Started By
Message
re: Were the Confederates terrorists?
Posted on 6/24/15 at 11:13 pm to Sancho Panza
Posted on 6/24/15 at 11:13 pm to Sancho Panza
The South was peacefully and quietly leaving?
I'd say South Carolina firing on Ft. Sumter was not exactly a quiet or peaceful act.
I'd say South Carolina firing on Ft. Sumter was not exactly a quiet or peaceful act.
1
Posted on 6/24/15 at 11:45 pm to SEC. 593
quote:
There is no constitutional mechanism for a State to secede.
Boy, those contracts of perpetuity are a real bitch.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 12:58 am to PikeBishop
They wouldn't have had to fire on Ft. Sumter if the US Army wasn't occupying Confederate territory and refused to leave. If they would have tucked tail and ran home and left the south to its affairs then the Confederacy would have had no reason to fight anybody.
How do you think the U.S. would react today if the Cubans snuck into and occupied Guantanamo Bay in the middle of the night and refused to leave? We wouldn't have a nice peaceful sit down about it.
Blaming the Confederates for starting the fighting for Ft. Sumter is like a little kid who gets in his classmates face provoking him, refusing to back off, daring him to throw a punch. Then when the other kid has finally had enough and decks the little shite, the instigator gets mad and runs to the teacher to cry about how the other kid started a fight.
How do you think the U.S. would react today if the Cubans snuck into and occupied Guantanamo Bay in the middle of the night and refused to leave? We wouldn't have a nice peaceful sit down about it.
Blaming the Confederates for starting the fighting for Ft. Sumter is like a little kid who gets in his classmates face provoking him, refusing to back off, daring him to throw a punch. Then when the other kid has finally had enough and decks the little shite, the instigator gets mad and runs to the teacher to cry about how the other kid started a fight.
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 1:20 am
Posted on 6/25/15 at 1:01 am to BowlJackson
Confederate bushwhackers could probably fit most elements of the definition, sure
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:05 am to BrocraticMethod
Sherman's march to the sea today would be considered one massive war crime. People make the mistake of judging 19th Century people by 21st Century standards. If you could go back you would learn that very few white people of the day considered the black man their equal. North or South.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 6:17 am to BowlJackson
quote:
Blaming the Confederates for starting the fighting for Ft. Sumter is like a little kid who gets in his classmates face provoking him, refusing to back off, daring him to throw a punch. Then when the other kid has finally had enough and decks the little shite, the instigator gets mad and runs to the teacher to cry about how the other kid started a fight.
People who still hold this grudge towards the north for a war 150 years ago are so weird. You really think your life would have been better today if the south had won?
Posted on 6/25/15 at 8:47 am to Patton
Where the hell did I say that? I have said many times in this and other threads that no matter what the way the Civil War happened was the right thing and was worth the costs.
I have tried to provide the southern point of view on things to show their reasoning behind their actions, but that absolutely does not mean I agree with any of it.
Just because the south lost doesn't make everything they did evil and wrong. Just because the north won doesn't make everything they did noble and good. People who generalize things like that are ignorant.
That's exactly what that post was trying to convey to the people acting like it was some evil thing to do to fire on Ft. Sumter.
You know as well as I do that it's a bitch move to sneak into a half built fort in the middle of the night in enemy territory on literally the first day of hostilities. Then to refuse to leave until forced. You don't provoke any living thing in own personal space where it lives and get surprised when it hits you. To the confederate sailors who actually fires on Sumter all they see is a group of hostile and armed men invaded their home and will not leave, and you think it's wrong for them take action? They let sit in there for 4 months before they actually fired a shot. What more would have them do? Would have been more agreeable to you if they had just let them run out of food in there and starve to death? Because they were pretty close to it.
I have tried to provide the southern point of view on things to show their reasoning behind their actions, but that absolutely does not mean I agree with any of it.
Just because the south lost doesn't make everything they did evil and wrong. Just because the north won doesn't make everything they did noble and good. People who generalize things like that are ignorant.
That's exactly what that post was trying to convey to the people acting like it was some evil thing to do to fire on Ft. Sumter.
You know as well as I do that it's a bitch move to sneak into a half built fort in the middle of the night in enemy territory on literally the first day of hostilities. Then to refuse to leave until forced. You don't provoke any living thing in own personal space where it lives and get surprised when it hits you. To the confederate sailors who actually fires on Sumter all they see is a group of hostile and armed men invaded their home and will not leave, and you think it's wrong for them take action? They let sit in there for 4 months before they actually fired a shot. What more would have them do? Would have been more agreeable to you if they had just let them run out of food in there and starve to death? Because they were pretty close to it.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 9:01 am to Patton
It's all about acknowledgement really. Saying someone "holds a grudge" because they get aggrivated when history is misconstrued is a reach IMO.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 9:11 am to BowlJackson
quote:
They wouldn't have had to fire on Ft. Sumter if the US Army wasn't occupying Confederate territory and refused to leave.
