There appears to be a resurgence of celebrating the Confederacy in this country, even from a state mandated level such as Virginia in its recent actions. That being said, were Confederates domestic terrorists, bent on destroying what we refer to as the United States of America, our country? Were they doing exactly what the 9/11 terrorists were doing? Thoughts?
Not at all. The Confederacy wanted to end the United States of America and form a new country. The 9/11 terrorists wanted to attack the United States of America. Are they the same?
If you have to have explained to you and cannot tell the difference on your own, then that's appalling, especially, if you're an America citizen.
But, to answer your question- comparing 9/11 attack to the original Confederate war that happens, is like applying apples to oranges.
The 9/11 attack was supposedly executed by terrorists, and the Confederates were not terrorists, but citizens.
Timothy McVeigh was a citizen, and he was a terrorist. Citizens can be terrorists, hence the term: domestic terrorists. Explain.
The Confederates of the Civil War were soldiers in a war with marked boundaries and known government. So they weren't terrorists.
After the war ended the confederates who continued to fight without boundaries and government - the KKK - WERE domestic terrorists. Oddly, the founder of that terrorist group may be featured on a Mississippi license plate.
So the celebration of domestic terrorism goes on.
The old adage: "One man's terrorist is another
man's freedom fighter".
They tried to secede properly, through the powers granted to them by the US constitution, and then the Northern States launched a Total War campaign to restrict their rights and ruin their economy until they came back together.
The only terrorists in that war were the North.
Thanks for saying this, it is truly ......... bothersome, to put it mildly, that anyone would equate the Civil War South with terrorists, domestic or otherwise, at any stage of that bloody period of our history. It is up to Americans to see to it from now and for many years to come, to keep the truth of our history from changing to accomodate the politics of the day.
Don't, let's not fight the civil war again. Don't fight it and your minds because it will always end the same way, if it don't you got a mental problem. If we do it again, guess who will win?
WONDERFUL! I love it! We now have two people who openly support the Confederates, who wanted to destroy the United States. Nice. The explanation was a matter of semantics, based upon defining boundaries and setting up a government, not the fact that the Confederates were evil in their intent of maintaining a nation that enslaves men, women, and children based upon their color...selling them like cattle. Way to go in showing your true colors though. KFlippin - do you need to change your avatar? I am not sure Wonder Woman would look good in a white hood.
You do have an odd viewpoint on my words and American history! And you do not look very well in your black hooded view of American history. Indicting whole groups for the actions or motivations of others reeks of stereotype and racism. Perhaps the white hood would actually suit you infinitely better than me and my avatar.
Interesting. So, what in particular was the Civil War about then? You, obviously, support the Confederate position, so tell me what it is if not being in favor of slavery? Enlighten me.
State's Rights and freedom, ironically.
I just find it disgusting that Terrorist has become the new buzzword for "evil".
The only "evil" people in during the US War of Northern Aggression (the drones call it the Civil War) were the North (who I am sadly a member of).
Launching a total war against civilians, razing cities in the dead of winter, and actually starting the damned war are all horrible deeds.
Sure, the South didn't want to give up Fort Sumter, but why the hell couldn't Lincoln fathom the fact that "because the South seceded properly, Fort Sumter wasn't the North's property anymore?
Nice work. Well, at least we have it out in the open. Evan, do you not find it strange that you support the South in the Civil War, yet those very people would have sold your wife to a brothel and given her an opium pipe? Wait, you didn't sell your wife did you? Not cool Evan. Not cool.
... umm... the south wasn't really known for selling Ohioans into Brothels for Opium...
....that wasn't really their "thing"...
....I'm beginning to wonder if YOU'RE smoking opium...
ANYWAY... Slavery was economically unviable. If you look throughout the history, you'll find that much of the cost of slavery was socialized through government mandate.
For example, the south was only allowed as many votes in the government because of the 3/5ths clause (this means that the government granted them more power than they were entitled to).
Also, the runaway slave acts required horrendous breaches of freedom to operate. Murray Rothbard discusses this in length in his books on American history. If you owned a slave, and it ran away, the government required OTHER PEOPLE to waste their time helping you find him!! Imagine if a cow ran away from the farm, and suddenly the government required 20 other farmers to go about finding it! On top of that, government officials charged with finding the slaves made a profit by finding people . This naturally would suggest that they would just go around finding random black people to hand in for money.
Much of the reason slavery existed for so long in the US was because it was socialized.
