Started By
Message
re: Were the Confederates terrorists?
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:55 pm to Crowknowsbest
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:55 pm to Crowknowsbest
Tomato, potato.
2
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:57 pm to bayou2003
quote:
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
For most of the war, the CSA wouldn't exchange black POWS - particularly if they were escaped slaves. The practice was changed later in the war, probably due to the south's need to get as much manpower back as possible so there's no doubt that as POWs they were treated differently.
The only wide scale atrocity happened at the Battle of Fort Pillow when the CSA overran a union fort and killed most of the defenders (who were black) - many of them after they surrendered. The prevailing historical opinion was that it was a spontaneous act rather than officially sanctioned event.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:58 pm to Stonehog
Do you believe that there is no such thing as a legitimate rebellion? Are all insurrections and wars of independence invalid?
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:58 pm to Stonehog
I think there's a distinction to be made in the target of the attack. An organized and forewarned attack on an armed force is a lot different than an unprompted attack on civilians.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 3:59 pm to HempHead
That's a stretch.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 4:01 pm to Stonehog
I'm asking. If you believe the Continental Army was comprised of terrorists, what example of rebellious armies would not fit that depiction? Is it simply a matter of victorious perspective? Are there certain requirements to not be a terrorist if one is fighting for sovereignty?
Posted on 6/24/15 at 4:05 pm to Robert Goulet
quote:
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.
That's the problem, though, whenever we try to fix it, we address the wrong fricking problem.
Were they terrorists? The better answer is:
Who the frick cares?
We call them terrorists, nothing changes.
We don't call 'em terrorists, nothing changes.
Enough with trying to rectify things that were universally accepted in those times.
What's next? People saying Jesus was real?
Posted on 6/24/15 at 4:08 pm to HempHead
quote:
I'm asking. If you believe the Continental Army was comprised of terrorists, what example of rebellious armies would not fit that depiction? Is it simply a matter of victorious perspective? Are there certain requirements to not be a terrorist if one is fighting for sovereignty?
You're getting too hung up on labels. I already said I don't consider the confederates terrorists, but firing on Fort Sumter was a terrorist act. Same can be said for the Boston Tea Party. Doesn't mean I think George Washington was a terrorist.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 4:08 pm to JustGetItRight
Towards the end of the Civil War the Confederates actually allowed blacks to enlist and granted freedom for doing so.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 4:27 pm to BowlJackson
quote:
Towards the end of the Civil War the Confederates actually allowed blacks to enlist and granted freedom for doing so.
Well that sure was nice of them.
When The Great Leader was on his deathbed he called in two likely successors, to test which one of the two had a better knack for ruling the country. He ordered two birds to be brought in and presented one bird to each of the two candidates. He then instructed each of them to make sure that the bird did not fly away.
The first one grabbed the bird, but was so afraid that the bird could free himself from his grip and fly away that he squeezed his hand very hard, and when he opened his palm, the bird was dead.
Seeing the disapproving look on The Great Leader's face and being afraid to repeat his rival's mistake, the second candidate loosened his grip so much that the bird freed himself and flew away.
The Great leader looked at both of them scornfully. "Bring me a bird!' he ordered. They did. He took the bird by its legs and slowly, one by one, he plucked all the feathers from the bird's little body. Then he opened his palm. The bird was laying there naked, shivering, helpless. He looked at them, smiled gently and said, "You see... and now he is even thankful for the human warmth coming out of my palm."
Posted on 6/24/15 at 4:35 pm to BowlJackson
I consider John Wilkes Booth (a Confederate in spirit, if not in uniform) a Confederate terrorist.
Assassinating the President of the United States, due to its political dimension, is terrorism. If an ISIS sympathizer assassinated a US government official, we would consider it terrorism.
From what I've always read, news of Lincoln's assassination was met with mostly disapproval in the South.
And some of Jesse James' antics in MO and KS could be called terrorism. It's a blurry line between guerrilla warfare and terrorism.
Assassinating the President of the United States, due to its political dimension, is terrorism. If an ISIS sympathizer assassinated a US government official, we would consider it terrorism.