This is a silly argument. Those forts were federal property. If Wyoming were to attempt to secede today, is the nuclear arsenal within the state automatically theirs?
Posted on 6/25/15 at 9:28 am to Bigbens42
Absolutely, if they want it.
If I'm the leader of Alabama and we secede then you better believe I'm keeping all the planes at the Maxwell Air Force Base, all the missiles at the Red Stone Arsenal, and NASA's Huntsville space program too.
Those are now a part of my military and my new space program unless you come and pry it out of my hands and take it back.
Don't store your nice shite at your girlfriends house unless you accept the risk of her keeping it if you breakup.
If I'm the leader of Alabama and we secede then you better believe I'm keeping all the planes at the Maxwell Air Force Base, all the missiles at the Red Stone Arsenal, and NASA's Huntsville space program too.
Those are now a part of my military and my new space program unless you come and pry it out of my hands and take it back.
Don't store your nice shite at your girlfriends house unless you accept the risk of her keeping it if you breakup.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 11:20 am to Bigbens42
But seriously, what right would the U.S. Federal government have to any property in a land that no longer wishes to be governed by them?
The federal government didn't ask South Carolina's permission to build a fort in their bay. Or Wyoming if they could bury radioactive bombs under their feet, and put every single life in the state at risk if one were to accidentally detonate.
Everything that the U.S. government "owns" was paid for with tax money. If a state leaves the U.S. then any "property" of the U.S. has long since been paid for many many times over by the people of that state.
The British had many forts in America until the Colonial rebels fired on them and took them away. Those forts and a lot of other things were property of the Crown. Did they automatically belong to America just because the colonies decided to secede from the British empire?
How do you feel about that and how is it any different than Fort Sumter?
Despite how a lot of people seem to feel the United States doesn't have any sort of Devine Rights over anything in this world.
Are you one of these people that support everything that the USA does as long as they show you through a red white and blue lens and use the freedom to describe it? If it makes you feel like a patriot like the groomed you in school to want to be then you probably just blindly follow right behind chanting "USA! USA!" with the rest of the herd.
The federal government didn't ask South Carolina's permission to build a fort in their bay. Or Wyoming if they could bury radioactive bombs under their feet, and put every single life in the state at risk if one were to accidentally detonate.
Everything that the U.S. government "owns" was paid for with tax money. If a state leaves the U.S. then any "property" of the U.S. has long since been paid for many many times over by the people of that state.
The British had many forts in America until the Colonial rebels fired on them and took them away. Those forts and a lot of other things were property of the Crown. Did they automatically belong to America just because the colonies decided to secede from the British empire?
How do you feel about that and how is it any different than Fort Sumter?
Despite how a lot of people seem to feel the United States doesn't have any sort of Devine Rights over anything in this world.
Are you one of these people that support everything that the USA does as long as they show you through a red white and blue lens and use the freedom to describe it? If it makes you feel like a patriot like the groomed you in school to want to be then you probably just blindly follow right behind chanting "USA! USA!" with the rest of the herd.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 11:42 am to BowlJackson
The USA (of which I am a proud, loyal citizen and veteran of its armed forces) established Fort Sumter in 1829 after the War of 1812, and it underwent improvements up until 1860. You could call it a work in progress.
As far as I know, the disloyal "fireaters" in SC never complained about the US garrison until they decided to commit treason against the USA.
If you sincerely want peace, you don't attack Ft. Sumter. That makes about as much sense as Japan saying it wanted peace in WWII, but pay no mind to that attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.
And then there is this business of invading Pennsylvania in 1863. It's not terrorism, of course, but it's not the action of a government that is waging a purely defensive war.
As far as I know, the disloyal "fireaters" in SC never complained about the US garrison until they decided to commit treason against the USA.
If you sincerely want peace, you don't attack Ft. Sumter. That makes about as much sense as Japan saying it wanted peace in WWII, but pay no mind to that attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.
And then there is this business of invading Pennsylvania in 1863. It's not terrorism, of course, but it's not the action of a government that is waging a purely defensive war.
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 12:03 pm
Posted on 6/25/15 at 12:10 pm to BowlJackson
quote:
Despite how a lot of people seem to feel the United States doesn't have any sort of Devine Rights over anything in this world. Are you one of these people that support everything that the USA does as long as they show you through a red white and blue lens and use the freedom to describe it? If it makes you feel like a patriot like the groomed you in school to want to be then you probably just blindly follow right behind chanting "USA! USA!" with the rest of the herd.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 12:24 pm to Patton
quote:There's the rub. People don't think that far ahead. They just want to "win."
