Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

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.

[honeychile]

"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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by honeychile

"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.

[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

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Yeah, which is what people don't understand. Slavery in it's self, he didn't care one way or another.

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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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... ;-)

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

That's a little brash....

Thanks. I'll be here all week.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by honeychile

"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.

Lest we be reminded of the Obama/Lincoln comparisons.

[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.

[XODUS1914]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

I didn't assume anything. While it's a common arguement and /or fact that slavery was an underlying cause for the Civil War, most Americans don't know that most of the Confederate States directly referenced that "pecuilar institution" in their letters of secession. In fact, most Americans in the Southern States have never even seen thier own states' letter, much less the rest of them. Ironically, the "Confederate Flag" as we know it, is not even the original Confederate flag, but that's another story.

But hey, if you don't think Haley Barbour's statement doesn't represent the views of most of the people who fly that flag nowadays, then I'll be more than happy to agree to disagree.