Were Confederate Soldiers Terrorists? - Roland Martin

[WillyT]

Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?
By Roland S. Martin, CNN Political Analyst
April 11, 2010 9:35 a.m. EDT

<snip>

(CNN) -- Based on the hundreds of e-mails, Facebook comments and Tweets I've read in response to my denunciation of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's decision to honor Confederates for their involvement in the Civil War -- which was based on the desire to continue slavery -- the one consistent thing that supporters of the proclamation offer up as a defense is that these individuals were fighting for what they believed in and defending their homeland.

In criticizing me for saying that celebrating the Confederates was akin to honoring Nazi soldiers for killing of Jews during the Holocaust, Rob Wagner said, "I am simply defending the honor and dignity of men who were given no choice other than to fight, some as young as thirteen."

Sherry Callahan said that supporting the Confederacy is "our history. Not hate; it's about heritage and history."

Javier Ramirez called slavery evil, but prefaced his remarks by saying that "Confederate soldiers were never seen as terrorists by Lincoln or U.S. generals on the battlefield. They were accorded POW status, they were never tried for war crimes. Not once did Confederate soldiers do any damage to civilians or their property in their invasion of the north. The same is not true of Union soldiers."

Realskirkland sent me a Tweet saying, "Slavery is appalling, but was not the only reason for the CW . Those men, while misguided on some fronts stood up for what they felt was right. They embodied that American ideal that the states have a right to govern themselves. THAT is what a confederate soldier stood for."

If you take all of these comments, don't they sound eerily similar to what we hear today from Muslim extremists who have pledged their lives to defend the honor of Allah and to defeat the infidels in the West?

When you make the argument that the South was angry with the North for "invading" its "homeland," Osama bin Laden has said the same about U.S. soldiers being on Arab soil. He has objected to our bases in Saudi Arabia, and that's one of the reasons he has launched his jihad against us. Is there really that much of a difference between him and the Confederates? Same language; same cause; same effect.

If a Confederate soldier was merely doing his job in defending his homeland, honor and heritage, what are we to say about young Muslim radicals who say the exact same thing as their rationale for strapping bombs on their bodies and blowing up cafes and buildings?

If the Sons of Confederate Veterans use as a talking point the vicious manner in which people in the South were treated by the North, doesn't that sound exactly like the Taliban saying they want to kill Americans for the slaughter of innocent people in Afghanistan?

Defenders of the Confederacy say that innocent people were killed in the Civil War; hasn't the same argument been presented by Muslim radicals in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places where the U.S. has tangled with terrorists?

We can't on the one hand justify the actions of Confederates as being their duty as valiant men of the South, and then condemn the Muslim extremists who want to see Americans die a brutal death. These men are held up as honorable by their brethren, so why do Americans see them as different from our homegrown terrorists?

The fundamental problem with extremism is that when you're on the side that is fanatical, all of your actions make sense to you, and you are fluent in trying to justify every action. Every position of those you oppose is a personal affront that calls for you to do what you think is necessary to protect yourself and your family.

Just as radical Muslims have a warped sense of religion, Confederate supporters have a delusional view of what is honorable. The terrorists are willing to kill their own to prove their point, and the Confederates were just as willing in the Civil War to take up arms against their fellow Americans to justify their point.

Even if you're a relative of one of the 9/11 hijackers, that man was an out-and-out terrorist, and nothing you can say will change that. And if your great-great-great-granddaddy was a Confederate who stood up for Southern ideals, he too was a terrorist.

They are the same.

As a matter of conscience, I will not justify, understand or accept the atrocious view of Muslim terrorists that their actions represent a just war. They are reprehensible, and their actions a sin against humanity.

And I will never, under any circumstances, cast Confederates as heroic figures who should be honored and revered. No -- they were, and forever will be, domestic terrorists.

<snip>

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/martin.confederate.extremist/

:kick:

[elocs]

1. Wouldn't the British have considered Revolutionary War fighters to be terrorists? n/t

[MineralMan]

2. Yes, they would have, and did.

Are you comparing the Confederacy with our Revolutionary soldiers?

[elocs]

16. I'm saying that who gets classified as "terrorists" depends upon your point of view.

One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

3. They did.

[jody]

5. Particularly Sam Adams & John Hancock. n/t

[enlightenment]

21. Citation, please.

Since the term was not in wide use prior to the French 'Reign of Terror' after their Revolution, I'd like to see evidence that the British used the phrase to describe the rebelling colonies some twenty years earlier.

I have seen the term 'revolutionary', of course, along with 'arch rebel' and 'wild enthusiasts'. I have not seen the word 'terrorist' applied by the British to the colonists.

Could you provide an example, please?

[Zomby Woof]

30. I have the Library of America's compendium of "The American Revolution"

www.loa.org

The book is an excellent collection of primary source material, including letters by British officers who fought in the war, and rank-and-file Tory citizens in the colonies. The actual word "terrorists" comes up repeatedly in their writings.

The American Revolution was truly the first war of secession by "traitors".

[enlightenment]

103. Perhaps you could copy a couple of the primary doc titles for me?

I can probably find them in other places.

If you have the time and inclination, that is! Thanks.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

43. 'terror cimbricus'

"Terror" comes from a Latin terrere meaning "to frighten".<13> The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105 BC. The Jacobins cited this precedent when imposing a Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Origin_of_term

[enlightenment]

104. Seems to me I said that . . .

I was asking where I might see some evidence that the British referred to the Colonists using that term.

ZombyH has offered a citation source in their response to mine, but thank you for the Wiki link.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

106. I just meant it was around long before the French revolution,

and since the other poster had already given you a source, I didn't think one was needed, but you're welcome.

[jody]

4. Quiet, don't ask such questions. You might waken the sleeping, historically ignorant. n/t

[WillyT]

6. They Did... We Were.. Until We Won...

:shrug:

[npk]

50. And if the south had won

:shrug:

[WillyT]

57. What Do You Think... Old Saying Concerning War...

"To the Victor, goes the Spoils."

