ignorant? I mean, that's really impressive. Given you stances, I would suggest so.

From Bartolome De Las Casas (who was there):

All this comes from an official report by the Bishop of Santa Marta, and one can see clearly from it what is happening to these unfortunate territories and to their innocent inhabitants. When he speaks of those natives who continue the struggle he means those who have managed to flee into the hills to escape butchery by Spanish scoundrels; and by those who surrender he means those who, having survived the wholesale slaughter of their fellow-countrymen, now suffer the barbaric slavery to which the Spanish subject hem and which we have already described—a slavery which will, as the bishop makes clear in his report, eventually prove fatal to each and every one of them. Indeed, he understates the horrific nature of the suffering to which they are subjected.

Or perhaps here...more by De Las Casas

indeed, given that the Spaniards normally spare only women and children, it has led to the annihilation of all adult males, whom they habitually subject to the harshest and most iniquitous and brutal slavery that man has ever devised for his fellow-men, treating them, in fact, worse than animals. All the many and infinitely varied ways that have been devised for oppressing these peoples can be seen to flow from one or other of these two diabolical and tyrannical policies.

The Spaniards use to kick the Indians babies off cliffs as well as use spears to spear pregnant women killing both the baby and the woman.

Hell, the South lost and Blacks didn't get full legal equality until 100 years later. What makes you think if the South won, they would not have been treated 10X worse, having a won a war over the ability to own another person as property?

You start with the premise that the war was fought over slavery. That's not really true.

And stop with this "All salvery is inhumane, so all salvery is equal". That is just pure nonsense and proven historically over and over again to be false.

Well good, because it's nothing I have said.

Slavery in America was the first time one group of people targeted another group of people based on skin color, for perpetual enslavement with a wholistic focus on wiping out the culture, language and history of the group being enslaved.

That's not true whatsoever. As I've told you repeatedly. The Middle East (properly the Ottoman Empire but several other states) enslaved Africans based on skin color. They enslaved Europeans based on skin color. The Arab invaders of Sind took Indians. I mean, really. At this point you're making up stuff.

Your relatives left Russia to escape slavery, right? And they were able to blend in with the Germans to escape detection, right? Them along with millions of other folks, correct? When an African slave escaped from a plantation or jumped off a boat comming from America, where were they supposed to go?

Agreed.

It's just not the first time.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

Slavery in America was the first time one group of people targeted another group of people based on skin color, for perpetual enslavement with a wholistic focus on wiping out the culture, language and history of the group being enslaved.

By the way, I would suggest reading this book...

It's free online even! (I think Google has the whole book)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qjb...page&q&f=false