Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Robert Snow, Apr 11, 2010.

  1. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    OK, I know this has nothing to do with the OP, but I'm going to post it anyway :).

    I was reading another article written by Roland Martin and he described himself as "the husband of an ordained minister". I sat there for a minute trying to figure out if he was a [email protected] Then, I realized that his wife was a woman and a "minister".

    I guess my point is that here's a guy that is confused about Scripture to the point that he's married to a "minister" and we care what he says when he related Confederate soldiers to muslim terrorists?
     
  3. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yea, I believe Martin is wrong in much of his conclusions, but there are some interesting observations.


     
  4. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    Yes, then after all those comments by rational people, Martin concludes:

    and then speaking of Confederate soldiers and muslim terrorists:

    The guy is a fool and we waste our time even reading his rantings.
     
  5. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was more interested in the other quotes. Not necessarily in what Martin says.
     
  6. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,424
    Likes Received:
    72
    It is insanity to think that the Confederate soldiers were terrorists. They were acting under the auspices of their respective state governments and the government of the CSA as a whole.

    If the CSA soldiers were terrorists, then the heroes of the American revolution were also terrorists. The EXACT same logic applies.

    I have absolutely no nostalgia for the Confederacy, but to defame the soldiers, especially the poor ones on the front lines who were simply doing what they thought was their duty is inappropriate.
     
  7. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    What this kind of writing and thinking shows is a warped sense of moral (in reality an immoral) equivalency: That if the Southern soldiers were only fighting for their beliefs, they were not terrorists. In the same way, this reasoning goes, a muslim strapping a bomb on his/her body, walking into a bazaar and setting off his bombs is not a terrorist, but is simply fighting for his/her beliefs.
     
  8. MrJim

    MrJim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    354
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,109
    Likes Received:
    219
    Or should the OP read: "Were Northern Soldiers Terr0rists".
     
  10. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    The author has a very warped view of the Confederate participants in the war between the states and his conclusions of parallels to today's war against terrorism is ridiculous.
     
  11. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Acts that could be described as terror occurred from both sides of that bloody war. Just a couple of examples are the Andersonville Prison and Sherman's army destroying everything in sight.
     
  12. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, those were not acts of terrorism! In the first case, it was inhumane treatment of prisoners of war by today's accepted standards but at the time such standards did not exist. I call it cruel! In the second case, it was vengeance taken out on the civil population my a ruthless commander which was as uncalled for then as now. I call it barbarian! Such acts would be punishable in the military today. Terrorism is very different.

    Terrorism involves purposeful unprovoked attacks on innocent persons especially designed to create a media spectacle that spreads fear, disrupts order, confusion, and causes a much larger population to greatly alter its normal way of life because of it. Terrorists are typically unlawful combatants acting under dubious authority lacking the classical discipline and respect for generally recognized rules of war. They are scum who truly merit no quarter yet may well receive it.

    Terrorists are more like pirates except they're not after the ship's cargo but will still cut your throat even if only to make a greater spectacle of it in hopes of disrupting all shipping.
     
  13. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anyone to insinuate terrorism would be an idiot.

    Roland Martin qualifies in this case.
     
  14. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    If Sherman's march wasn't terrorism then there is no such thing as terrorism.

    The US invaded Iraq and installed a puppet government from a minority party/religion. Say Russia conquered the US and installed the CPUSA as the government. Would we be terrorists for trying to take back our country?
     
  15. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sherman's actions were wrong but they were not terrorism albeit to those on the receiving end it probably made little difference.

    We would fight under the authority of the civil government we established to rule in this nation. Our attacks would be against enemy combatants. Our purpose would be restoring our government. No, we would not be acting a terrorists.
     
    #15 Dragoon68, Apr 11, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 11, 2010
  16. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,463
    Likes Received:
    136
    History Proves You're Wrong

    If it were not for the convictions of those in the North, and the POTUS (Lincoln), there would more than likely be slavery in America today, or, there would have been another war to free our black brothers and sisters.

    Unfortunately, there are still groups who condone slavery in this country. There are Asians who hold women in bondage; there are Russian mafias who hold women in bondage. So, unfortunately, slavery was not completely ended, but, it was a start, and history supports the need of that "bloody war."

    Peace, and I mean it brother. Let's end this ridiculous war between us, and agree to disagree, when we see it is necessary. Your attacks, and my reactions, are not good for the board...

    Pastor Paul
     
  17. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,424
    Likes Received:
    72
    I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of terrorism here.

    Terrorism, at its core, is an act that is designed to instill fear. It's at it's core a form of psychological warfare.

    Armed combat between uniformed armies can hardly be construed as terrorism.

    It doesn't mean that the Southern cause was just. It just means that they were not terrorists.

    For comparison, I don't believe that the average Nazi soldier was a terrorist. He was a uniformed soldier in armed conflict. Now, the SS, on the other hand, may be considered terroristic.
     
  18. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,424
    Likes Received:
    72
    Well said. Not all barbaric actions are terroristic.
     
  19. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,424
    Likes Received:
    72
    No, we would not be terrorists. We would be partisans attempting to overthrow (retake) the government.

    Now, if we started bombing supermarkets, then we would be terrorists.

    I don't even believe that attacks on our troops are terrorist acts. I believe they are acts of violence. I don't see how an attack on a military unit is qualitatively the same as an attack on civilians.
     
  20. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,619
    Likes Received:
    158
    It seems to me that those who served as recognized solders of their government and who were housed, fed and paid by a government they are not terrorists. The same is true of the Federal soldiers. Terror tactics were used by both sides as far as I am concerned.

    I am thinking over such organizations as Quantrill's Raiders. From my readings they seemed to have no regard for the life of anyone who got in their way or who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were 'bushwhackers' IMHO. However, they were recognized as a part of the Confederate army under the South's Partisan Ranger Act. To me this makes it questionable whether they can be formally called terrorists.

    There were union irregulars, the Redlegs and the Jayhawkers. They also, IMHO, were bushwhackers. Are they to be called terrorists. Like Quantrill they had no regard for innocent life. If they found a person in favor of slavery they had no mercy.

    I feel it is very difficult to take the meaning of the word terrorists, as we understand it today, and attempt to apply it in that same sense to those who lived a century or more ahead of us.
     

Share This Page

Loading...