Including the writing of the history books, and the socializing of the next generations.

:shrug:

[npk]

61. Everything in the eye of the beholder

While I didn't support the south's decision to try and secede from the union, many of those same reasons used by the south have been used throughout history as a reason for war.

[fishwax]

8. only retroactively -- I believe the term originated with the French Revolution

[whistler162]

28. No.... well Francis Marion and his band yes...

As people who committed treason yes the same as the North considered the South during the Civil War.

Too many people shoving quick labels on a set of complex events!

[slampoet]

7. "Not once did Confederate soldiers do any damage to civilians or their property" WHAT BULLSHIT!!!!

[skepticscott]

9. They were traitors

Robert E. Lee was guilty of black letter treason and could easily have been tried and hanged for it. The same for every other commander in the Confederate army.

And how long will neo-Confederates cling to the tired and discredited "states rights" meme? The only "right" the Confederate states were defending was the right to enslave other human beings. That was clearly stated as the founding principle of the Confederacy.

[Yupster]

69. Lee and Davis were both indicted for treason

Lee was happy to live a quiet life the rest of his days, but not Davis.

Davis hired a high powered group of northern lawyers to defend him on the treason charge.

His defense was pretty simple.

Secesssion was Constitutional.

If Davis could have been easily tried and hanged for treason, then he would have been.

He was loudly demanding his right to a public and speedy trial.

The President was a life-long enemy of Davis's who would have tried him if he felt he could have. But the downside was too great. What if the Supreme Court ruled secession was legal? What then?

The government decided instead to just keep postponing the trial. Postponed, postponed, postponed, and then finally just postponed indefinately and Davis was bailed out of jail by northern abolitionist millionaires.

Davis spent the rest of his life demanding his trial which he never got.

The government refused to ever try him. It's completely unfair to 150 years later declare him guilty.

How'd you like to be arrested for child molestation, demand your trial to prove yourself innocent, but the government just keep postponing the trial, and then postpone it indefinately? How'd you like it if someone later came up to you and said, "oh yeah, you're that child molestor."

This is one of those cases which shows whether people really care about the syatem the say they support or if they just always want their side to win whether they're right or wrong.

[skepticscott]

72. Well, I said nothing about Davis

so I'm not sure where all of that came from, but it isn't necessary for them to have been convicted in court to say that they were clearly guilty. If you are a US citizen and you levy war against the United States, that's treason. Both Lee and Davis clearly and indisputably did so.

[Yupster]

84. I used Davis as the example because

he challenged the charge against him which was the same charge you made against Lee.

Lee chose not to challenge the charge though it was made against him too. He just tried to retire peacefully.

Both Lee and Davis would say they were clearly not citizens of the USA. Once their states joined the Confederacy they became citizens of it.

You use the terms "clearly" in places where it doesn't belong.

Davis had a very vibrant defense to the charge of treason. Would it have won out or not?

I don't think anyone can say. The US government certainly wasn't sure enough to try the case in court.

Saying it's not necessary for them to be convicted for them to be clearly guilty is troubling in this case since I don't think they were clearly guilty at all.

But that's one opinion of this old history teacher and textbook author. Your opinion may certainly differ. That doesn't bother me. It's that you're so sure of your views. So sure someone was guilty when they were demanding a trial and it was denied them. That seems to go against our basic syustem of justice.

[jody]

99. Yupster it's not fair to bring facts to a fantasy fight. n/t

[skepticscott]

101. Well, convince me that what they did

did not constitute levying war against the United States. Because if it did, that's black letter treason, regardless of whether the decision was made not to prosecute for reasons other than lack of evidence. And as I posted elsewhere here, you can't absolve yourself of treason simply by saying that you didn't consider yourself an American any more. If you could claim that defense, then it would be pretty much impossible to convict anyone of treason. And whether Davis was treated unjustly by not being granted a trial is a separate issue from whether what he did constituted treason under the letter of the law.

[melm00se]

120. the question really is

can you be accused/tried/convicted of treason by a country you to which no longer hold allegiance?

as an example:

Say I renounce my American citizenship and then take up arms against the USA, did I commit treason?

the case can be made by declaring secession, Davis, de facto, renounced his citizenship and no longer a citizen could he be treasonous to the USA?

[Yupster]

124. I answered this same question elsewhere in the thread, but

here's a shortened version.

You're right that a person cannot proclaim that his home in Apartment 3K on Main Street is now an independant country. The Constitutional government was not formed by a union of the individuals.

The government was created by a union of the states with each state having to vote to join it.

If you have studied the ratification debates it was not an easy thing to get the states to agree to give up so much power to the federal government. ERven states like New York had very long - difficult debates before the government was ratified. If it was ever stated that once a state joined, the state could never leave the Constitutional government, there's no doubt the Constitution would not have ever been ratified. It almost wasn't anyway.

But, back to the question.

President Davis's argument would not be that individuals had the right to take their personal land outside US juristiction. He would argue that right would be an entitlement of each state. They could in short leave the same way they came in, by a vote of their legislatures.

So, their argument would be that their states left the union, legally and joined a different foreign country.

At that point they would have no more allegiance to their old nation, and in fact would be traitors to their new nation should they not support it. They could of course not be traitors to a nation they did not belong to.

In 2010, this may not seem reasonable to you, but please understand things were a lot different back then.

The federal government was not nearly as important to people's lives as it is today. State governments had much more power and the federal government had much less. State legislatures chose US senators in those days so the states had a voice in Washington to make sure the federal government didn't get too large.

So in short, whether Davis committed treason or not would have to be answered in court. It was no slam dunk. He had a vibrant defense and a very reasonable legal argument.

I believe he was right and it would have been very difficult to have found him guilty. Back then the Tenth Amendment was still part of the Constitution, and that would have been a high hurdle for the government to jump over.

In the odd circumstance where you have a defendant with a strong defense demanding his trial to prove hius innocence, andf the government refusing to give him that opportunity, I hope you can see basic fairness and respect for our legal system would stop you from declaring him guilty without trial.

