So on the one hand we have people defending Sherman's total war tactic and saying he was a good dude and on the other we have people calling Confederates terrorists and wanting to punch people out if they sing Dixie
just mind boggling
Well, the Confederate government did plan to burn down New York City thus causing a ton of deaths.
So on the one hand we have people defending Sherman's total war tactic and saying he was a good dude and on the other we have people calling Confederates terrorists and wanting to punch people out if they sing Dixie
just mind boggling
Well, the Confederate government did plan to burn down New York City thus causing a ton of deaths.
...How were they planning to get close enough?
They were going to hijack some commercial airliners.
So on the one hand we have people defending Sherman's total war tactic and saying he was a good dude and on the other we have people calling Confederates terrorists and wanting to punch people out if they sing Dixie
just mind boggling
Why don't you read up on the lyrics to Dixie and Sherman's actual March to the Sea before you embarrass yourself further.
Er, maybe I have? I prefer first hand accounts to wikipedia, though.
You just linked to an account where a multiple slaveholder had some of her possession taken and her slaves freed after the men she was with shot at Union troops.
The institution is slavery, but the means of keeping the slaves in line was intimidation. By definition, though, it was basically terrorism. I mean, that's what you'd call the same intimidation used against free blacks, right?
No, and not because I'm trying to defend anyone, but because that isn't what terrorism is generally understood to mean and I think you're just leading us down a useless intellectual jerk-off by trying to link terrorism into this.
I dunno, do we consider the Klan of the post-Reconstruction era to be terrorists? I think they are. If they are, then I don't see why a few years prior to Reconstruction these same people could do the same things to slaves and not be considered terrorists. In the end, they used violence to achieve political or social ends, namely the subjugation of black people. Slaves and free blacks were kept in check by the use of terror. Is that not terrorism?
So on the one hand we have people defending Sherman's total war tactic and saying he was a good dude and on the other we have people calling Confederates terrorists and wanting to punch people out if they sing Dixie
just mind boggling
Why don't you read up on the lyrics to Dixie and Sherman's actual March to the Sea before you embarrass yourself further.
Er, maybe I have? I prefer first hand accounts to wikipedia, though.
You just linked to an account where a multiple slaveholder had some of her possession taken and her slaves freed after the men she was with shot at Union troops.
That is something I support yes.
Yeah, I guess having all her food taken, slaves marched away against their will at gunpoint, and threatened to be killed, buildings and transportation burned, livestock stolen etc. is great, just great.
Actually, I called the Confederates traitors. The terrorists were the slaveowners and the people who supported their efforts to keep slaves in check.
Dunadan: read the rest of the definitions. One of them says:
Terrorism is the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or its threat.
Oh hey, that sounds like what they were doing to slaves.
your definition means muggers are terrorists, bullies are terrorists, people who intimidate other people are terrorists, mothers who discipline their children are terrorists. do you see why this is a problem? or do you need me to write a damn essay about it before you admit that you just want to apply a republican buzz word to a specific group that you don't like.
or maybe everyones a terrorist.
Pretty much. It's why the term is a crapshoot and primarily reserved for hyperbole.
saying that the white people oppressing black slaves were terrorists is a misuse of the term. wite people didn't use terror as a means of oppresion, they used outright force.
And, honestly, to say that white slave owners just used force and not fear to control and oppress blacks is so absolutely disingenuous that it blows my mind. What do you think the KKK and cross burning were?
I can understand that there could be acts practiced within the context of slavery that could be considered terrorism---like, for example, beating a disobedient slave in front of the others to inspire fear of retribution, but I think that calling slavery as an institution terrorism doesn't really fit I don't think.
So on the one hand we have people defending Sherman's total war tactic and saying he was a good dude and on the other we have people calling Confederates terrorists and wanting to punch people out if they sing Dixie
just mind boggling
Why don't you read up on the lyrics to Dixie and Sherman's actual March to the Sea before you embarrass yourself further.
Er, maybe I have? I prefer first hand accounts to wikipedia, though.
You just linked to an account where a multiple slaveholder had some of her possession taken and her slaves freed after the men she was with shot at Union troops.
That is something I support yes.
Yeah, I guess having all her food taken, slaves marched away against their will at gunpoint, and threatened to be killed, buildings and transportation burned, livestock stolen etc. is great, just great.
