Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

CNN ^ | 4.11.10 | Roland S. Martin

[parsifal]

Amen!

parsy, who is digging out the Stars and Bars license tag for the front bumper of his truck

[mojitojoe]

No, but Sherman and Lincoln were.

[parsifal]

I posted this on the other thread. From CSA Gen. John Gordon.

The link site is fantastic, BTW.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm

I submit that this brief and incomplete summary is sufficient to satisfy those who live after us that these great leaders of conflicting thought, and their followers who continued the debate in battle and blood, while in some sense partisans, were in a far juster sense patriots.

The opinions of Lee and Grant, from each of whom I briefly quote, will illustrate in a measure the convictions of their armies. Every Confederate appreciates the magnanimity exhibited by General Grant at Appomattox; and it has been my pleasure for nearly forty years to speak in public and private of his great qualities. In his personal memoirs, General Grant has left on record his estimate of the Southern cause. This estimate represents a strong phase of Northern sentiment, but it is a sentiment which it is extremely difficult for a Southern man to comprehend. In speaking of his feelings as “sad and depressed,” as he rode to meet General Lee and receive the surrender of the Southern armies at Appomattox, General Grant says: “I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and who had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.” He adds: “I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us.”

The words above quoted, showing General Grant’s opinion of the Southern cause, are italicized by me and not by him. My object in emphasizing them is to invite special attention to their marked contrast with the opinions of General Robert E. Lee as to that same Southern cause. This peerless Confederate soldier and representative American, than whom no age or country ever produced a loftier spirit or more clear-sighted, conscientious Christian gentleman, in referring, two days before the surrender, to the apparent hopelessness of our cause, used these immortal words: “We had, I was satisfied, sacred principles to maintain and rights to defend for which we were in duty bound to do our best, even if we perished in the endeavor.”

There were those, a few years ago, who were especially devoted to the somewhat stereotyped phrase that in our Civil War one side (meaning the North) “was wholly and eternally right,” while the other side (meaning the South) “was wholly and eternally wrong.” I might cite those on the Southern side of the great controversy, equally sincere and fully as able, who would have been glad to persuade posterity that the North was “wholly and eternally wrong”; that her people waged war upon sister States who sought peacefully to set up a homogeneous government, and meditated no wrong or warfare upon the remaining sister States. These Southern leaders steadfastly maintained that the Southern people, in the exercise of the freedom and sovereign rights purchased by Revolutionary blood, were asserting a second independence according to the teachings and example of their fathers.

But what good is to come to the country from partisan utterances on either side? My own well-considered and long-entertained opinion, my settled and profound conviction, the correctness of which the future will vindicate, is this: that the one thing which is “wholly and eternally wrong” is the effort of so-called statesmen to inject one-sided and jaundiced sentiments into the youth of the country in either section. Such sentiments are neither consistent with the truth of history, nor conducive to the future welfare and unity of the Republic. The assumption on either side of all the righteousness and all the truth would produce a belittling arrogance, and an offensive intolerance of the opposing section; or, if either section could be persuaded that it was “wholly and eternally wrong,” it would inevitably destroy the self-respect and manhood of its people. A far broader, more truthful, and statesmanlike view was presented by the Hon. A. E. Stevenson, of Illinois, then Vice-President of the United States, in his opening remarks as presiding officer at the dedication of the National Park at Chickamauga. In perfect accord with the sentiment of the occasion and the spirit which led to the establishment of this park as a bond of national brotherhood, Mr. Stevenson said: “Here, in the dread tribunal of last resort, valor contended against valor. Here brave men struggled and died for the right as God gave them to see the right.”

Mr. Stevenson was right — “ wholly and eternally right.” Truth, justice, and patriotism unite in proclaiming that both sides fought and suffered for liberty as bequeathed by the Fathers—the one for liberty in the union of the States, the other for liberty in the independence of the States.

parsy

[RFEngineer]

“Sherman’s army committed war crimes, but they pale in comparison to the crimes of slavery perpetrated over a span of hundreds of years. “

Slavery was the law of the land. War Crimes committed by Sherman and his soldiers was not.

[edh]

“I think we could be spending a lot of this effort worrying about the future, not a past that we cannot change.”

These are great words. I commend you and agree with you 100%.

[Alter Kaker]

I’m not saying slavery wasn’t an important factor..it was a major part of the South’s Economy. However I don’t see it as the major cause of the Civil War.

That's just not in concordance with the facts. The Southern state seceded immediately after Lincoln's election because they were afraid he'd free the slaves. That was the immediate cause of the rebellion. Arguing that it wasn't is simply denying reality. Also, arguing that the rebels were simply expressing dissent may be the most colorful example of understatement I've seen in a while. Ask the Union POWs in Ansersonville -- the Auschwitz of the Confderacy -- how effective the Southern dissent was.

United States Soldier, survivor of Confederate death camp at Andersonville, Georgia

[edh]

Roland Martin. Hmmm... Maybe this is the start of a new “Laugh In”.