My guess is you would not do that in any other similar situation.

Just to give one example, you are a schoolteacher and a student has accused you of exposing yourself to her. You claim it's a lie and you can prove it. The school district suspends you, and then postpones your suspension hearing over and over and then permanently. Yet the Superintendant three years later tells the newspaper that you were a nice man, but a pervert and had to regretably be removed from the classroom.

You wouldn't support that. I know you wouldn't.

[KatyMan]

125. I disagree on this point:

"How'd you like to be arrested for child molestation, demand your trial to prove yourself innocent, but the government just keep postponing the trial, and then postpone it indefinately? How'd you like it if someone later came up to you and said, 'oh yeah, you're that child molestor.'"

If all of your writings (and in this day and age, video) were pro child molestation, and you were on video and public record as saying you were a child molester, and indeed your acts clearly prove that you are one, then the fact that you were not tried does not mean you aren't a child molester.

[hlthe2b]

10. Drawing the lines this distinctly ...

seems a rational argument, yet, it only perpetuates the divisiveness. Drawing the line that all Muslim viewpoints towards the US are without justification, nor worthy of addressing--not worthy of considering, in terms of our future policies, only fuels the fire for future terrorist acts and indoctrination of future generations. Likewise drawing the conclusion that all who fought for or defended the confederacy did so for monolithic reasons, despite the clear truth that slavery was the most important of these reasons, is far too simplistic. As in all wars, most of those who fought were the young, the ignorant, the easily manipulated poor. Their descendants do have a hard time trying to reconcile the reasons for their ancestor's commitment to a cause that would have provided little benefit to the majority of non-monied (and non-slave holding) families. I'm sure they were convinced for any number of reasons and justifications. That is emblematic of all wars. Do you think the descendants of Iraqi War Vets will acknowledge their family's sacrifice was a result of lies and manipulations from the Bush* administration?

Roland, I agree you have staked out the moral high ground. But, it is a black and white, good versus evil, no room for compromise or shades of gray position that will do nothing towards healing the divide, in this country nor abroad. As hard as it is for most of us to hear justifications for the confederacy--especially when propaganda is interwoven--it is necessary to view this a bit more comprehensively and with a far greater degree of complexity.

[skepticscott]

22. Well, yes...some people don't want to regard their

ancestors badly, regardless of what they did, but if they want any respect at all, they need to acknowledge (at least to themselves) the truth that they fought and died for a cause that was shameful. No one is asking them to do public penance for any of that nowadays, so having them play the poor victims is pretty disingenuous. What is deeply resented by sane and knowledgeable people are the constant and public attempts to actively portray the Confederate cause as something noble and justifiable. Ultimately, it wasn't, and there is no black and white about that, not if you consider that if the Confederacy had won, they would have chosen to continue the institution of slavery forever. If your ancestor was just some poor dumb hick who didn't know any better and who just shot at whoever they told him to, fine...no one is going to harass you about that any more if you don't try to pretend that there was something good behind "The Cause".

[hlthe2b]

53. Please don't personalize this to me..

re: "If your ancestor was just some poor dumb hick who didn't know any better and who just shot at whoever they told him to, fine...no one is going to harass you about that any more if you don't try to pretend that there was something good behind "The Cause".


I am from the West, though I lived for some time in my childhood and adolescence in several of the states that mark the "heart" of the South. I highly doubt I have any relatives that fought on the side of the South, given where my family heralds from and the relative recent history of some parts of my family in terms of their immigration to this country from northern Europe. I simply believe in being fair to all concerned. That does not mean I am defending whatever it is you are accusing me of defending. How very disingenuous of you to do so. No wonder we really can't bridge the gap this many years later. How very sad.

[skepticscott]

56. Oh, spare me the drama and the victimization

I was not referring to you specifically, or "accusing" you of anything, and I'm not sure what persecution complex would make you automatically assume that I was. When I said "your ancestor", I was addressing generally anyone who might happen to fall into that category. Were you incapable of grasping that other possibility, or did you just automatically assume the worst of the two?

[hlthe2b]

59. The, perhaps you ought to lean a little precision in your choice

of words (as well as just a tad of history). Save your insults. I'm done with the likes of you.

[skepticscott]

81. Perhaps you should take the approach

that when considering two possible interpretations of someone's response, you shouldn't automatically assume that the one more insulting to you is the one that was meant. You might even ask for clarification before you start huffing and throwing accusations around, if you're really as big a devotee of getting along as you claim to be. Or would that be expecting too much?

But if adding another name to your (no doubt already long) ignore list is a badge of honor to you, by all means do so.

[mike_c]

11. all militaries are terrorists....

All military campaigns impact and terrorize civilians.

[Bucky]

14. Only if definitions don't matter.

You don't get to reinvent the English language with each new sentence.

[MajorChode]

66. Good luck finding a standard definition of terrorism

If you use the dictionary definition, you could very well interpret that definition the way the previous poster did. If you look to various governments' definitions of the term, you'll find they vary widely.

My personal definition is anyone that intentionally targets or threatens civilians with violence to achieve a political goal is a terrorist.

[Bitwit1234]

12. Damn it to hell NO NO NO NO

My ancestors were Confederate. They might have fought on the wrong side of the War Between the States, for reasons unrelated to slavery. But they were not terrorists and any body that says they were are a bunch of wimps. Trying to start trouble. Let it rest for God's sake.

[fishwax]

15. "Let it rest for God's sake"

The ones not letting it rest are those wanting to celebrate the confederacy.

