Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

probably...

The misnamed Civil War was about many things but to say it was about slavery is to simplify things to a remarkable degree. Slavery was part of it only in that slaves were considered property and property rights were part of the War for Southern Independence. The Confederate soldiers were not terrorists, they fought for the honor of the South. Try Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman if you want to find a terrorist. He certainly qualifies.

Earlier in this thread, I answered the question "were Confederate soldiers terrorists" with a resounding no.

But I'd like to remind anyone who hasn't caught up on this era in history of a few things.

The KKK...

....you know the white supremacist terrorist organization that effectively stopped Reconstruction and brought a reign of terror to the South for decades...

...was originally a club for ----Confederate Veterans.----

And you could whine on and on until the cows come home about the Confederate's "merits," none of it changes that they OPENLY advocated for a slave empire and were convinced that slavery was a wonderful thing justified by the color of their skin and that it had to expand or it would die out.

The Confederacy was not an extension of the American Revolution, they were not brave boys fighting for their homes and their freedom, they were a bunch of slave owners who convinced their gullible populace to fight for them (often unconvincingly since it was Southerners, black and white, who helped win the war).

That's not say the Union was much better, I could write a whole essay about how much Laissez-faire Capitalism sucks especially in the early Industrial Age. The Civil War was like most Civil Wars, both sides sucked ass and you had to choose which bit of evil you preferred.

But that's not to say they were equivalent. The Confederacy was -fucked up-. That's not just something the North made up after the war was over.

Look up the "Red Legs" if you want to hear some horror stories. Or Jackson's Indian Killers.

One would also have to consider the medium through which these terrorzing events were passed from event to populus, word of mouth, most likely.

Trying to impose today's standards and definitions on those long since dead and buried is just as pointless as wondering how modern weaponry used by one side of a conflict would change the outcome (e.g. what if the American Indians had AK-47s?).

No, the Confederate soldiers weren't terrorists, there is ample evidence the Union soldiers were though.

Aren't we just arguing semantics at this point?

How would be officially "classify" the Klu Klux Klan?

You could use the exact same arguement and justifications. They were just young men "forced" by the government to fight for what they believed in...which was racial segregation and white superiority.

Is there really any difference between the KKK and the Confederate Soldiers except for the Confederates had better funding and more firepower?

In the end their philosophy (not uniforms or tactics) is really all that matters. And for both (the Confederate Amry and the KKK) their central organizing philosophy was a willingness to use violence to retain the "right" to enslave others.

It's all subjective.

What if the South never had a civil war with the North.......what if instead ALL the black slaves rose up in armed rebellion to free themselves?

Would they be terrorists or soldiers?

The white slave owners would argue: TERRORISTS!

Yet when the white slave owners are the ones rising up in violence to KEEP SLAVES they insist they be viewed simply as soldiers.

The definition and classification of soldiers, patriots, terrorists and villians seems to be determined by what race you are and what side of the war you were on.

confederate soldiers were also family men trying to protect their homes, rights to pursuit of happiness and freedom.

the CW was not just about slavery, [c'mon, statistically there is more slavery in today's world then there was in the 1860's], and those men women and children that fought for states rights deserve a place of honor in our history.

will man ever stop trying to rewrite history to fit current pop cultural trends?

OK. I confess. I was born in Virginia on a cold turkey's eve, destined to speak out about our crude oil loving government. My crimes against said gov't are many and legion => engines that don't use any combustion fuels, gravity wheels [as perpetual as gravity], a system of getting magnetic wave energy off of lightning rods stationed across the South's "Lightning Belt" that would have caused "the South to rise again".

Worst offense reads Bible literature. And {gulp} believes it. Believes in an ultimate power that provided His Creation with ultimate power, believes in it, proved it, and saw it nailed up on a big barrel of crude oil standing on a hill determined to never roll down it.

Now I'm not saying this is true, just what I was taught in school growing up in the South.