From what I've always read, news of Lincoln's assassination was met with mostly disapproval in the South.
And some of Jesse James' antics in MO and KS could be called terrorism. It's a blurry line between guerrilla warfare and terrorism.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 4:38 pm to PikeBishop
quote:
From what I've always read, news of Lincoln's assassination was met with mostly disapproval in the South.
Yeah, Booth really fricked over the South with that. Lincoln, I believe, was willing to be reconciliatory and amicable to the South. Instead, we got Andrew Johnson, Reconstruction, carpetbaggers, and scallywags.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 4:38 pm to BowlJackson
Posted on 6/24/15 at 4:40 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
That's the problem, though, whenever we try to fix it, we address the wrong fricking problem.
Were they terrorists? The better answer is:
Who the frick cares?
We call them terrorists, nothing changes.
We don't call 'em terrorists, nothing changes.
Enough with trying to rectify things that were universally accepted in those times.
I agree. If there is some systemic issue still in play from the past that needs to be fixed, then it should be fixed. But yeah, none of that shite matters in the grand scheme of things. I often think that we are too nice as a country. We still feel bad for native americans who have proven for awhile now that what we did was the "right" thing to move this country forward. We focus on the wrong shite.
quote:
What's next? People saying Jesus was real?
Posted on 6/24/15 at 5:46 pm to BlackPawnMartyr
You do realize that the Union also didn't allow blacks to enlist until halfway through the war when they were losing badly and needed them, right? Abraham Lincoln stated the same reasons for not wanting blacks in the army that the Confederates did. The public was scared of arming black people. The 200,000 black Union soldiers just happened to come in at a not so coincidental major turning point in the war. But it's not like the north wanted them more than the south or thought they were equal and worthy, they just needed them so they wouldn't lose.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 6:04 pm to PikeBishop
But what's the definition of terrorism? Did John Wilkes Booth assassinate Lincoln in order to cause actual fear and terror among the public? Did he kill the President to cause political dissidence, chaos and unrest? Was he trying to send a message? Did he commit murder out of hate and anger towards Lincoln and the north? If the answer is yes to any of those then he is absolutely a terrorist.
If he killed Lincoln because he truly believed that was the best thing to do for the country, then I'm not so sure I would call that a terrorist, although today's media would certainly label him one no matter what.
Sherman was absolutely a terrorist as some have pointed out already, and he was one of the most successful terrorists in human history. Sherman is on par with Hannibal. It all just depends on what side you're on at the end, and Sherman's side happened to win so he's remembered as a hero and an all-time great military mind instead of a terrorist. If ISIS and Islam take over the world then Bin Laden will go down in the history books as a hero just doing what needed to be done instead of the evil terrorist monster we know he is.
If he killed Lincoln because he truly believed that was the best thing to do for the country, then I'm not so sure I would call that a terrorist, although today's media would certainly label him one no matter what.
Sherman was absolutely a terrorist as some have pointed out already, and he was one of the most successful terrorists in human history. Sherman is on par with Hannibal. It all just depends on what side you're on at the end, and Sherman's side happened to win so he's remembered as a hero and an all-time great military mind instead of a terrorist. If ISIS and Islam take over the world then Bin Laden will go down in the history books as a hero just doing what needed to be done instead of the evil terrorist monster we know he is.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 6:27 pm to Crowknowsbest
Patriots
Posted on 6/24/15 at 6:39 pm to BowlJackson
I think we can all agree they were traitors.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 6:44 pm to SEC. 593
No, they were NOT traitors; nor were the Confederate leaders tried as such.
The Supreme Court warned against such a trial; because if found not guilty, it would have legitimized secession in the U.S. Court.
The Supreme Court warned against such a trial; because if found not guilty, it would have legitimized secession in the U.S. Court.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 6:44 pm to SEC. 593
I am completely dumbfounded how ignorant some of my fellow citizens are.
Lincoln was assassinated because his dumb rear end tried to assassinate Jeff Davis. But the plan was sniffed out. Google it.
Lincoln was assassinated because his dumb rear end tried to assassinate Jeff Davis. But the plan was sniffed out. Google it.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News