[Fire1]

94. Then I'm a wimp. GLADLY. n/t

[Bucky]

13. Let's not dumb down the language. Someone isn't a terrorist cause they fight for a bad cause.

Supporting slavery is bad. Doing so unwittingly is tragic. Terrorism may be a vague term, but if you're marching in formation in a uniform and following orders, I think the label of "terrorist" is pretty big distortion.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

17. +1. n/m

[aquart]

19. Yes. However, how do you classify Quantrill's Raiders?

[Bucky]

23. War criminals, certainly. Like I said, terrorism is a vague term.

If there's a war on, a different context exists. If Quantrill and his murderous subordinates put on the same uniforms five years before the war, they'd just be gaudily dressed terrorist, or cultists, or militia nuts. But when a state of war exists, different rules apply. But you probably know that.

[hlthe2b]

67. I think they ( Quantrill's Raiders) do meet the definition

They aren't the only group post-war that would. KKK, certainly...

[Posteritatis]

31. The "Terrorist = anyone I happen not to like" thing is getting really, really tired, too

Between (1) treating the term like it's the worst evil in human history and (B) diluting its usefulness by applying it to everything, discussions over whether the word applies are pretty much the new Nazi discussions.

[treestar]

71. Agreed, some people just seem to have to apply every bad term

to every bad thing, as if they can make something sound worse by a label.

[Bucky]

100. The last US president NOT to be called the antichrist was, what, Jimmy Carter?

[MadHound]

18. No, for the most part they weren't terrorists, geez.

And I speak as one who hates the Confederacy for what it did and what it has sadly come to represent. But what I hate worse are those who throw around terms without care for meaning, applying them to situations that simply don't apply.

The soldiers of the Confederate army were an organized, regular fighting force that was implemented to fight the Northern armed forces. They weren't terrorists, they were soldiers. Applying the term terrorist to them is a gross misuse of the term, and implies that even modern day armies, including ours, are nothing more than terrorists.

About the only group of Confederates that could be labeled as terrorists would be Quantrill and his raiders, he deliberately set out, time and again, to terrorize, rape, and plunder the civilian population.

But the rest, no, they weren't terrorists.

I wonder what Martin would say about the African Americans who volunteered, served and fought in the Confederate army. Were they terrorists?

[WillyT]

24. It's A Controversial Call To Be Sure...

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the International community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

:shrug:

[boppers]

113. "what Martin would say about the African Americans who volunteered"..

It came up in the interviews that sparked this column... I forget his exact response, but it was along the lines of "a slave cannot be fairly called a volunteer".

As to your laughable contention that Quantrill group was the only Confederate terrorist group/action, I think your history education might have failed you with absurd levels of whitewashing. There was an incredible amount of plundering, raids, and attacks on Union populations.

Some starting points:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Albans_Raid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_Ferguson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_Mount_Zion_Church
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/43rd_Battalion_Virginia_Cavalry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNeill's_Rangers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelton_Laurel_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wirz

Have an overview article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare_in_the_American_Civil_War

[Marr]

20. That's an interesting argument. All the cliched points that Confederate admirers use

to defend the Confederacy are echoed by the other groups they condemn out of hand. Of course, these sorts of people are immune to hypocrisy.

[piedmont]

25. Robert E. Lee rejected insurgency. We should all be glad the Army of Virginia was disbanded...

at Appomattox instead of the Confederates staging a long guerrilla war against U.S. troops.

They fought a war each for his own reasons, and suffered terribly for it. And I'm glad they lost, even though they were my great-great-grandfathers.

[MadHound]

26. Actually there were some that did engage in a long guerrilla war,

Not just against US troops, but part of the civilian population as well. One group that became famous for that guerrilla war was the KKK.

[piedmont]

38. And few would dispute that the KKK were terrorists. But they are not one and the same with...

confederate soldiers as a whole.

[TexasObserver]

27. Yes, the Confederates were terrorists.

The Confederacy is the definition of TREASON. They were traitors to America, and should only be remembered as such.

[MadHound]

32. Two different words there Tex

"Terrorist" vs. "Traitor"

I can't argue against your contention that they were traitors, they were. However on what basis do you call them terrorists? Confederate soldiers fought in regular armies, under military discipline and command. There were a few notable exceptions, Quantrill and his raiders being first and foremost, but the vast majority of Confederate soldiers were not terrorists, they were soldiers.

[TexasObserver]

36. There was plenty of terrorism by both sides, but only side was treasonous.

In our approach to terrorism, those who attack us do so to create terror. Which of our opponents in Iraq or Aghanistan have we not called terrorists? Who in the past nine years have we used our military against that we have not called terrorists?

We fought against Irai military in Iraq, and we called all of them terrorists. It's just a word for someone trying to violently oppose OUR government.

[MadHound]

40. Just because Bush, then others in our government have gotten linguistically sloppy

Doesn't mean that we need to.

Words mean things, and a person fighting in an organized army, under military command and discipline, is not a terrorist. Yes, they may commit acts of terrorism, but if you go by that, then the US army is nothing but terrorists.

Traitors, yes, but the Confederate army were not terrorists.

[TexasObserver]

42. Now I know what your opinion is on these terms. Your opinion.

You're stuck at some moment in the past, and that's where you remain, linguistically speaking. I prefer to live in this year.

Words mean what people accept them to mean. Your regimen does not rule, it merely reassures you that at some moment in your life, this is what you learned, and having learned it, you never want to move away from it.

Confederates were terrorists. They visited terror upon blacks throughout the South, before, during and after the war.

[MadHound]

45. Sorry, but despite Bushboy's setting the fashion, words still do mean things

"United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title."

Confederate soldiers simply do not fall under that legal definition. Do you think that African Americans who served and fought for the Confederate side were terrorists?

Look, if you want to persist in calling them terrorists, whatever, you're welcome to make a fool of yourself. But remember, you're joining Bushboy and all the rest of the RW yahoos who scream "terrorists" at any group that they disagree with, including liberals.

[TexasObserver]

48. You're simply one person with an opinion. That's it.

My comments stand.

[MadHound]

52. Yeah, one person, with an opinion, one that is backed up with both legal and etymological defitiions

What have you got to back your opinion up with? Oh, yeah, the Bushboy precedent:eyes:

Thanks, I'll stick with the precedents set up by both the English language and US legal system.

