Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

[leftsock]

Were Confederate soldiers terrorists? - CNN.com

Let's consider a definition of "terrorism."

Terrorism is, in the most general sense, the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not a civil war buff, but I don't think the CSA fits this definition. Anyone have some thoughts on this?

Some of the highlights of the article:

• Roland Martin says defenders of Confederate soldiers say they were protecting their homeland
• Martin says modern terrorists also say they are defending their homeland
• He says Confederates should not be honored but should be considered "domestic terrorists"

This really feels like a straw-man argument. It seems like anyone on the "wrong side" is a "terrorist" anymore. Am I missing something, or is this guy just some sort of crackpot?

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

Am I missing something, or is this guy just some sort of crackpot?

He's a raging racist.

 

[singlesix]

British said the same thing about our forefathers because some of them shot behind cover instead of standing in a formation.

 

[XMil]

George Washington was the original American terrorist.

• He led ant-government troops
• He considered collectivism to be bad
• He owned assault rifles
• He believed in God

Terrorist to the core.

 

[Bigum1969]

 

[Dogman]

If anyone was the terrorists it was the Northern troops for invading the Southern states illegally over states rights issues.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Terrorism is, in the most general sense, the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

Under that definition, no.

But certainly the Klu Klux Klan, who dress as the ghosts of Confederate soldiers and wave CSA flags, is a terrorist organization.

There is a rational basis for loathing the CSA, however it is irrational to describe them as a terrorist organization.

 

[SavageEagle]

Look at the source. Dismiss as useless drivel. Next article please.

 

[Bendrx]

Terrorist has just become a buzzword. If you hear a politician say "terrorist" then what you should know is that they are about to spend a bunch of your money and need a decent excuse.

Terrorist attack civilians and the primary goal is to spread...terror amongst the populace. There were war crimes committed in the Civil War, but not acts of terrorism - IMO. That isn't too much more than symantics, but indicates some difference. A war crime like "total warfare" would be a terrorist act if not during a war.

 

[E5RANGER375]

If anyone was the terrorists it was the Northern troops for invading the Southern states illegally over states rights issues.

yep!!!! 100% historicly acurate statement.
the Civil War was over states rights. the constitution gave the states the power they used to seceed. but big daddy lincoln wouldnt have any of it because he knew the north would be financialy ruined without the goods from the south. think about it, even today if the same stated suceeded the northern states would go bankrupt because most of them dont produce their own goods to sustain themselves or the rest of the states. big cities are where "things are ran" by people leading from a desk without ever setting a foot on the ground where the REAL WORK is done, nor knowing what they are talking about.
the confederates where TRUE PATRIOTS!!!! the civil war was not over slavery like the government makes you believe to cover up the truth. NO ONE including northern soldiers would have risked their own lives to save a slave back then. read letters of actual soldiers, and politicians of the day. many even in the south didnt want slavery to exist, but they still didnt think former slaves were equals.
I think you will eventualy see another civil war in this country and those states who have the gonads to back up talk, will make sure they dont lose this time.

 

[Ogre]

History is written by the victors.....
-Winston Churchill

 

[tuoder]

Whether one is an insurgent or a revolutionary largely depends on whether or not they are successful.

I don't think the best description of the Confederates was "terrorist". The CSA was a failed insurgency.

Actually I think the word "terrorist" better describes the militant abolitionists such as John Brown, who invaded plantations and killed owners, as well as attempting a slave revolt at Harper's Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia).

Terrorism is a tactic. People with the best or worst intentions can try to use terrorism as a method.

 

[dross]

yep!!!! 100% historicly acurate statement.
the Civil War was over states rights. the constitution gave the states the power they used to seceed. but big daddy lincoln wouldnt have any of it because he knew the north would be financialy ruined without the goods from the south. think about it, even today if the same stated suceeded the northern states would go bankrupt because most of them dont produce their own goods to sustain themselves or the rest of the states. big cities are where "things are ran" by people leading from a desk without ever setting a foot on the ground where the REAL WORK is done, nor knowing what they are talking about.
the confederates where TRUE PATRIOTS!!!! the civil war was not over slavery like the government makes you believe to cover up the truth. NO ONE including northern soldiers would have risked their own lives to save a slave back then. read letters of actual soldiers, and politicians of the day. many even in the south didnt want slavery to exist, but they still didnt think former slaves were equals.
I think you will eventualy see another civil war in this country and those states who have the gonads to back up talk, will make sure they dont lose this time.

Saying that the civil war was not at all over slavery is as simplistic as those who ignore the states' rights aspects of the war.

As far as NO ONE risking their lives to help a slave, many had been doing just that for many years.

The Civil War was a great historical piece of nastiness, and there's not much to be gained by fully choosing sides. Technically, I agree that the southern states had a legal right to secede. Yes, they believed in states' rights, but the thing that brought the states' rights issue into focus was slavery.