[RFEngineer]

“I think we could be spending a lot of this effort worrying about the future, not a past that we cannot change. “

Oh, but our future is directly related to the Civil War past.

One of the many casualties of the Civil War was the 10th Amendment. Ever since the Civil War the federal government has gradually encroached more and more on this important Amendment.

The return of the 10th Amendment to it’s rightful constitutional place will be every bit as painful as the Civil War, I think - and will be every bit as crucial to the preservation of the Union as the Civil War was.

I’m not saying we’ll have another civil war over the 10th Amendment - but I am saying that there will be events that are every bit as significant as that before the 10th Amendment is restored.....and without the return of the 10th Amendment - the Federal Beast will kill the Union.

So I worry about the future because of the past.

[Altura Ct.]

.You don’t get to despise part of America without despising all of America.

You make a very good point. I think most people are not really thinking about what is directly implied here nor where this leads. If slavery or more specifically black slaves is the defining issue of America and our history where does all of that lead to? How about Washington, Jefferson, Madison or almost everyone one of our founders? How about most of American history? If this issue is to be chastised and the Confederates made taboo because of race and that is what we are talking about here then almost every bit of American history must be demonized and stricken or rewritten in our history books. That in turn means whites and Western culture history must be shown as having no redeeming value and America is a totally evil state. That is until 1960 & MLK. It is only then that America can be spoken of in a positive light at least partially. The Marxist are wining the war on the destruction of America by using race as the batter ram. They know that most whites who have become cowards about race and that is allowing our country to be destroyed.

[jakerobins]

Ah Comparing the Confederates to terrorists then Nazi’s.......That’s more of a stretch!! How far will people go to paint the Confederacy as pure evil... I wasn’t saying the WAR was simple dissent...I’m saying to certain people ANY dissent is terrorism...The Brit’s considered the Patriots of the Revolution terrorists..... WAR IS HELL! Are you telling me that the Confederate Soldiers were well treated?? There were no Geneva Conventions.....

[diogenes ghost]

"Oh, yes, let's fight the Civil War again! Like once wasn't enough!"

It is beginning to look likely.

Maybe we can get it right this time.

[Alter Kaker]

It wasn’t just the south that owned slaves during this span of several hundred years.

Yes, but the Northern states gradually abolished slavery and freed their slaves, whereas the Southern states fought for decades not just to preserve the institution of slavery but to expand it. When an abolitionist President was elected, the South rebelled rather than end slavery.

[Alter Kaker]

Are you telling me that the Confederate Soldiers were well treated??

There were atrocities committed by all sides, but nothing the North did compares to the scale of Ansersonville, which involved the deliberate extermination by starvation, exposure and disease of more than 10,000 Union prisoners.

The commandant of Andersonville was tried, convicted and hanged for war crimes -- setting a precedent that the Allies used 80 years later at Nuremberg.

[Hacksaw]

I despise the Confederacy, but you cannot equate terrorists who murder innocents who are just going about their business with men, often conscripted, who were willing to put their hide on the line in the meat grinder of 19th century combat.

a nice and well thought out post!

[Alter Kaker]

Slavery was the law of the land. War Crimes committed by Sherman and his soldiers was not.

If that doesn't show the limits of the law, then nothing does. Sherman's Army freed more than 10,000 human beings from slavery during the march to the Sea. How is that not a good thing?

[diogenes ghost]

".....the Auschwitz of the Confederacy..."

That is perhaps the most willfully dishonest and heinous remark I have ever read on Free Republic.

Thankfully, your ilk is rare here, else I would leave and not return.

You are despicable, Sir.

[RFEngineer]

“If that doesn’t show the limits of the law, then nothing does. Sherman’s Army freed more than 10,000 human beings from slavery during the march to the Sea. How is that not a good thing?”

Has anyone in your lifetime experience ever argued for slavery? I doubt it.

Has anyone in your lifetime ever argued for war crimes? Well, for me not until today. You are the first.

Are you finished diminishing yourself, or would you like to continue?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

“...the Confederates was akin to honoring Nazi soldiers for killing of Jews during the Holocaust...”

Bunkum. There were true terrorists on both sides even before the civil war.
Jayhawkers, Redlegs, bushwakers, border ruffians. Quantrell’s raiders.

http://www.rulen.com/partisan/partisan.htm

[Knitting A Conundrum]

You also don’t mention 1) the intentional cutting off of supplies to the area of Andersonville as a Union policy; each time word came out of cutbacks there, they cut back the rations in Union pow camps as well. This played very well to the Northern press. As far as I’m concerned, in part, the men at Andersonville were sacrificed by the Union because it helped the politics of the war effort.

[diogenes ghost]

Compare Andersonville with Camp Douglas.

Andersonville was in the middle of Dixie, revaged by war, with not enough food for it's own, let alone prisoners. Col Wirtz did what he could to get more food for his men and prisoners, but none was to be had.

Camp Douglas, however, had no shortages for it's own people, but food WAS deliberately withheld through corruption and venality. BIG difference.

The victors write the history, but these events happened here, and it's hard to lie about them, but you have tried mightily.