[TexasObserver]

54. Yes, one person with one opinion.

I know you think it's more than just your opinion, and that's what makes it all the more amusing.

Thanks for the laugh, but you're barking up the wrong tree.

[hlthe2b]

60. MadHound is right...

[MadHound]

80. No, actually it's a bit more than that

I've got etymological and legal definitions to back up my opinion.

What do you have to back up your opinion? Oh, yeah, hot air, that's it.

Again, words actually mean things, you can't simply throw them about, using them to mean whatever you want them to mean. You have to stay within certain, fairly precise definitions. It's called language, use it, and use it properly. Otherwise you simply come across as an uneducated fool.

[piedmont]

91. Well hell. Bush is a terrorist, Obama is a terrorist, I'm a terrorist since I voted for Obama,

My Dad is even more of a terrorist since he voted for both of them. Damn terrorists terrorizing everybody.

[SteveM]

46. "Prefer to live in this year"? Sounds like you're fighting a war long-over. nt

[hlthe2b]

58. Exactly... Do they not teach any of this in school?

I am so sick of people throwing about such loaded terms as though they were synonymous-- with no apparent understanding of the terms. When our side does this, no matter how heated the issue, it is no better (and sadly, just as embarrassing) as when the Glenn Beck followers conflate socialism with Nazism with Facism with Communism. I find it disgusting.

[NutmegYankee]

34. Traitor does not equal terrorist. nt

[TexasObserver]

41. Terrorizing blacks with torchings, lynchings and beatings isn't terror?

I suppose that depends on your perspective.

Whose eyes does one look through to analyze the events? If one is a Confederate sympathizer, one likely cannot see the terrorism.

[SteveM]

47. Thank God for the Second and Fourteenth Amendments...

without either, the violence visited upon blacks in the post-Civil War South would have been worse. Fortunately, the remnants of Jim Crow's gun-prohibitions are confined to only a few "Northern" cities; but that will soon change.

[Art_from_Ark]

117. Really?

Many places in the South basically ignored the 14th Amendment after the occupying Union troops pulled out in the wake of the stolen election of 1876. Lynchings were a common practice to keep down blacks, and there were even cases of whole communities of blacks being destroyed well after the Civil War. Rosewood, Florida, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood_massacre

[hlthe2b]

62. Conflating everything, every group, and everone of the period

to justify your point, is no better (and just as ignorant) as Glenn Becks' conflating SOcialism with COmmunism with Fascism with Nazism.

[TexasObserver]

63. The romanticizing of Confederates is dangerous and thoughtless.

Your arguments are inane, and I reject them.

[hlthe2b]

64. No one here is romanticizing Confederates. You are being very disingenous

unnecessarily and dishonestly argumentative.

[NutmegYankee]

105. Are you seriously accusing someone named "Nutmeg (Conn.)Yankee" as a CSA sympathizer?

The topic was confederate soldiers. They fought in a war, not conducting the terrors you claimed. Those would be later groups like the KKK.
Soldiers were trained to fire guns, march in formation, and obey commands.

As a New Englander, I do feel the south was guilty of treason, but treason is not terrorism.

[TexasObserver]

107. The only thing I've "accused" you of is not seeing the terrorism involved.

I haven't given your screen name a second thought, don't know where you're from.

[NutmegYankee]

108. Then please explain the error of my logic.

And explain just what this statement was meant to imply if not what I had taken it to mean: "Whose eyes does one look through to analyze the events? If one is a Confederate sympathizer, one likely cannot see the terrorism."

[TexasObserver]

109. I've explained it sufficiently.

[NutmegYankee]

110. So, in other words, you just stated it and it's now fact.

Interesting thought process...

[TexasObserver]

111. It's a fact because it's a fact. TERRORISM was essential to the Confederacy.

Your refusal to accept the truth doesn't alter that.

I suggest you read some history and open your mind to the possibility your rigid method of processing information is limiting your ability to see beyond your own preconceived notions.

[NutmegYankee]

112. Terrorism was esential to slavery. Winning a war was essential to the CSA.

And they rightfully lost the war. Sorry bud, I'm well versed on history. The soldiers of the CSA were uniformed soldiers fighting for their "country". Their cause may have been a bad one, but they do not meet the definition of terrorism.

Terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

[Yupster]

70. Tex - your own state voted 80 % to 20 % to leave the USA in 1861

Between 1836 and 1861 your fellow statesmen were ruled over by

Mexico
The Republic Of Texas
The USA
The Confederacy

Pardon them for thinking they had the right to change their government. It's not like the first time they ever did it, having changed three times in 25 years.

And they voted overwhelmingly to do it even with the Governor campaigning loudly against it.

If they were traitors, they were sure pretty regular about it.

They just felt they were changing the government they owed allegiance to, and they did it by a vote.

Why would they think they didn't have that right?

[TexasObserver]

98. So what? They also rounded up and executed Union sympathizers.

Or did you never hear about the mass lynchings in Texas leading up to and during the Civil War?

One town in East Texas hung 40 in one afternoon. And that doesn't even include what they did to slaves.

Is it terrorism yet?

The Confederacy's living legacy is the Tea Baggers.

[Yupster]

114. You have switched from my post concerning your use of the term treason

to charging terrorism which I never commented on one way or the other.

Your response of "so what" to me means you are conceding the Confederate leaders could not have been traitors.

On your point of terrorism, I concede there was much terrorism on both sides during the war.

I would argue the north was guilty to a much larger degree than the south, but I concede there was terrorism on both sides for sure.

[Riftaxe]

76. As were the Union soldiers, both terrorists

Although the Union particularly favored civilian targets. A condemnation of the beliefs of the confederacy must be tempered with the same condemnation for the tactics of the Union.

I find history fascinating but rarely make the mistake of trying to inflict modern day mores upon the past. Then again, there are many Robespierre wannabees around who could learn a thing or two from opening a history book.