I understand that we wouldn't have had this country had we tried to abolish slavery at the founding. It remains however, that legalized slavery is a shameful mark on our country's past. Yes, it was a violation of states' rights to invade after secession. But it was a horrible violation of the natural rights of man that slavery was legal in this country. Perhaps it would have died a natural death in ten, twenty, thirty years. Would you sentence your child to twenty years of slavery because techncially states had the legal authority to allow slavery?

 

[dross]

I've always hated the word "terrorist." I don't think it's a useful word, and too prone to abuse and equivalency.

 

[tuoder]

I've always hated the word "terrorist." I don't think it's a useful word, and too prone to abuse and equivalency.

It's going to end up like the words "Fascist" and "Communist", just ending up being used as epithets.

 

[E5RANGER375]

As far as NO ONE risking their lives to help a slave, many had been doing just that for many years.

Yes, they believed in states' rights, but the thing that brought the states' rights issue into focus was slavery.

yes abolishionist and some people, but i was meaning the majority. sorry my statement "NO ONE" was misleading and innacurate. i should have said the majority.

as to your second statement i quoted. id like to see documentation, because i disagree. the confederate states of america's congress almost abolished slavery YEARS before lincoln ever did. in fact they WERE going to do it before lincoln signed the imancipation proclamation. lincoln knew if the south freed the slaves that England would probly enter the war and help the south to victory and he didnt want that.

I dont support slavery, but at the time it was accepted and i wont judge my ancestors by todays standards. i had ancestors that owned slaves, but i also had some that were irish american slaves.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

The soldiers of the Confederacy were freedom fighters. They tried for years to get the North to reduce the tariffs that were strangling the South and Congress refused. The entire cost of federal government was being borne by the South.

Slavery had almost nothing to do with the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln cared nothing about slaves and said so on more than one occasion. He planned to deport them at the war's end. Slavery was dying as an institution at the time of the war and was already on borrowed time.

The federal government could have BOUGHT every single slave in the South for a fraction of what the war cost with no loss of lives.

I was born in Ohio and now live in Indiana, but the Southern states had every right and every REASON in the world to secede from the Union, and there was no law then nor is there one now that prohibits a state from doing so.

A bit of trivia about the "Great Emancipator"...

Some 10,000 people were arrested and held without charges on Lincoln's orders for advocating that the South had a right to secede;

300 NORTHERN newspapers were shut down at bayonet point and their editors imprisoned, on Lincoln's orders, for taking the editorial stance that the South had a right to secede;

When the United States Supreme Court ordered that people improperly imprisoned in this fashion be released, Lincoln not only ignored the order, he signed an arrest warrant charging Chief Justice of the United States Roger Taney with treason. The United States Marshal refused to serve the warrant, understanding that if he did so separation of powers would be gone forever;

When Lincoln feared that the Maryland State Legislature would meet and vote for secession he had them arrested, preventing them from having a session.

Remember how were taught in school that the Emancipation Proclamation "freed the slaves?"

Wrong...it only freed the slaves in states that were in a state of rebellion. Slaves in states that has remained in the Union remained slaves. Lincoln was fine with that.

Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst tyrants and war criminals in history.

 

[jdhaines]

I dont support slavery, but at the time it was accepted and i wont judge my ancestors by todays standards. i had ancestors that owned slaves, but i also had some that were irish american slaves.

QFT. It's a major mistake to judge people back then by today's standards. Today's culture almost universally agrees that slavery is terrible. Back then it was mostly accepted with a small group who thought it was wrong.

If this happens again I would like to be in one of the states doing the 'cedin

 

[dross]

yes abolishionist and some people, but i was meaning the majority. sorry my statement "NO ONE" was misleading and innacurate. i should have said the majority.

as to your second statement i quoted. id like to see documentation, because i disagree. the confederate states of america's congress almost abolished slavery YEARS before lincoln ever did. in fact they WERE going to do it before lincoln signed the imancipation proclamation. lincoln knew if the south freed the slaves that England would probly enter the war and help the south to victory and he didnt want that.

I dont support slavery, but at the time it was accepted and i wont judge my ancestors by todays standards. i had ancestors that owned slaves, but i also had some that were irish american slaves.

But it wasn't accepted. It was accepted by some, to be sure, but all the moral arguments were there and known. They don't get a pass because they didn't know any better. By that standard, killing the infidel should be excused because it's "accepted" in much of the Islamic World.

South Carolina, the first to secede, outlined their reasons for secession. In the first section they make a legal argument for secession, which legally, I think they were right about. The reasons they gave for secession were the Fugitive Slave Act, and the election of Lincoln, who they believed would attempt to outlaw slavery. So they make an argument that the U.S. wasn't recognizing states' rights, on the issue of slavery. Here's a link to that document. Let me know if you need more evidence.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

 

[smoking357]

No, but the Union soldiers were.