History prof says terrorism has American roots going back to the Civil War

Dateline Alabama ^ | 7 Feb 2003 | Ty West

[stainlessbanner]

Terrorism in American is more than just a modern phenomenon. A University of Arkansas history professor who spoke on campus Thursday said during the Civil War the military on both sides terrorize civilians to keep control over communities.
-- Ty West, staff reporter

Daniel Sutherland, a University of Arkansas history professor, talks about the use of terrorism during the American Civil War. Photo By Michelle Lepianka
The recent terrorist attacks on the United States have brought terrorism to the forefront in American culture, but terrorism has deep roots in America, especially in the South.

That was the point made by Daniel Sutherland, a history professor from the University of Arkansas, during a lecture Thursday titled, "The Confederacy During the Civil War."

"Rebel and Unionist civilians were engaged in guerilla warfare in order to control their communities," Sutherland said.

Sutherland presented a side of the Civil War that many students were unfamiliar with. Desiree Adams, a sophomore majoring in psychology said, "Dr. Sutherland’s lecture showed a side of the Civil War that I have never learned about in any history class."

In his lecture, Sutherland discussed guerilla warfare and terrorism during the Civil War.
According to Sutherland, in the early years of the war, bands of rebels from Maryland burned homes and destroyed homes of Unionists, or those who lived in the Confederate states who remained loyal to the Union.

He also noted how guerillas from Maryland also impeded the progress of Union troops by "pouring sand or piling cobblestones on railroads." Sutherland stressed that terrorism and guerilla warfare were spread throughout the Confederacy; it was not limited to the border states.

Joe Danielson, a second-year graduate student in the department of history, said, "The lecture proved me a different connotation of what guerilla activity entails."

Sutherland focused on two main types of guerilla warfare and terrorism in the Confederacy. First, Sutherland discussed the terrorism committed by the South’s civilian population. Sutherland pointed out that rebels and loyalists, those who were loyal to the Union, used terrorist tactics to intimidate each another. Sutherland said that, "Many of these civilian wars were personal, stemming from earlier conflict or family feuds."

While these "civilian wars" are a lesser-known part of the Civil War, Sutherland said, "Civilians terrorized on another before the armies arrived, after the armies had passed, and civilian violence against each other overflowed in areas where the armies never went."

The second type of guerilla warfare that Sutherland elaborated on was violence against both civilians and troops committed by outlaws, those who had ran away to avoid conscription, and deserters, who had dropped out of the Confederate Army. These outlaws and deserters, according to Sutherland, would often wear Confederate uniforms and disguise themselves as scouts.

Sutherland noted that the outlaws would use violence to steal horses, valuables, and information regarding the movement of troops.

Sutherland pointed out that many of these outlaw groups were located in northeastern Alabama. Sutherland said, "These outlaw guerilla bands were especially dangerous because they had an excellent knowledge of the terrain."

Sutherland also noted that many deserted had left the Confederate armies in order to be able to fight closer to their homes. Sutherland said, "These outlaw bands forced the Union to employ counter-terrorist attacks." Sutherland told the audience that many Union generals developed a "take-no-prisoners approach" to dealing with outlaws. According to Sutherland, while this approach was successful in killing actual outlaws, it also resulted in the deaths of many innocent civilians, who were suspected of aiding the outlaws.

Sutherland said many scholars have failed to acknowledge this guerilla warfare as terrorism. "Many historians consider these examples of guerilla warfare and terrorism to be conventional military operations, because much of the violence was directed at soldiers." However, Sutherland’s research has concluded that many acts of terrorism were levied against civilians.

Sutherland concluded his lecture by discussing the effects that terrorism and guerilla warfare had on the Civil War. Sutherland said: "The sheer violence of guerilla warfare crippled the Confederacy. The terrorism and violence forced people to lose confidence in the Confederate government and its ability to protect its citizens. The guerilla war tactics employed by the deserters and outlaws forced the Union to adopt a total war strategy."

Sutherland also discussed how the recent terrorist attacks on the United States have reawakened an interest in the history of terrorism in American. Sutherland said, "Terrorism lurks everywhere in our past, we just fail to see it."

Christian McWhirter, a graduate student who specializes in Civil War History, said, "The lecture was very persuasive and tightly argued. It was also topical considering the condition of America.

Sutherland earned his doctorate from Wayne State University. He specializes in Civil War and Military History. Sutherland has published many books about the Civil War, including Confederate Carpetbaggers and Seasons of War: The Ordeal of a Confederate Community.

