Started By
Message
Were the Confederates terrorists?
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:18 pm
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:18 pm
Frank Matthews, President of the Outcast Voters League, thinks so and he wants the Confederate Soldiers & Sailors Monument in Birmingham's Linn Park torn down for honoring racist terrorists.
LINK
What do you guys think? Terrorists, racists, defending their home, or some combination of those?
If you think the Confederate South was made up of terrorists support your idea and tell me about the acts of terrorism they carried out and the Union didn't that I apparently wasn't taught about in public schools in the south.
LINK
quote:
At a press conference late today Matthews said the Confederacy was made up of "rebels and terrorists against the Union and America."
What do you guys think? Terrorists, racists, defending their home, or some combination of those?
If you think the Confederate South was made up of terrorists support your idea and tell me about the acts of terrorism they carried out and the Union didn't that I apparently wasn't taught about in public schools in the south.
This post was edited on 6/24/15 at 5:48 pm
16
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:24 pm to BowlJackson
quote:
racists, defending their home
Not that I'm using racist as a pejorative - that was simply how things were. Everyone was racist, even those fighting for abolition didn't believe that blacks were equal.
There is nothing about the Confederate tactics that would deserve the label 'terrorist'.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:24 pm to BowlJackson
Sherman fits the description much more in my eyes.
This post was edited on 6/24/15 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:30 pm to BowlJackson
I find this cleansing of our history disturbing.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:31 pm to BowlJackson
They were violent rebels but not terrorists. They weren't tactically attacking civilians or using fear tactics outside the realm of normal warfare. One could argue that they would have had a better chance at winning had they done so.
Maybe some of the stuff in Missouri and Kansas could be considered terrorist. Sherman was more of a terrorist than any high-ranking Confederate generals.
Attempted secession isn't terrorism imo.
Maybe some of the stuff in Missouri and Kansas could be considered terrorist. Sherman was more of a terrorist than any high-ranking Confederate generals.
Attempted secession isn't terrorism imo.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:32 pm to BowlJackson
One man's patriot is another man's terrorist...
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:34 pm to BowlJackson
Firing on Fort Sumter was a terrorist act. I wouldn't call the Rebels terrorists though. I just think of them as poor racist losers.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:37 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Firing on Fort Sumter was a terrorist act.
How? They fired upon a military installation with warning.
quote:
I just think of them as poor racist losers.
And Yankees were poor racist winners. Don't fricking act as if there was some large gulf in the mindset of soldiers in either army.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:41 pm to HempHead
quote:
Not that I'm using racist as a pejorative - that was simply how things were. Everyone was racist, even those fighting for abolition didn't believe that blacks were equal.
You're right. Even Abraham Lincoln had to come out and publicly state that while he was against slavery he was in no way, shape, or form in favor of black people gaining equal social or political right as white people. He saw that slavery was evil, but he was still a racist that thought you were 3/5 of a human being.
On the flip side it seems that most southerners were pretty conflicted on the issue. They saw the evil in slavery and morally wanted it to end, but publicly supported it based solely on the southern economy being based on agriculture which was driven by slavery. That was Robert E. Lee's stance. And in reality it really did kill the southern economy and it took over 100 years for it bounce back.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:41 pm to HempHead
quote:
How? They fired upon a military installation with warning.
They fired upon a federal military installation that was full of their fellow American soldiers.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:44 pm to BowlJackson
quote:This country is on a very slippery slope when it comes to the definition of terrorism.
Were the Confederates terrorists?
Exhibit A:
quote:
At a press conference late today Matthews said the Confederacy was made up of "rebels and terrorists against the Union and America."
quote:I think if we're not careful, all laws pertaining to the war on terrorism, will be applied to all of us here.
What do you guys think?
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:44 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Stonehog
I guess by your line of thinking, the minutemen at Lexington and Concord were also terrorists?
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:45 pm to BowlJackson
Is it true they executed black pow's fighting for the union but let the white union pow's live? Or at least said they would execute black soldiers caught fighting for the union.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:45 pm to Stonehog
quote:
They fired upon a federal military installation that was full of their fellow American soldiers.
1: At that point, they may have been fellow Americans in a certain sense, but they were distinctly different military outfits.
Please, elaborate on how the attack of Fort Sumter could be considered terrorism.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:50 pm to TX Tiger
quote:
This country is on a very slippery slope when it comes to the definition of terrorism.
I completely agree. It seems like it is some buzzword to use. Just because someone opposes something, it doesn't make them a terrorist.
The confederates fought for what they believed in, whether it be slavery, their homeland, whatever. It is very easy for any of us to look back and say that slavery was wrong. Our entire American history is filled with shite we regret; for some reason, it seems like we are the only country that actually is aware and tries to rectify our problems.
Fighting for what you believe in doesn't automatically make you a terrorist and I definitely don't consider the confederacy a terrorist organization by nature.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:51 pm to HempHead
Insurrectionists firing upon a federal military compound?
How is that anything BUT terrorism?
You're making the mistake of thinking the confederacy at that point was a legitimate recognized nation. It wasn't, and never was.
How is that anything BUT terrorism?
You're making the mistake of thinking the confederacy at that point was a legitimate recognized nation. It wasn't, and never was.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:52 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
They were violent rebels but not terrorists.
All war is violent, so was the Union. I agree with your post though.
There has never been a peaceful revolution in history. If you win it's a revolution, if you lose it's a rebellion. The Continental Army was called rebels in England. Had the colonies lost the war then history would view George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the likes as disgraced traitorous scum instead of heroes, and Benedict Arnold would probably be hailed as a courageous hero.
This post was edited on 6/24/15 at 3:57 pm
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:53 pm to Stonehog
As a previous poster said, that line of logic could easily be applied to American soldiers fighting the British crown. What's the difference?
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:54 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
I guess by your line of thinking, the minutemen at Lexington and Concord were also terrorists?
Yeah, they were.
What would you call them?
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:54 pm to Stonehog
quote:
What would you call them?
Rebels
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News