[MadHound]

82. Now that's good, you managed to contradict yourself in the space of seven words of your OP

The Union soldiers were just that, soldiers, under military command and discipline. Attacking civilian targets, by itself, is not the sign of a terrorist. If you take that view, then virtually every army of every country in every age is nothing but a gang of terrorists, and that definition is so broad that it becomes unwieldy and useless.

You claim to not want to inflict modern day mores upon the past, but by labeling Union soldiers as terrorists does just that. Perhaps you should take your own advice:shrug:

[Posteritatis]

29. Anachronisms are just the bee's knees. (nt)

[NutmegYankee]

33. No. They were uniformed soldiers.

Whether they are considered traitors however is a good debate.

[leveymg]

35. Today, they'd be termed, "Unlawful Combatants."

The American colonial troops and revolutionary militia even had the temerity to violate the "rules of war" as then established. They refused to line up in rows like bowling pins and preferred instead to shoot from behind stone walls and ambush from the cover of trees.



"Terrorists" - as All-American as the Minutemen.

[Gaedel]

123. Not true

The dynamics of 18th century combat meant that lining up and shooting at the other guys at close range was the most effective method of combat. Washington, Gates, and Green only began to compete with the Brits in the field when they were schooled in close order drill and firing by volley. Sniping caused a few Brit casualties, but the Brits could pretty much go anywhere they wanted and do what they wanted until the colonists became the equivalent of regulars.

The idea that the colonists fought singly behind trees and defeated the Brits is one of those US exceptionalism "creation myths" like GW and the cherry tree.

[leveymg]

126. Irregulars continued to fight in a guerrilla style throughout the war

The Continental Army was always small and without several hundred thousand temporary troops, the Revolutionaries would have been defeated. The so-called American style of warfare -- attacking from concealment and retreating -- was effective, despite the short range of muskets, and it drove the British nuts. They accused the Americans of fighting like Indians, which was like calling them "terrorists" in the parlance of the day. The British countered by employing highly-mobile Prussian Jaeger (hunter) units who were skilled in what might be called counter-insurgency or special forces tactics today.

Actually, I think we're both right about this, as both approaches worked best in coordination with each other.

Here's a link and extract: http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/revolutionarywar/articles/americanrevolution.aspx

Warfare in America was nothing like it was in Europe, fighting shoulder to shoulder arrayed in columns did not function well in the heavily wooded areas. The militias were the first to grasp the importance of firing from concealed locations and then retreating to take up new positions in which to fire from, at Lexington and Concord. Shy devotes a chapter discussing the American "Art of War" and its champion General Charles Lee and its protagonist General George Washington (the personal relationship between Lee and Washington would deteriorate early in the war over the issue of the militia's use.). Lee found that hit and run tactics were very effective and noticed their impact had upon British mentality. American militias fighting in this style would allow the British to roam amongst the countryside, but the psychological effect on the British proved to be tremendous as an early form of insurgent warfare. On the other hand Washington disagreed with the militia style of warfare and believed America could not afford to allow the British to run at will in the countryside. He preferred the European style of fighting, where soldiers fought side by side. During the Battle of Bunker Hill, the militia proved capable of fighting in the European style, by fighting from prepared positions of earthworks and trenches. This laid the foundation for the Continental regulars as they would be better disciplined to fight in this fashion. However, for Washington to achieve this, he would have to wait years until the American mentality could be trained to accept the ridged soldiers life, where as the British were already disciplined professionally by comparison.

In response to the new and different style of fighting, the British improved their forces with dragoons (a soldier that can fight either mounted similar to cavalry or dismounted like an infantrymen), the American theatre made having cavalry in America nearly impossible to use, thus negating an effective charge. Another British modification to American warfare, they brought over experienced German Jaeger regiments (Jaeger in German means hunter) which were experienced in light infantry tactics and known for their marksmanship. The early American riflemen from Pennsylvania and Kentucky proved devastating during the siege of Boston, but by using Jaegers the British were able to counter the American riflemen and created more flexibility in British fight styles. Shy illustrates an important point between the militias and continentals, by stating they were at their most effective when working in coordination with each other. The southern campaign proved a genius stroke of military skill that the British had problems fighting. At the Battle of the Cowpens, General Harry Lee used his own dragoons and militia to land one of the greatest victories against the British and Banastre Tarleton. At the outset of the British campaign in the South, the British seemingly went from victory to victory and Tarleton's elite forces, called Tarleton's Legion proved stunning as the Americans had no concept on how to combat their mobility; Tarleton took a play out of militias' playbook by using hit and run tactics. However, Tarleton's defeat at the Cowpens was proof of Lee's ability to adapt his dragoons to be more effective and as a result this forced the British to retreat from South Carolina into North Carolina.

[WillyT]

37. So... Would It Be Ok To Say That, "After Losing The Civil War, Many Traitors (Soldiers)...

became terrorists (KKK)."

:shrug:

[TexasObserver]

39. If they weren't terrorists during the War, they certainly were before & after it.

KKK and all the white racist offshoots that sprung up to subvert the rights of Americans BY TERROR.

[WillyT]

44. My Point Exactly...

:hi:

[TexasObserver]

49. The romanticizing of Confederates is dangerous.

The latter day Confederates continue to spin their tall tales of romanticized Confederate "heroes." In that world, they are misunderstood good guys who loved black people, and simply resented the North for oppressing those poor Confederates.

[Uncle Joe]

51. No

Thanks for the thread, Willy T.

[JDPriestly]

55. Indeed, the Confederacy was an uprising, an insurgency, and the

Confederate soldiers were insurgents. So if you consider all insurgents to be terrorists, then yes.

I don't think that all insurgents are terrorists. A terrorist is a person who uses violence or believable threats of violence against non-combatants, against civilians, to achieve political ends.

Most of the Confederate soldiers wore uniforms and fought as members of an identifiable army. They were not terrorists. They were insurgents.

Those Confederate soldiers, if any, who, out of uniform, threatened violence or used violence against civilians might be considered to be terrorists, but you would have to know all the facts to decide for sure IMO.