Thursday’s lecture was the second in a series of six lectures examining how Americans have dealt with guerillas, insurgents, and terrorists in the past. The series is sponsored by the Bankhead family and the University of Alabama History Department. The next lecture in the series will take be February 18. It will feature Dr. Paul Hutton from Indiana University, who will present a lecture about Native Americans of the Great Plains.

This article was written by Ty West, wcat3tw@hotmail.com.

[stainlessbanner]

Comments?

[John H K]

Actually doesn't go back far enough...was a great deal of what can only be described as "terrorism" in the Revolution. Honestly, probably worse against loyalists than British terror was against rebel civilians..(though it was certainly close.)

The Revolution in the South was largely a Civil War, with a thin veneer of regular British and Continental troops.

[Bahbah]

Bad people behaving badly. Criminals taking advantage wherever they can. Academics calling attention to their work by putting a modern hook in it.

[The Electrician]

The professor is pulling a fast one by torturing the English language in an attempt to redefine "terrorism" to fit it to actions that are clearly not terrorism at all. In that respect, he is no different from many in academia and the left who for years have called America or Israel the greatest terrorists in the world.

[sheltonmac]

With this loose definition of terrorism, you can actually trace it back to the beginning of time, not the War Between the States.

[Sacajaweau]

You're quite right, John. The author is just playing on the word "terrorism", trying to flavor southern history during the Civil War period. We were after all, at war. The south was attempting to break up the Union which all other states depended on.

[pgyanke]

> "Academics calling attention to their work by putting a modern hook in it."

Exactly. This professor full of bovine excrement. There is a difference in application between terrorism and guerrilla warfare which is the condition under which the acts occur.

Guerrilla warfare is a campaign waged DURING TIME OF WAR or in response to attack to effect the outcome of a conflict. It can include the targeting of civilians but the application of the violence is similar to indiscriminant bombing of population centers. The goal is to break the will of the enemy and turn the tide of the conflict. This is obviously what occurred during the Civil War.

Terrorism is a campaign waged between populations specifically when there is NO DECLARED NATIONAL HOSTILITY. The goal is similar to guerrilla warfare; to break the will of the populace. However, the application of the violence is against an enemy who doesn't realize they are a target. The indiscriminant bombing of population centers is a good example in this instance. In time of war, civilians know they are a target and take cover when the air raid sirens blow. When death comes without a warning and targets civilians who do not realize the danger, the goal is intimidation and fear. This is clearly the case of 9/11.

Whereas guerrilla warfare is usually a legitimate means of ending a conflict, terrorism has largely been used to instigate violence between populations.

You can see both in the same conflict. Israel is a good example; when the PA attacks, they target civilians who do not know they are targets. If there was a declared war and combatants were engaged, the population would be a legitimate target as they support the war effort. In the case that we see now, unseen enemies infiltrate and kill indescriminantly. When Israel takes the fight back to the PA, this is guerrilla warfare. The PA has been warned of the consequences and the population which supports the terrorism is a legitimate target.

[Bahbah]

I was so impressed by your comments that I went to your homepage and got even more impressed. You are wrong in only one respect regarding the beauty of your child, of which I have no doubt. You would revise that opinion if you met mine, all three of them. When I walk around with them I have noticed that I become invisible. LOL

[marron]

When a dispute, or when animosity, grows to the point that normal civil and criminal law are inadequate to contain it, you are in a state of war. That is what war is.

Some disputes, some animosities, are rooted in governmental policies that can be affected by attacking the government and its agents. These kinds of wars can be fairly clean, break the power of the government to carry out its policies, replace that government with individuals who will change the policy, and the need for war vanishes.

In this kind of war, there is no need to target the civilian population, and to do so could be considered criminal. Modern wars are sometimes of this type, and we train for them, so that we can execute them with a minimum of "collateral damage".

But other wars are not of that type. The disputes can be of such a nature that simply breaking the tools of government power are not enough. Overthrow the rulers, and others take their place. Defeat their armies, and the people rise up to fight themselves. In this case, there is no way to defeat the enemy without targeting civilians, as in this case there is no separation between the people and the policy. In this case your only hope is to break the people's will to fight, or drive them out, or destroy them. We are fortunate that this kind of war is rare. But this the kind of war that could be called the "clash of civilizations", and these are the wars that inspire nightmares in anyone that contemplates them.