They were away from a supply line and needed to acquire food. Slaves being forced to do something against their will!? I am shocked, shocked I say! You are left with some transportation being burned. Sure, it sucks for her, but it isn't that bad.
I can understand that there could be acts practiced within the context of slavery that could be considered terrorism---like, for example, beating a disobedient slave in front of the others to inspire fear of retribution, but I think that calling slavery as an institution terrorism doesn't really fit I don't think.
Nobody is doing that. I'm calling the slaveowners and those who participated in controlling slaves (and free blacks) through violence and fear terrorists. Just because they're a slightly different flavor of terrorist from Al Qaeda doesn't make the name fit less.
Except terrorism is generally when you cause random death and destruction in order to incite fear as a political tool. You are trying to stretch its meaning into something else and I can't figure out to what use.
So on the one hand we have people defending Sherman's total war tactic and saying he was a good dude and on the other we have people calling Confederates terrorists and wanting to punch people out if they sing Dixie
just mind boggling
Why don't you read up on the lyrics to Dixie and Sherman's actual March to the Sea before you embarrass yourself further.
Er, maybe I have? I prefer first hand accounts to wikipedia, though.
You just linked to an account where a multiple slaveholder had some of her possession taken and her slaves freed after the men she was with shot at Union troops.
That is something I support yes.
Yeah, I guess having all her food taken, slaves marched away against their will at gunpoint, and threatened to be killed, buildings and transportation burned, livestock stolen etc. is great, just great.
Its war.
War never changes
Did you expect her to get a nice backrub and maybe they'd give her slaves a nice talking to? She had been party to an attack on Union troops that day and she was not harmed. It's fucked up that you read that story and don't see something good - the emancipation of a number of slaves and instead want to decry denying a wealthy plantation owner the fruits of the enslavement of her "boys"
Did you expect her to get a nice backrub and maybe they'd give her slaves a nice talking to? She had been party to an attack on Union troops that day and she was not harmed. It's fucked up that you read that story and don't see something good - the emancipation of a number of slaves and instead want to decry denying a wealthy plantation owner the fruits of the enslavement of her "boys"
lol
I never said it sucks that she lost the slaves, just that they were threatened to be shot. I'm sure their life was much better as free men. It is unlikely that the connection was made to her that she was with that man who shot at anyone. She told him not to. She didn't have the the gun. That connection is weak and you know it.
She was a damned dirty southerner though. America should punish all its enemies.
Pretty much. It's why the term is a crapshoot and primarily reserved for hyperbole.
And, honestly, to say that white slave owners just used force and not fear to control and oppress blacks is so absolutely disingenuous that it blows my mind. What do you think the KKK and cross burning were?
The KKK (don't know about crossburning) didn't exist until after the war was over. It was formed with the intention of oppressing freed slaves and had nothing to do with maintaining the slave system.
Slavery was undoubtedly evil, but I don't know if I would use 'terrorism' as a means to describe its perpetuation. It would be more accurate to say that the ruling authorities in slave areas were simply inhumanly brutal. Cruelty and disregard for human rights does not equal terrorism, which (I thought) was the use of violence to achieve some political/religious/whatever/ goal - usually by a non-state actor.
Except terrorism is generally when you cause random death and destruction in order to incite fear as a political tool. You are trying to stretch its meaning into something else and I can't figure out to what use.
So you're saying that terrorism isn't terrorism if it's widespread and government sanctioned? You're narrowing the definition to fit with terrorism that is most common today. I think that what most often gets used to describe these activities is intimidation. The very thin dividing line between them seems to be the end of the Civil War.
EDIT: Also, lynchings tended to be pretty random. If you include free blacks in the picture, terrorism was definitely in play because white mobs would use violence with impunity to keep free blacks at the bottom of society.
Actually, I called the Confederates traitors. The terrorists were the slaveowners and the people who supported their efforts to keep slaves in check.
Dunadan: read the rest of the definitions. One of them says:
Terrorism is the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or its threat.
Oh hey, that sounds like what they were doing to slaves.
your definition means muggers are terrorists, bullies are terrorists, people who intimidate other people are terrorists, mothers who discipline their children are terrorists. do you see why this is a problem? or do you need me to write a damn essay about it before you admit that you just want to apply a republican buzz word to a specific group that you don't like.
or maybe everyones a terrorist.