Maybe you don't understand how things worked because you spent so much time in Japan. But, your wife is Asian. She looks Asian. Confederates didn't care that the black guy or the Asian was born in Ohio, or became a citizen, because they didn't allow either to become citizens. Unfortunately, despite you thinking slavery would have just gone away or not, you support the people who would have enslaved your family...and if you had kids, regardless of whether they were half yours, they would now be sold to the highest bidder to go build a railroad. You are obviously a great husband and father. Nice.
Evan - you are an expert on the Constitution. Point out the clause that allows secession....
Even thinks the whole of the US Constitution can be found in the tenth amendment - and there's nothing in the tenth that allows secession.
Actually, the States can call a constitutional convention and theoretically anything can come out of that, including dissolution. The Confederacy never tried a constitutional response because it would have been doomed - just as slavery was. New states were being admitted as 'free' not 'slave' states. The handwriting was on the wall - the days of slavery were numbered and the South knew it.
There are some heroic attempts to rewrite the history of the Civil War and the causes. The causes of the Civil war are established in countless documents from the South - it was slavery first and last.
Evan and I have gone through this. He supports the South in the Civil War, yet based upon his picture, his wife would be treated like cattle if those ideas would have won. Nice human being bro. Wow.
way to be a jerk. I'm not even going to bother responding to such an obviously emotionally laden attack on me.
BTW, OHIO was never part of the South. Good job on that.
It IS an personal attack on you. You support slavery dude! That makes you a bad person. You additionally support slave holders when you have an Asian wife. Do you not see the hypocrisy in this? Dude...Confederate supporters are not good people. Period.
the tenth amendment.
BOOM!! YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If it ain't denied to the states, they can do it.
PS- don't reply with "welll.. the SUpreEM court done did SAY that secession ain't not no good for duh states!"
I'll use my own reading comprehension skills to see, quite clearly that the power of secession IS granted to the states.
As I said before, Evan thinks the whole constitution is just window dressing to the tenth amendment. There are counterparts in most major religions who build their entire theology around a couple of verses, ignoring the meaning of the word.
The USSC has not bought Evan's interpretation for 200 years. To quote the first Chief Justice of the USSC, John Marshall, “It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
what a disgusting quote.
Basically you agree that the USSC is allowed to legislate and execute laws. I'm disgusted you could believe that.
You are starting to argue like LaLo - twisting everything.
Read the quote by John Marshall, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
He does NOT say the Supreme Court will legislate or execute laws. So he didn't say it and I don't agree with it,
The USSC has (almost) always limited itself to deciding cases brought to them on appeal from lower courts. The decisions have clout, because the USSC can uphold a law in its entirety, strike down all of a law, or just a portion of a law. The USSC does not legislate or execute laws.
10 Amendment? How about this? Screw your document. We don't enslave people. How is that? Things like slavery supersede the document, and the document amended, which it was, to outlaw it. If you support slavery, then you are a bad human being. Period. You sir, do and thus, are.
The richest 2% of the South led the rest of the Southerners into the Civil War... Economically the South depended on slave labor... and believed the gathering of power in D.C. had turned against them... Terrorists, no... misguided yes... because at the end of the day it was RICH MAN'S WAR... and the POOR MAN'S FIGHT!!!
The Declaration of Independance would be a better arguement for this debate...the First Paragraph reads:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
And the beginning of the second paragraph reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
But through the 10th amendment, the right to secession was preserved.
Evan - your interpretation of secession through the tenth is a bit weird.
Nowhere in the tenth is secession mentioned and you repeatedly criticize the USSC for reading into the Constitution and seeing rights that you say aren't there if they aren't spelled out.
Your idea is that the Constitution is a one-sided contract. The federal Government has only the rights spelled out explicitly - and the states have all rights not spelled out or prohibited including the right to quit the contract without notice or cause.
If you bought a car under contract, and the dealer took back the car just before the last payment with the argument that it's not explicitly prohibited in the contract - you would be outraged. But you think the states have a right to breach the contract (which the Constitution is) for any reason or no reason because it's not prohibited. Bizarre.
"Nowhere in the tenth is secession mentioned and you repeatedly criticize the USSC for reading into the Constitution and seeing rights that you say aren't there if they aren't spelled out. "
Indeed, no where in the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is secession mentioned!! That's why the 10th amendment allows for secession!
I've posted the 10th amendment on these forums HOW many times and you still haven't read it?... here we go again!
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
BECAUSE secession is not denied the states, NOR is the power to legislate about it granted to the federal government, it is a state's right.