The Civil War was a war over economics. In the years prior to the war South Carolina and Georgia made as much as the rest of the Union combined. They were selling their cotton to England at a high price. Then the English sold the goods to the Northerners at an even higher markup. The north refused to buy the cotton at that price and the south refused to sell at a lower price than the English would pay. So to make a long story short, the Union put high taxes and tariffs on the goods those states imported/exported, in an attempt to force them to sell to the North. South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November 1832, refusing to collect the tariff and threatening to withdraw from the Union, Jackson ordered federal troops to Charleston. A secession crisis was averted when Congress revised the Tariff of Abominations in February 1833. The Panic of 1857 devastated the North and left the South virtually untouched. The clash of a wealthy, agricultural South and a poorer, industrial North was intensified by abolitionists who were not above using class struggle to further their cause. In 1860 the state was equally divided between secessionist and pro-Union and Lincoln's election was the last straw. In his inaugural address Lincoln made it clear he would not interfere with slavery where it existed. The Emancipation Proclamation(1862) clearly states that "as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion" that 6 month from said date all slaves only in the rebellious states will be free if you did not want your slaves free then you needed to rejoin the Union. This caused the Draft Riots(more like race riots) from July 13 to July 16, 1863 in New York City. The whites took to the streets screaming, "We ain't fighting for no damn N******!" They hung 88 blacks from the street lights and set their bodies on fire! One of the more interesting fact from the CW was that Robert E. Lee refused president lincoln's offer to command the union army because he said he could not stand against the people of Virgina.

According to the way its taught in the south, the war was fought for many reasons, least of all slavery.

Did they cover any of this in the northern schools? Such a the Draft Riots, or the economic situation surrounding the war or was it just the Union was trying to free the slaves?

That right wheel is barely on that cannon. Zero bushing.

A terrorist is an unconventional fighter unaffiliated with any major military force who attacks civilians for political purposes. That's it, it's not just somebody you -don't like.-

By definition then, Confederate troops could not be terrorists even if they attacked civilians. Most of them were probably decent people (or as decent as their Union counterparts) fighting for the wrong side.

But it must be emphasized that there were no "good guys" in the Civil War. The Union may have been in the right, but you don't have to study much U.S. history before or after the event to see that their society and their free labor system really wasn't that much better.

All that being said, there were terrorists in the Civil War on BOTH sides. "Partisan" warfare, as it was called back then, was a primary feature of the Civil War in border areas. With a breakdown in rule-by-law, you inevitably have people killing each other in the streets.

somebody who uses violence and terror to achieve their goals... that sounds like the confederate south.

Absolutely, Confederate soldiers were terrorists! A person who terrorize or scare others are terrorists..These people kidnapped, killed, maimed, and raped Africans....There is nothing heroic about enslaving others..Although the past can be painful for the descendants of Confederate soldiers, you can't rewrite History....

No they were not terrorists, nor were they all a bunch of slave pushing/owning bigots. Were the Boston Tea Party crowd terrorists? No they were just against taxation without proper representation and viewed as patriot heroes.

Another case of history being written by the "victors", therefore it's been quite slanted and biased. Conveniently omitting facts like; free blacks fighting for the South, trade was not equitable for the South, and the fact that most of the confederate states had already came to the conclusion that slavery was not going to last.

More corporate media slant, shoveled on the uneducated masses. Propaganda.

The fact remains the South was more concerned with the large amounts of money they were loosing due to tariffs, and lack of representation, than they were with loss of revenue over abolition of slavery.

Even that great Northern hero said;

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
&

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois" (September 18, 1858), pp. 145-146.

Just from those two lengthy quotes you can easily see how abolition was not a priority to him. Certainly doesn't sound like the cause for a war in his eyes......

The Civil War was about a much larger scale injustice, it did involve slavery, but slavery has been far more of a justification than a reason.

NO Mr. Martin, Confederates were not terrorists, but by you're own words you confirm you are an uneducated, propagandist. And if someone were demanding your goods or services without proper compensation (which is kind of ironic), it might lead you to engage in a conflict over it (without that making you a terrorist).

Further, slavery is almost the only thing thought of when mentioning the Civil War, it is impossible to leave out. So suggesting anyone mentioning the Civil War must mention slavery really insults the intelligence of the audience.

Apparently everyone who is not a puppet of the media giants, are indeed terrorists... Of course if you're actually against inequality, you are some how pro slavery???

Yes Mr. Martin, your bullshit rhetoric makes you an Orwellian Propagandist....