Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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."

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.

[XODUS1914]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

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.

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

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.

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

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

[XODUS1914]

Originally Posted by girard

I am glad you brought that up, too. Slavery was practiced in Africa for centuries before it was practiced in America.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

This is a common myth, though.

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.

[XODUS1914]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

Ahhh, duly noted..

Every board has one... ;-)

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

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 far more humane than most forms of slavery (and I say most, because the only one I can think of that might have been more humane is the Russian slaves...which is the etymology of the word..Slavs/Slaves)

American slavery was unique to modern times because of it totality,

What does totality mean? Because there were alot of them? Not really. In the South, slaves consisted of perhaps 45% of the population...maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less depending on your source.

But that's not a high percentage of the population whatsoever especially according to Encylcopaedia Brittanica's "Guide to Black History"

Among some of the various Islamic Berber Tuareg peoples of the Sahara and Sahel, slavery persisted at least until 1975. The proportions of slaves ranged from around 15 percent among the Adrar to perhaps 75 percent among the Gurma. In Senegambia, between 1300 and 1900, about a third of the population consisted of slaves. In Sierra Leone in the 19th century close to half the population was enslaved. In the Vai Paramount chiefdoms in the 19th century as much as three-quarters of the population consisted of slaves. Among the Ashanti and Yoruba a third were enslaved. In the 19th century over half the population consisted of slaves among the Duala of the Cameroon, the Ibo and other peoples of the lower Niger, the Kongo, and the Kasanje kingdom and Chokwe of Angola.

http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24157

it's brutality,

Brutality? Nah, not really. It had it's bad spots, as slavery does but it's no where near as brutal as the Jews, during the Khmer Empire, or a few others. (Koreans in Japan)

it's lenght

I mentioned the Jews...the helots in Sparta I believe were enslaved much longer as well as about twenty other people's. The human race is cruel.

and it's depth.

I don't know what that means?

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.

Assuming that race is real (I don't know that I believe it) and thus ignoring that part of the argument, you are an absolute fool. I guess you have forgotten all of Central and South America. Perhaps, you should read Bartolome De Las Casas "Destruction of the Indies".

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.

Except it has. Repeatedly. Human nature can be cruel. I would argue that even more so, the African-to-America experience was far less brutal than the African-to-other parts of Africa. I mean, you do know what brought the majority of the slaves to the ports...right?

I would argue that America has bloodied hands for three reasons. It is politically viable for certain demogogues to "blood-up-the-hands", sort of the "bloody flag" theory. Secondly, it is more noticeable than most of the other slavery attempts in that the skin color is almost a signifier whereas in Russia with the serfs, Greece with the Helots, and Africa with the various slavery systems, the skin color is not a signifier of slavery (it's not really here, as we have African immigrants...but the majority are not recent African immigrants). Lastly, because rights weren't fully given and African-Americans had to work to gain them.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery (and I say most, because the only one I can think of that might have been more humane is the Russian slaves...which is the etymology of the word..Slavs/Slaves)


Except it has. Repeatedly. Human nature can be cruel. I would argue that even more so, the African-to-America experience was far less brutal than the African-to-other parts of Africa. I mean, you do know what brought the majority of the slaves to the ports...right?

Im sorry...I just have to disagree with you.

How do you figure that the chattel system in the US was 'humane'? when the effects are still being felt TODAY?

As to the 2nd passage you do realize that the reason why there is no accurate number of how many were brought to these shores is due to the huge amounts of people thrown (or jumped) overboard ships.

Show me one example of this ' humane ' treatment you refer to.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Im sorry...I just have to disagree with you.

How do you figure that the chattel system in the US was 'humane'? when the effects are still being felt TODAY?

As to the 2nd passage you do realize that the reason why there is no accurate number of how many were brought to these shores is due to the huge amounts of people thrown (or jumped) overboard ships.

Show me one example of this ' humane ' treatment you refer to.

Have you heard of Doug Wilson and his writings on how slavery was beneficial for the slaves, and they were better off? He lives in my town and hosted a conference about it. No lie, google him.

http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Slave.../dp/188576717X You can inter-library loan it or something.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Im sorry...I just have to disagree with you.

How do you figure that the chattel system in the US was 'humane'? when the effects are still being felt TODAY?

I didn't say that it was humane.

I said that it was "more humane." Large difference. At that point it can be very inhumane, but still more humane than others. And you can argue about whether or not the effects are being felt, I disagree (at least on the psyche of being a slave...not necessarily the greater socio-economic effects).

As to the 2nd passage you do realize that the reason why there is no accurate number of how many were brought to these shores is due to the huge amounts of people thrown (or jumped) overboard ships.

That doesn't debunk my statement.

Originally Posted by AZ1897

Dude are you kidding me? It's obvious you don't like black people, I get that. Some of the other shit you've posted makes that more than obvious. Just grow a set of balls and say it.

I'm not sure anything I wrote says anything to that effect. The poster had absolutely no idea what he was talking about in regards to the history of slavery. Would you care to debunk it?

[XODUS1914]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery (and I say most, because the only one I can think of that might have been more humane is the Russian slaves...which is the etymology of the word..Slavs/Slaves)...


Assuming that race is real (I don't know that I believe it) and thus ignoring that part of the argument, you are an absolute fool.