People who still hold this grudge towards the north for a war 150 years ago are so weird. You really think your life would have been better today if the south had won?
It's like Democrats celebrating a "win" because Obama was elected President....twice.
Or, for that matter, the Republicans celebrating a "win" because Bush was elected President....twice.
Or the guy at the track who celebrates a "win" because he has a winning ticket. It doesn't matter that he won $25 and the ticket cost him $75.
The dumbass still considers it a "win."
Posted on 6/25/15 at 12:40 pm to PikeBishop
Are you seriously comparing Ft. Sumter to one of the worst war crimes and deadliest acts of actual terrorism in recorded human history? you're a joke.
The Japanese said they wanted peace, and then staged one of the biggest surprise attacks ever on the soil of their enemy in an effort to cripple our navy and killed 2,500 Americans in the process including many innocent civilians.
The confederates said they wanted peace but members of the Union Army invaded their home soil. They fired on 85 hostile soldiers from an enemy army that were held up in a fort and who had 4 months to prepare themselves. Not a single person died in that battle.
There is literally not one single comparison to be made between the too.
Not sure what the point of your first paragraph was. The British also established many forts that ended up seized by seceding rebels.
You say a work in progress undergoing improvements, but history says still under construction and not finished. You can tell how much the U.S. cared about Fort Sumter before the Civil War from how fast they were rushing to build it. 31 years after breaking ground and they still weren't finished.
Ah so the confederates should sit back and tolerate what is in their eyes a hostile invading army, but it's not okay for them to do it?
Tell me which situation is more in the wrong here:
One army invades enemy territory only to match to an empty battlefield to take the fight to the enemy.
OR the other army invading enemy territory and just marching around destroying everything in their way. Burning defenseless cities to the ground, murdering innocent civilians, actively destroying infrastructure and leaving literally nothing but ruins, ashes, and utter destruction in their wake?
you're a joke. The Japanese said they wanted peace, and then staged one of the biggest surprise attacks ever on the soil of their enemy in an effort to cripple our navy and killed 2,500 Americans in the process including many innocent civilians.
The confederates said they wanted peace but members of the Union Army invaded their home soil. They fired on 85 hostile soldiers from an enemy army that were held up in a fort and who had 4 months to prepare themselves. Not a single person died in that battle.
There is literally not one single comparison to be made between the too.
Not sure what the point of your first paragraph was. The British also established many forts that ended up seized by seceding rebels.
You say a work in progress undergoing improvements, but history says still under construction and not finished. You can tell how much the U.S. cared about Fort Sumter before the Civil War from how fast they were rushing to build it. 31 years after breaking ground and they still weren't finished.
Ah so the confederates should sit back and tolerate what is in their eyes a hostile invading army, but it's not okay for them to do it?
Tell me which situation is more in the wrong here:
One army invades enemy territory only to match to an empty battlefield to take the fight to the enemy.
OR the other army invading enemy territory and just marching around destroying everything in their way. Burning defenseless cities to the ground, murdering innocent civilians, actively destroying infrastructure and leaving literally nothing but ruins, ashes, and utter destruction in their wake?
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 12:44 pm
Posted on 6/25/15 at 12:56 pm to BowlJackson
quote:
OR the other army invading enemy territory and just marching around destroying everything in their way. Burning defenseless cities to the ground, murdering innocent civilians, actively destroying infrastructure and leaving literally nothing but ruins, ashes, and utter destruction in their wake?
I guess the south shouldn't have tried to secede.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 1:08 pm to Patton
And your mom shouldn't have banged the entire football team at that party. Then you might know who your dad is.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 2:03 pm to HempHead
quote:
Boy, those contracts of perpetuity are a real bitch.
Shelby Foote said it best, when he mentioned that if the Southern states knew that the US Constitution was a death-pact marriage, they never would have agreed to it in the first place.
The idea of a country, founded in rebellion, telling itself that any attempt at an amicable divorce will be met with engaged hostilities is laughable.
And as to Johnson being to blame for the horrors of Reconstruction, I think a compelling argument can be made that he was impeached specifically because he didn't have the heart to destroy the South even worse. His own party despised him because he essentially stood in their way of punishing the Confederate states.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 2:16 pm to Patton
quote:
People who still hold this grudge towards the north for a war 150 years ago are so weird. You really think your life would have been better today if the south had won?
I only hold a grudge towards Sherman - he destroyed my maternal family's home and land, and what was left of the land was repossessed by the Feds.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 2:41 pm to HempHead
quote:
I only hold a grudge towards Sherman - he destroyed my maternal family's home and land, and what was left of the land was repossessed by the Feds.
Understandable. It sucks losing wars. I'm lucky my family wasn't in this country for it.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News