Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

[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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by 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.

Nicely put. I only want to add a little to what you so superbly explained.

Grant, Lee, Johnston, Sherman and others all served together in the Mexican/American War. They were all very familiar with each other and that is a huge factor in the way Lee and Johnston were treated when they surrendered. The Generals considered themselves "Brothers in Arms".

My understanding is that Sherman did not really want his troops to lay waste during the "March to the Sea". Instead some believe that he was a weak disciplinarian and would not stop what was being done.

Per Moseby's Raiders one must remember that the Cavalry during this time was designed to circle behind the armies and disrupt supply lines tear up communications and create holy hell. They lived off what they could steal and/or take. Both sides did it as evidenced also by Colonel Benjamin Griersons extended cavalry raid through Mississippi during the flanking of Vicksburg. These were search and destroy missions from both sides.

To a previous posters concern about France coming in on the side of the Confederates. The real concern was Great Britain helping the South. France was very weak at the time and did not pose too much of a threat. Too many wars of conquest and too many defeats. Witness the defeat of the French at the Battle of Puebla in Mexico while under Napolean the Thirds reign.

[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.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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

Actually what he says is true. Central and South America is different from North American slavery in respect like African slavery began with other nations selling their captured slaves to the Europeans. It was after the Native Americans realized the severity of the American slave trade that the nations banded together in some degree to actively oppose the slave trade. By then it was more economically sound (because by then the African slave trade had begun) to continue the Middle Passage than to waste time, money, and mainpower going to war against the Nations.

The Indian wars of the early 18th century combined with the growing availability of African slaves essentially ended the Native American slave trade by 1750.[1] Numerous colonial slave traders had been killed in the fighting, and the remaining Native American groups banned together more determined than ever to face the Europeans from a position of strength rather than be enslaved.[1] Many of those Native Americans who remained joined confederacies like the Choctaw, the Creek, and the Catawba for protection, making them less easy victims of European slavers.[1] The rape of Native American women who were and were not enslaved commonly occurred, even when African slaves were beginning to become the dominant race enslaved.[5] Both Native American and African American slaves experienced being raped by their slave holders.[5][6] Even the famous Pocahontas was raped at a young age by deputy governor Thomas Dale.[6][7] Pocahontas told her older sister that she was raped by Thomas Dale.[6][7] Rape was one of the worst crimes in a Native American's eyes and resulted in severe punishment even death.[6]

^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp Tony Seybert (2009). "Slavery and Native Americans in British North America and the United States: 1600 to 1865". New York Life. http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/hist...ns_slavery.htm. Retrieved 2009-06-20.

^ a b Gloria J. Browne-Marshall (2009). "The Realities of Enslaved Female Africans in America". University of Daytona. http://academic.udayton.edu/Race/05i...ender/rape.htm. Retrieved 2009-06-20.

^ a b c d Linwood Custalow & Angela L. Daniel (2009). "The true story of Pocahontas". Fulcrum Publishinging's. http://books.google.com/books?id=b2A...esult&resnum=9. Retrieved 2009-06-20.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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)

Yes it would have ended, after it was no longer economically feasible to continue.

Slavery was originally gonna end sooner except for that Eli Whitney guy inventing the Cotton Gin.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Actually what he says is true. Central and South America is different from North American slavery in respect like African slavery began with other nations selling their captured slaves to the Europeans.

He said "Native Americans". Since "American" doesn't specify which nationality in the Western Hemisphere, it can include South and Central American.

Your link talks only of North American Native Americans.

Yes it would have ended, after it was no longer economically feasible to continue.

Or, when they all left. Which is what would have happened had the Confederacy won.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

He said "Native Americans". Since "American" doesn't specify which nationality in the Western Hemisphere, it can include South and Central American.

Your link talks only of North American Native Americans.


Or, when they all left. Which is what would have happened had the Confederacy won.

Or when they were all killed off by the confederacy.

Also I speak of North America because I specified North America in my response. Since we are talking about the United States in respect to the Civil War.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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 someone had stated earlier, it would have ended when there was no more money in it and either way it still created separate and unequal classes of people...don't make it sound like that the South would have ended slavery and all would have been well because that is far from the truth.

I dropped a link earlier that you can read where there were articles that the Confeds wrote that they wanted to defend their ownership of slaves. So While we already know that the entire war wasn't all about or just about slavery it certainly was in there

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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".

But to think that slavery in America was much better or no big deal and just a small part of the Civil War is just as silly

[DaemonSeid]

White Lies


A leading Civil War historian debunks many of the myths of the old South being circulated by neo-Confederate ideologues

Brooks D. Simpson, a professor at Arizona State University, is a leading historian of 19th-century American political and military history whose work concentrates on the Civil War and Reconstruction era. The author or co-author of nine books, including studies of Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman and Reconstruction policy and politics, Simpson serves as co-editor of the University of Nebraska's "Great Campaigns of the Civil War" series and the same institution's Civil War battlefield series.

IR: So you see these neo-Confederates, the leaders and thinkers of groups like the League of the South (LOS), as basically white supremacist?

Simpson: They certainly want the revival of the principles of the Confederacy, and one those principles would in fact be white supremacy, unquestioned and explicit. The racism that's woven into their comments is often quite astonishing.

IR: What actually was the Confederate view of slavery?

Simpson: Confederates during the Civil War had no problem whatsoever in associating their cause with the protection of slavery and a system of white supremacy which they thought was inherent in the Confederate world order. The Confederates of 1861-65 were much more honest about the importance of slavery than are the neo-Confederates of today.

In a famous address [known to historians as the "Cornerstone Speech"], the vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens **, said in 1861 that "slavery is the cornerstone of the Confederacy." And as late as 1865, Robert E. Lee, who's often cited by neo-Confederates as an opponent of slavery, claimed that while blacks and whites were together in the South, their best relationship would be that of master and slave.

A great many Southerners were directly or indirectly involved in slavery — they were either slaveholders, members of slaveholding families, or involved in business enterprises that depended upon slavery for their prosperity.

Some neo-Confederates talk about differing federal policies toward the North and the South, but again those federal policies — especially if they concern the South — have to do with the support of slavery, the acquisition of new territory which would be open to slaveholders, a tariff policy which favored the North.



*But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.







This just goes to show you that slavery would have lasted as long as it was profitable but even if it had ended, African Americans in this country would have been treated as 2nd class citizens.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Simpson: Confederates during the Civil War had no problem whatsoever in associating their cause with the protection of slavery and a system of white supremacy which they thought was inherent in the Confederate world order.

That would certainly surprise the multitude of blacks who willingly fought in the Civil War for the South.



Here's a guy displaying his medals... looks to be proud of them (he did wear them):

This just goes to show you that slavery would have lasted as long as it was profitable but even if it had ended, African Americans in this country would have been treated as 2nd class citizens.

How so?