[Cleita]

65. They committed treason. But as the saying goes, one man's terrorist is

another's revolutionary, which is what they considered themselves. Fortunately, in that day and age someone had the presence of mind not to prosecute them and just sent them home to rebuild the destruction left behind

[Yupster]

73. I don't think they were traitors either

Using my own state of Texas as an example, thew Texans had a vote on whether to secede or not. They voted 80-20 to secede.

At that point they were no longer part of the USA.

How can you be traitors to a country you aren't part of any more?

Now if you didn't fight for the new country, would that make you a traitor to the Confederacy?

Or would it be that whichever side lost the war would be traitors?

There were hundreds of thousands of southerners who opposed secession and voted against it and spoke against it, and then served very ably in the Confederate armies or government.

The most famous I guess is the Vice President of the Confederacy who led the anti-secession movement in his state's secession convention, but then served as Vice-president throughout the war.

The princi
Not everyone in the south agreed with seceding, but almost everyone in the south believed they had the Constitutional right to do it.

[WillyT]

74. DID They Have A Constitutional Right To Do It ??? - Does Anyone Now Have That Right ???

I'm not so sure you can vote your way out of a country.

And why would somebody cite the founding document (constitution) of a country they are leaving?

Declaration of Independence, maybe... but not the Constitution.

:shrug:

[Yupster]

89. Did "they"?

In history they call this the sin of presentism. Judging the past by the standards of the present.

The "they" people talk about today is different from the "they" that formed the union.

The nation was formed by a union of not the people, but of the states. That's why each state joined the Constitution, not each individual.

So 150 years ago, the right for a person to declare 32 Elm Street a separate country would be laughed at, while the right of a state to declare itself a separate nation would be taken seriously. Back then states had much stronger rights and the federal government was a much smaller presence in people's lives.

In a nation without an income tax, direct election of senators, or federal departments of Education, Energy, Housing, or almost everything else, people just didn't think the same way about the federal government as they do today. As the fedearl government has gotten stronger over the generations and the state governments weaker

They cited the Tenth Amendment as to why they could leave the Union. Since the federal Constitution was based around the theory of a limited federal government that actually listed the powers of the fedearl government and anything not listed was reserved to the people or the states, they argued the states had the right to leave.

Right or wrong, it was certainly a reasonable argument.

I also don't consider the Constitution a "founding document," in that way. Rather it is the document explaining the rules under which our government lives. It should be just as relevant today as it was in 1790. If they were looking to change their government legally, of course they'd want to follow the rules of the nation they were leaving. Until they left. Then they wouldn't be Americans anymore. They would then be Confederates, and no longer under any obligation the USA, their former country.

[skepticscott]

79. Well, you don't get to absolve yourself of treason

simply by saying that you don't consider yourself an American any more, otherwise anyone accused of treason could get off by using that defense. Robert E. Lee was an officer in the United States Army, who had sworn an oath to that country. If he then turned around and levied war against them, that's treason, all hair-splitting about citizenship aside. The Constitution offers no exception to people who were fighting to defend a different government that they felt greater loyalty to.

[Yupster]

96. If Hawaii was oneday granted its independance

and a former US Army officer became President and they got involved in a war against the USA 20 years later, would the President of Hawaii be a traitor to the USA?

I don't know anyone who would make that argument.

In that hypothetical, Hawaii was not part of America. It was legally separated. Once it was separated, then its citizens would become citizens of the new nation of Hawaii and would no longer be citizens of the USA, and therefore couldn't be traitors to the USA.

So that would leave two questions.

1. Is there a time limit? Should a former US citizen have to wait a "decent interval" before he could take part in a war against his former nation? Maybe a two year rule? General Lee could take a leadership role in defending his new nation against US invasion, but only after two years from the time he joined the new nation. That's an interesting ethical question, but it doesn't seem to hold any legal merit.

2. Did Virginia leave the USA legally. That really is the question it all comes down to. Does a state legislature have a right to vote to leave the Union? The Constitution is silent on the topic. They said they had that right citing the Tenth Amendment. Others said the USA is impossible for a state to ever leave regardless of the situation or reasons. I believe the secessionist argument was Constitutionally stronger, but the issue was settled in the court held on the slopes of Little Round Top so the Constitution is now settled. If your state leaves the union, you'll get ground to a pulp.

At the time there was no reason the southern states would be expected to know that. They thought they had a solid legal position, and my own opinion is that they were Constitutionally right.

[skepticscott]

102. The flaw in your analogy is

that the Confederacy wasn't granted its independence. It attempted to secure it by the very acts of treason that its independence would, you say, have negated. And even if there were a "time limit", Lee went from being a sworn officer in the United States Army to an army officer for a foreign government levying war against the government he had sworn to protect, basically in the space of a day, so it's hard to see how it would apply to him. If a US Army officer did that tomorrow, would he NOT be guilty of treason? I don't know anyone who would make THAT argument.

[Yupster]

115. My argument isn't flawed -- it leads to my question # 2

Did the southern states voting to leave the union violate the Constitution or not?

If they did it was treason. If it didn't, it wasn't.

They argued the Constitution allowed it. Lincoln argued it didn't.

It was by no means a slam dunk argument one way or the other.

I guess the wasy for it to have been settled would have been President Davis's trial, which would have ended up in front of the Supreme Court.

The US government refused to give Davis his day in court though, so the arguent wasn't tested, and Davis never got a chance to make his argument.

Therefore, I don't see how a fair person could call him guilty when he demanded a trial to prove his innocence and it was denied him.

[JustAnotherGen]

68. It's hard to get these Southern Romantics

To see the light that these weren't 'good people' fighting a just cause when their 'former' enemy has 'hailed' their 'war heroes' by naming US Military Forts after them.

Fort Bragg, - Named for Confederate General Braxton Bragg
Fort Lee - Robert E. Lee
Fort Hood - General John Bell Hood - Confederate

So I won't get into the terrorists/not terrorist debate. But it's ten kinds of screwed up that TRAITORS to the United States of America are given such honors.