And this argument that the states can't secede because they're breaking a contract is utterly loony! THE POWER TO SECEDE IS GRANTED TO THE STATES!!! THE POWER FOR THE CAR DEALER TO STEAL MY CAR WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE CONTRACT I SIGNED (*HINT* why would I sign such a deal in the first place? *HINT* Obviously I wouldn't *HINT* Neither would a state sign such a contract *HINT*)
Each state entered the contract with the understanding that they could leave when they felt it was necessary. Thus they had the right to secede.
Ta-Da! your argument has been washed away by simply reading the document in question.
Scorpion - you stung yourself with your own argument...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.."
Ummm .. All men are equal. Reconcile that with slavery being institutionalized in the first version of the Constitution....
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. "
I think the slaves weren't consulted.. just an opinion. Here's the kicker.
"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, "
Follow the reasoning of Thomas Jefferson. When a form of government becomes destructive to these ends, meaning the rights of man which includes the equality of all men,then at that time, the people are justified in altering the government. But the Civil War was the South defending the right to oppress and violate the rights of man, which Jefferson does not cite as just cause for revolution.
You stung yourself with your own quote.
I wasn't arguing anything. I was just pointing out that this would be a better arguement then the 10th Admendment.
And Just as a thought we in the USA remove the rights of people all the time...Convicted Felons lose certian rights even after they have served thier time...and pretty much anytime we prevent someone from doing something, we are impeding thier rights...to have law and certain safety measures we must give up some of our personal rights. There is only few things that we "must" do...Eat, drink, breathe to live...and eventually we have to die...the rest is all up to social acceptance of what is considered "rights" and those vary depending on which country or area of the world you happen to be in....
And one last thing...What everyone who says that what the south did was "wrong"... consider this.. it was the same thing that we did to England to become the USA...Just so happens that we "won" both disagreements...
Actually, Thomas Jefferson wanted to include a passage against the King declaring his enrollment in the Slave trade as inhuman.
The other states demanded he remove it.
Y'know, Evan does have a point that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Though I would counter that any state without universal adult suffrage doesn't really get to secede, since they can't really have a referendum that's worth a darn. If you don't let all of the grown-ups vote, you can't say you took a real vote, can you?
Of course, this would mean that no election in the US before 1920 was worth a darn, since not all adults could vote until then. (Except for in Wyoming, and possibly other states.)
But if you have any ideas about the South fighting for anything other than the continued existence of slavery, you've been taken in by revisionism.
All you need to do is take a look at the several confederate states' articles of secession:
From the Texas Declaration of Secession:
[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
Opening paragraph, Mississippi Declaration of Secession:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
Opening paragraph, Georgia Declaration of Secession:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
From the South Carolina Declaration of Secession:
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
The Confederacy was all about keeping slaves, and they tried to secede so they could keep them.
Though, interestingly, there were several places in the South that sent volunteers to fight in the Union army. There were several areas that had to be guarded by Confederate soldiers to keep the locals from aiding the Union. Heck, the entire state of West Virginia owes its existence to the civil war: the folks in that part of the state refused to secede to support slavery.
Two different cultures struggling as a new country back in the mid-1800's was the basis of the Union and the Confederacy. A far cry from terrorism. The epic film "Gone With The Wind" depicts some grim times for our country but certainly does not portray the Confederacy as terrorists. Slavery was, is, and always will be wrong. The North won the Civil War and our country became stronger and greater as a result.
Now, the civil war has long been over. The Confederate flag is part of our country's history and should remain just that, history! There is a place for it in museums, history books, etc. But there is no need for it to be publically displayed. Of course, our constitution does guarantee freedom of speech and expresssion, so, if some individuals chose to live in the past that is their right. But governmental agencies, public schools, civic organizations, etc must address issues and problems that result from those who chose to maintain and foster the beliefs that caused our country so much pain and suffering.
by Person of Interest5 years ago
Our United States of America is the only First World Country in the world where people are afraid to call medical 911.
by PrettyPanther13 months ago
I live in Oregon, so I have been closely following the occupation of the Malheur Refuge by "militants." Here is a detailed timeline: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north … ne_of.htmlNone...
by The stallion8 months ago
People all over the world think that we Pakistanis are all terrorists. I beg to differ! I know that recently there have been quite a few terrorist activities around the world which were supposedly associated with...
by dadibobs5 years ago
If your country was invaded, would fighting to free your people from occupation make you a terrorist?, therefore being feared, hated and eventually punished, or would you become a public hero, reaping the benefits along...
by WizardOfOz6 years ago
Terrorist n. a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.
by movingout4 years ago
Give me a break! Like a bunch of whiney kids who didn't get their way! If they hate it here so badly, and hate the POTUS so much, leave the country!
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.