Most wars have at least some element of the latter, and civil wars have a great deal of the latter. That is why efforts to impose a legal code on war-fighting is laudable, and should be encouraged, but will always fall short. Because war is precisely the breakdown of normal law. It is well and good to have another law for abnormal times, it is well to outlaw "war crimes", but to some degree this flies in the face of what war really is.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Part of what differentiates terrorism from guerrilla-warfare is a declared state of war and identifiable Governments on each side.

[Tax-chick]

Whereas guerrilla warfare is usually a legitimate means of ending a conflict

the population would be a legitimate target as they support the war effort

I hate to disagree with your otherwise excellent summary, but these are awfully sweeping statements! Do you truly believe that indiscriminate targeting of civilians is legitimate, as long as there's a declared war?

"Guerilla warfare" can cover many different actions, including attacks on military forces, supply lines, economic targets, etc. ... I have no problem with seeing those as legitimate acts of war.

But I'd have to see a much stronger case made to accept deliberate attacks against women and children, simply to "break the spirit" of the opponent. Probably it's because I'm a woman with children ... but it might also be because I'm a Southerner!

[wardaddy]

Guerrilla warfare and terrorism strictly for the sake of terror or because of religious stife or simple resentment/animosity are not always equivicable. I think the author makes a big mistake here.

Guerrilla warfare dates back to our inception actually and even before that amongst the Amerindian tribes...speaking strictly of these types on actions on "American" soil.

What the Muslims are attempting is a whole new animal. Their violence is simply an openended strike with no real objectives but a simple schoolyard punch in the nose based on resentment and jealousy fueled by an historically peculiar religious dogma with absolutely no sense of propriety or conscience.

It's not really war in a conventional sense, it's more a pathologiacal lashing out simply for it's own sake and to rally other like minded folks. One cannot think through this. One must simply exterminate the aggressor and break their will to strike.

[stand watie]

it just depends on which side your family cleaved to.

as my mother has always said of my ancestor: "Little Thunder was either a cold-blooded Injun killer & horsethief OR he was a "dashing,saber-wielding, handsome southern partisan ranger & traditional Cherokee warrior".

free dixie,sw

[pgyanke]

Don't take my "Yanke" name to mean I have no regard for Southern sensibilities... I certainly do. In fact... never mind, that's a subject for another thread...

> "Do you truly believe that indiscriminate targeting of civilians is legitimate, as long as there's a declared war?"

Yes and no. It's the word "indiscriminate" that makes the difference. Certainly, the civilian population can be a target of a military campaign against an enemy's centers of gravity. One way we have waged this part of a campaign recently was the magnetic bombing of Serbia's power grid. We didn't cause major damage but did inconvenience the people for them to dislike the war effort. Just because we're more humane in our methods doesn't mean they aren't legitimate targets.

Conversely, targeting civilians "indiscriminately" means there's no reason for the action and your strategy lacks focus. Such a campaign can rightly be called a slaughter with no purpose. As someone has already pointed out in this thread, the PA terrorism effort falls into this category as they kill indiscriminately with no end in sight other than the destruction of their foes. Will they stop if given their own land? Depends whose land they consider their own.

If the warplanners determine that attacks on the civilian populace would aid the war effort, civilians may find themselves in the crosshairs. Is this humane? Certainly. If the opposing country wishes to spare the population hardship and possible death, they can capitulate or defend them. That is one way the "mood" of the civilians affect the ability of a country to wage war. When the civilians lose faith or determine the war effort not worth pursuing, hostilities may cease. Defending their populace through whatever means are necessary is the role of the enemy government while pressing for victory is ours.

Killing civilians isn't the goal of an honorable military campaign. However, the goal of ending the war and sparing far more misery and bloodshed, may include breaking the will of those who sustain the effort. Such is the lesson and choice we faced in Japan in 1944.

[SandfleaCSC]

Read Manse by Wilton Earle. For those of you who haven't read it, it's about an Anderson, South Carolina calvary officer returning after the WBTS and surmounting an armed resistance to the Union occupation. Manse Jolly only struck Union military units so you can hardly call him a terrorist.

[Tax-chick]

So, it sounds like you're taking about not precisely, "targeting civiians," but on a larger scale, "disrupting the functioning of the country," which necessarily affects civilians but is not "targeted" at them as individuals. The "target" is transportation or power supply or whatever. Am I getting your point correctly?