It makes me think? Will there some day be a fort named after Tim McVeigh? It's a little thing - but it goes to who we are at the core and what is acceptable/unacceptable in terms of 'honoring' our enemies.

Eh? I come from a very strong military family and was born an Army brat to a Special Ops (Green Beret) officer. This has always stuck in my dad's craw. Here he is a young black man from the South, fighting for this country, and he can't vote without fear to his bodily harm. In the meantime - they shove it down his throat again by making him spend time in hell at Fort Bragg. As the Vietnam War went on - he married a hippy (my mom). She was a huge influence in his leaving the military. And he had a TREMENDOUS respect for those who protested the Vietnam War. They saw bullshit and could speak for him - because if spoke up it would have been behavior unbecoming an officer. And well - sort of traitorous. Right?

I think to make it right, the Good Governor of VA at least ought to move to ask the military to rename Fort Lee after Colln Powell. That would really put his 'history' in its' place eh? He does that - I'll accept his excuses for this stupidity.

Which in reading the entire article by Roland Martin? Is really what he's pointing out. The sheer stupidity in the proclamation/celebration in the first. What a couple of stupids those idiot Governors are. (Referencing the jerk down in Mississippi here).

ETA: I don't do 'fox news' so posting the link to the DU article referencing Barbour: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4339754

[Fire1]

75. If the Taliban and Al Qaeda are terrorists so were

Confederate soldiers. Period.

[Enrique]

77. he's missing one thing: terrorism

he talks about how bad Confederate soldiers are for a lot of reasons, but never gets around to mentioning any terrorism that they do.

There was terrorism before the war, in Kansas, and after Reconstruction there was a lot of terrorism against free blacks. But during the war as far as I know the Confederacy mostly fought a war. They certainly weren't defined by terrorism, so what's the point of calling them terrorists?

This is a pretty bad article, imo. I think he's just stirring up shit or something.

[Fire1]

83. Then apparently you didn't comprehend what you read.

They had the same cause, same effect of said causes. I suggest you read again.

[Enrique]

86. but did they carry out terrorism?

same cause and effect, ok, but what about the terrorism?

There was terrorism in that period. John Brown's raid, pre-war massacres in Kansas and Missouri, lynchings after the war.

But where's the terrorism that defines the Confederacy?

[Fire1]

88. The kidnapping, trading, mutilation, killing and enslavement

of an entire race of people was terrorism and the DEFENSE OF THAT is terrorism. It may not have been RECOGNIZED as such until AFTER the war but that doesn't CHANGE what it was.

[Enrique]

95. ok, so slavery itself was terrorism

regardless of whether that's true or not, it's not what Martin is saying.

[Fire1]

97. I know this. He's saying the Confederacy was/is no better

than the Taliban or AlQaeda. Which is true.

[proteus_lives]

78. Some were, some weren't.

The uniformed armies fighting in the East? No, they weren't.

The Bushwhackers in Missouri and the West? Yeah, they were.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. Didn't Some Want To Continue Fighting As Irregulars But Lee Nixed It

They would have been terrorists for sure.

The classic definition of a terrorist is one who attacks non-military targets to instill fear in the populus. By that definition they weren't terrorists.

But they were traitors fighting for the most odious of causes; to prevent men and women from being free.

[butterfly77]

85. YES...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. They Were Traitors Which Is Worse

A terrorist is a person that attacks non-military targets to instill terror in the populus. Ironically, that's what Sherman did.

[Fire1]

92. Damn straight. He's my civil war hero! n/t

[Aristus]

93. Some were; some weren't. It depends on the fighting tactics they used.

But they were ALL enablers, witting or unwitting, of slavery, and the avalanche of sin that monstrous institution unleashes...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

119. If You Attack Non-Military Targets Or Civilians You're A Terrorist

It has nothing to do with the righteousness or lack of righteousness of your cause.

People like to cite the Revolutionaries as terrorists but they didn't strike non-military targets. It has nothing to do with them being "patriots'.

[hlthe2b]

121. I think you want to rethink that definition...

That would fit the definition for nearly all wars fought and by both sides. That is not the definition of a "terrorist." I think what is confusing some is that the tactics that might have been waged by a group within one side or the other (Union or Confederacy) might have been consistent with terrorism, take Sherman's burning devastation as he marched to the sea as one example (not to imply a lack of such on the COnfederate side, only that Sherman's actions are well documented) or the US dropping a bomb on civilians in Hiroshima/Nagasaki. However, though their actions might have been terroristic, by convention a an individual uniformed, organized, declared opponent in war is not considered to be a "terrorist."

However hair-splitting as it might seem we do distinguish between Terrorists and war combatants that may, on occasion, engage in terroristic tactics.

[Art_from_Ark]

127. If one is on the receiving end of a "terroristic" act,

whether in wartime or peacetime, it does not matter whether the perpetrator is wearing a uniform or not.

[hlthe2b]

129. No but it matters a great deal in the legal sense.

So, if your aim is to prosecute or enact justice in some way that excludes vigilantism, it makes a lot of difference

[Art_from_Ark]

130. My point was, the end result is the same for the victim

[Ter]

116. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

History is written by the winners. Was Luke Skywalker a terrorist?

[Art_from_Ark]

118. Some ex-Confederate soldiers became "bushwhackers"

and thus might fit the definition of "terrorist" Certainly the KKK, comprised of mostly ex-Confederate soldiers, would fit that definition.

On the other hand, would the Union soldiers who ravaged civilian farms and homes in Georgia in December 1864 be considered as "terrorists"? In much of the South, at least, they were considered "terrorists" for generations. And from the American Indians' point of view, the Union soldiers who were turned on them with a vengeance after the Civil War could be considered "terrorists".

[hlthe2b]

122. That is true... Quanttrill's Raiders meet the classical definition

along with KKK, of course.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

128. That's a slur on terrorists.