Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

>there would more than likely be slavery in America today

You gots to be kidding! Bottom line, slavery is not economically efficient and mostly serves and served to satisfy perverts and sadists.

If the Confederacy had been wise they would have passed laws specifically barring slaves from citizenship and owning real estate or businesses. They could have then turned the slaves loose and obtained the same economic benefits. Maybe even the sexual benefits.

 

Don't be bustin' on my homies~~Quantrill & those Bushwackers were just keepin' those outlaw Kansas Jayhawkers inline...

<<I was born in Kansas but raised in Missouri:thumbsup:; Ghosts of Quantrill and Jesse James still ride in them Ozark hills>>

 

Setting up an ambush along a trail frequented by enemy combatants could be called "bush wacking" but it's not terrorism. That's just part of finding and killing the enemy. You don't have to "play nice" in war but you should show compassion to a vanquished enemy and to the non-combatants caught in the middle.

"Redlegs" is a term still used today for soldiers in the US Army artillery branch. It originated, as best I recall, during the war between the States if not earlier.

 

I disagree on this one, righteousdude2, because I think slavery was on the way out in both the North and the South. It just so happened that the North was farther along - not because they were morally superior but because the needs for manual labor were very different. It's a shame the practice wasn't fully outlawed at the founding of the nation - it was considered. It's a shame the issue of slavery overshadowed the issue of States rights. Only one of the two needed to be eliminated - the other became an unfortunate victim which we all pay for greatly today.

 

Roland Martin needs to stick to fishing because as an historian, he stinks. He lost me at "[the War of Northern Aggression] was based on the desire to continue slavery".

 

First, I'm assuming you mean those in the North who did not, themselves, own slaves.

Second, even those in the South acknowledged that slavery was economically untenable and would most likely have died out on its own within twenty years or so.

 

Slavery in the North was mostly limited to house workers and gardeners. It was not efficient to use slaves in the mills because that had to be fed and housed even when the mills didn't have any contracts. It was more economical to pay slave wages to free white serfs and lay them off when the mills were shut down.

 

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




That said...them Rebel's put up one fight !

 

Martin can't help himself on this account.... he's bought into the propaganda which has controlled and filled the history text and the political science debates and which keeps race as a difference and a division alive and well.

The Confederates were fighting for their states rights... to save their economy from the tryanny and oppression which was increasing from the North. Slavery was already on its way out in the South. Regarding the hyprocrisy.... the North had slaves for household and yard work and for dock workers. The North had people still active in slave trade between Africa and other continents. The North only tolerated the Negro, used him for menial labor, and resented his purchase and ownership of property and home or denied him residence among them. The black man in the North was valued as long as he was useful but was discarded when old age of infirmity of health set in. Many in the North considered the Negro as inferior and did not want the free man to reside there. The Southerners who owned slaves... more of them saw their humanity, worked together with them, taught them, helped them build churches, cared for their sick and infirm. Many southerners learned the dependability of the Negro was just as honorable and worthy as that of any white... and many trusted them with the oversight of their lands, crops, and care of their families.

When it was suggested by 'well meaning' northerners that the Negro be returned to Africa or sent to the jungles of South America.... Negro and white man alike protested. The Negro born here, whether slave or free, regarded himself as an American as much as any other immigrant or generations might.

A great black statesman, Christian, constitutionalist, ex-slave, Fredrick Douglass, advisor to President Lincoln..... persisted upon the president to consider peacefully settling the issue of slavery on constitutional grounds... as he (FD) had confidence that the constitution would support the ending of slavery. Lincoln did not do this.... as the issue of slavery served better to drive the emotional wedge (deception based on a pretense of morality) needed to cause one countryman to fight against another countryman to the hurt of both... when their were other issues between the two regions of North and South... but less cause to make a moral argument worthy of bloodshed. Slavery was already dying out in the South: Virginia was one of the least states dependent on slavery but was very strong in her idealism of constitution, sovereignty of states, and rights of man.

Confederates were defending their lands from invasions and embargoes. They were not terrorist.

 

No, I'm not talking about white "serfs". I am talking about dark skinned Africans who were taken from their homeland, put in chains, brought to America, and sold to slave owners who lived in Northern states.

Exactly the same as slavery in the South, just further north.