Let's see, you beleive American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery and you also deny the exsistence of race...
I suppose that is consistent, since part of the travesty of American slavery is the fact that a 'Race' or at the very least an indigenous group of people with a definable, distinct and unique phenotype were targeted. Your failure to acknowledge this let's you minimize thier suffering with a clean conscience. Race-based slavery started with the Africans, and is partly why it lasted so long and thoroughly. The inability of African slaves to escape and mingle with the enslaving population made it easier for the slavemasters to create a permanent 'subservient population' that had effects that are still felt today. The most noticeble contrast is to the Native Americans, who proved almost unenslaveable, as there was no way to tell the runaway Indian slaves from the free indignious population. Obviously, the American government came up with another soultion to that problem.. :-(

No where else, and I ask you to prove me wrong.

And perhaps you will be more careful on whom you call fool.

[naraht]

As far as I've been able to tell, there was almost no difference in the rules of war that the Confederates fought under versus the ones that the Union fought under (and *those* were not that different than the ones in the European wars of the 1850's,'60s and '70s such as the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War).

As far as I can tell, a *higher* percentage of the Confederate generals were West Point graduates than the Union generals. Grant not only didn't take Lee into custody when Lee surrendered, he didn't even take Lee's sword when offered. General Grant afforded General Lee the highest respect at his surrender, I don't think there is any indication that Grant considered Lee anything close to a terrorist. (And was certainly willing to be seen with him after the war)

To pick some examples given earlier...

Grant: The major difference between Grant and Lee was that Grant was willing to use the fact that his troops outnumbered Lee's by a large enough ratio that he could lose a greater number of troops than Lee in battle and still be better off. If Grant had 9K troops and Lee 6K and during battle Grant lost 5K troops and Lee 4K, then Grant is in even better shape after the battle (now 4K to 2K) than he was before. The confederacy simply didn't have the troops. Prior Union Generals had been unwilling to make that decision.

Sherman: What Sherman did wasn't terrorism, it was rather "total war", During Sherman's march to the Sea, and especially during the trip North after he got to Savannah, people were *very* aware he was coming. If you personally got out of the way, you were fine. Your removable property, OTOH....

Mosby's Raiders. The confederates considered themselves partisans, and they *were* under the CSA command structure. The Union tended to refer to them as guerillas or at worst "thieves".

There was only *one* confederate official convicted of War Crimes and executed and *he* (Henry Wirz) wasn't even on the battlefield (commandant of the Andersonville POW camp). (Frankly, I think he was more overwhelmed and neglectful than anything else, but that's a separate issue).

Having said all this, I am *quite glad* the confederacy lost.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

I suppose that is consistent, since part of the travesty of American slavery is the fact that a 'Race' or at the very least an indigenous group of people with a definable, distinct and unique phenotype were targeted. Your failure to acknowledge this let's you minimize thier suffering with a clean conscience.

First, a clean conscience? I don't have any conscience about it. I didn't have any part in it. My English side who had been here forever...were Quaker and thus were abolitionists. My German side came after the war. I don't believe in "Collective conscience" anyways, but if I did it would be clear. If you're speaking to my "far more humane" bit and my conscience, I think the basis in fact makes it okay but what happened was nothing near humane.

Furthermore, I'm not denying the social construct of race. I am disagreeing about race as a physical construct.

Race-based slavery started with the Africans, and is partly why it lasted so long and thoroughly.

Really? So race-based slavery with Africans started before the Jewish enslavement. Now, one can argue whether or not the Jews were/are a "race". I think that's debateable certainly. And race-based slavery occured well before Africans were thought of in Europe. There is nothing new under the sun.

The inability of African slaves to escape and mingle with the enslaving population made it easier for the slavemasters to create a permanent 'subservient population' that had effects that are still felt today.

No, I would argue that total government intervention in multiple areas created a "permanent subservient population".

The most noticeble contrast is to the Native Americans, who proved almost unenslaveable,

Yes, except for the millions who were enslaved..or worse killed in South and Central America. Totally "unenslaveable". Really? Come on man.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

No matter how you cut it, there is no way with numerous documentations and citation that US chattel slavery was 'more humane'. It's still a crime against humanity.

At no point did I say it wasn't a crime against humanity.

This is why some people still get pissed when symbols of the South are venerated because it is still a dark reminder to what could have been.

I disagree. Had the Confederacy won, slavery would have still been abolished. That's assuming that the war was even fought over slavery which I'm not sure it was (Marx didn't think it did, among other of his contemporarys)

As some posters stated earlier ad nauseum, the Confederate flag is almost along the same lines as the Nazi swastika and in some ways even moreso.Opponents of the Confederate flag see it as an overt symbol of racism

They're more than welcome to see it as that. Doesn't mean it's correct, but they can think that way.

Others view the flag as a symbol of rebellion against the federal government of the United States

That is not a bad thing.

And what doesn't help is that hate groups in the US rally behind the flag.

I agree.

When you say that slavery was "more humane" you are saying that masters here showed "more compassion" for their 3/5th of a human they kept. I call it bullshit.

More compassion than the Spaniards in Latin America, the Russian tsars towards their peasants, and the Spartans to the helots, yeah.

The entirety of the point is this: Slavery is inhumane. People are cruel to each other. But to pretend that American slavery was much worse or much different than slavery elsewhere in the world is silly. There is no "slavery exceptionalism".

Shoot, I found out that some of my ancestors were slaves recently. They moved from Russia to Germany to escape years and years back. Interesting.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

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

No. You should. Never assume that you disagree with someone because that person is uninformed and needs to research.