One could say, then, (although I hate to say it) that Sheridan's Shenandoah campaign fits your idea of a legitimate attack, because it was aimed at the producers of food. (yes?)

What about Sherman? No enemy army worth mentioning, so productive capacity in the lowlands by then ... no purpose but terror and theft? (yes)

The atomic bomb, a special case (my great uncle was in the first wave ready to attack the home islands ...) It wasn't bombing of civilian populations for its own sake ... we discovered that didn't do in any good in Europe ... but a demonstration of our power. And it worked.

You don't want to say "everything is fine if it contributes to winning the war," do you? Then you get to Saddam and lighting up the oil fields.

Just trying to sort out what you're saying, in hopes of clarifying what I think!

[pgyanke]

Please forgive the formatting of this reply but I haven't figured out HTML stuff yet...

> "So, it sounds like you're talking about not precisely, "targeting civiians," but on a larger scale, "disrupting the functioning of the country," which necessarily affects civilians but is not "targeted" at them as individuals. The "target" is transportation or power supply or whatever. Am I getting your point correctly?"

I'm talking about that and more. In disrupting the country, we create hardship for the population. However, if this isn't enough to break their will to wage war, drastic measures may be in order to save a greater number of lives. The classic example for this instance is A-bombing Japan. We "indiscriminately" targeted a whole city of people to make it clear that they should not continue to fight. Sure, we target the populace in humane ways, when warranted, but we have also targeted them without mercy when they are the will behind the war.

> "One could say, then, (although I hate to say it) that Sheridan's Shenandoah campaign fits your idea of a legitimate attack, because it was aimed at the producers of food. (yes?)"

I think so. It was a legitimate targeting of a major center of gravity during time of war.

> "What about Sherman? No enemy army worth mentioning, no productive capacity in the lowlands by then ... no purpose but terror and theft? (yes)"

I do have a problem with Sherman. He waged a scorch and burn campaign across the South that historians note more emboldened than collapsed morale. He wanted to drive the South out of the war and punish them for the secession. Instead, he made enemies of those who had not to that point been so firmly against the Union. However, his methods did hurt much of the South's ability to wage war and in this way it was successful, albeit excessively brutal.

> "The atomic bomb, a special case (my great uncle was in the first wave ready to attack the home islands ...) It wasn't bombing of civilian populations for its own sake ... we discovered that didn't do in any good in Europe ... but a demonstration of our power. And it worked."

Exactly. It told the Japanese people unmistakeably (and the Soviets indirectly) that we could annihilate their country without sacrificing a soldier. Obviously, there was no reason to keep fighting after that.

> "You don't want to say "everything is fine if it contributes to winning the war," do you? Then you get to Saddam and lighting up the oil fields."

No, I don't... I agree with you on the implications. What I am saying is that there can come a time when the civilian population is a legitimate target. That time usually comes when the military machine, though broken on the battlefield, continues to fight due to the strength of will back home. It is more humane to those soldiers and to the civilian population to break that will rather than exterminate a major portion of a country.

[Tax-chick]

Okay, now it all makes sense! In the interests of accuracy, I'll stop calling Sheridan a terrorist, but continue calling Sherman an evil nutcase :-)!

[Colt .45]

I noticed how he is inferring that this "terrorism" is all a result of the Southern Guerilla fighters. Perhaps this turd knows less of history than he thinks he does. What could we classify Sherman's March to the Sea as? That would fall under the classic definition of terrorism as it was waged against innocent civilians and private/public property.

As for guerillas, I seem to recall that Kansas had the "Red Legs" who wore blue were just as bad as they say Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson were. Others have also made the point that terrorism goes clear back to colonial times and the American Indians. I think this author is full of sh*t, and is putting a PC spin on history to attack Southern Heritage under a different cloak.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Military control of civilians is not "terrorism", nor is the killing of civilians by the military considered an act of terrorism.

If this were true, the bombing of Dresden would be a defined as a terrorist act. Although there would be some who embrace such a characterization, they are misguided.

Terrorism, IMHO, is a violent act commited by a group or individual not formally sanctioned by a government entity, targeting non-military assets for the purpose of making a political statement.

[NovemberCharlie]

Terrorism, IMHO, is a violent act commited by a group or individual not formally sanctioned by a government entity, targeting non-military assets for the purpose of making a political statement.

Ergo, the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was not an act of terrorism, since it targeted a lilitary asset?