Pretty much. It's why the term is a crapshoot and primarily reserved for hyperbole.
saying that the white people oppressing black slaves were terrorists is a misuse of the term. wite people didn't use terror as a means of oppresion, they used outright force.
And, honestly, to say that white slave owners just used force and not fear to control and oppress blacks is so absolutely disingenuous that it blows my mind. What do you think the KKK and cross burning were?
i hear the KKK were burning crosses before the civil war.... they used time machines....
Dunadan019 on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
Slavery was(is) an oppressive institution. It does use fear as a means of controlling, demeaning and dehumanizing the slaves, but to call it terrorism kind of generalizes it to an excessive degree.
Did you expect her to get a nice backrub and maybe they'd give her slaves a nice talking to? She had been party to an attack on Union troops that day and she was not harmed. It's fucked up that you read that story and don't see something good - the emancipation of a number of slaves and instead want to decry denying a wealthy plantation owner the fruits of the enslavement of her "boys"
lol
I never said it sucks that she lost the slaves, just that they were threatened to be shot. I'm sure their life was much better as free men. It is unlikely that the connection was made to her that she was with that man who shot at anyone. She told him not to. She didn't have the the gun. That connection is weak and you know it.
She was a damned dirty southerner though. America should punish all its enemies.
It doesn't even matter. You're trying to portray the March to the Sea as some kind of atrocity, when that's bullshit. There was nothing wrong in that story, especially considering it was relayed through a plantation owner who was left with plenty to eat including livestock, was never threatened, and was left with a large house and bales of cotton.
I have a problem with flying a flag that is the symbol of a government that existed pretty much entirely for a single reason: because they thought that white people should be able to own black people, and they didn't have a problem getting several hundred thousand people killed over it.
It wasn't the symbol of any government. It wasn't even a symbol of the entire Confederate army.
Again, this isn't the equivalent of a swastika; it's the equivalent of a Nazi flag.
No, it's the equivalent of the Rising Sun flag. Does it offend some people? Yes and rightly so. Does everyone who uses it subscribe to an abhorrent system of beliefs? No. Hell, the Iron Cross is now the official symbol of the German army. That doesn't mean that their soldiers dream night and day of invading France.
No, it's pretty much the equivalent of the Nazi flag. In fact, I'm not sure there is a better equivalent to it, since both were racist goverments that opressed "lesser" races and fought, among other things, to keep their "right" to do it. Both of them also got steamrolled in destructive wars and were wiped off the fact of the Earth. The difference between modern Germans and some Southern people is that the Germans aren't flaunting the Nazi flag as it was some thing to be proud about. Except for the Neo-Nazis. And yeah, it's also the equivalent of the Rising Sun flag as well, which means that any asshole who goes flaunting it in China or Korea should probably get their butts kicked as well.
Is that not the official Flag of the Confederate States? There, in the right corner?
That is the third flag of the Confederacy; that is not the flag we have been discussing. And isn't there a quote a bit further up the tree talking about how an entire flag is not equivalent to the charge on another flag?
So what you are exactly arguing here? That the confederate Stars and Stripes is in fact not the official symbol of the Confederacy? Because it has featured in two of the three official flags, in the Navy Jack and apparently in 180 different military battle flags and is obviously the only part of the flag that can be used as a recognizable symbol.
So on the one hand we have people defending Sherman's total war tactic and saying he was a good dude and on the other we have people calling Confederates terrorists and wanting to punch people out if they sing Dixie
just mind boggling
Why don't you read up on the lyrics to Dixie and Sherman's actual March to the Sea before you embarrass yourself further.
Er, maybe I have? I prefer first hand accounts to wikipedia, though.
You just linked to an account where a multiple slaveholder had some of her possession taken and her slaves freed after the men she was with shot at Union troops.
That is something I support yes.
Yeah, I guess having all her food taken, slaves marched away against their will at gunpoint, and threatened to be killed, buildings and transportation burned, livestock stolen etc. is great, just great.
Are you from Stormfront or something?
This is seriously the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread. She lost thirty thousand dollars worth of product--much of which was in slaves--because she refused to comply with the lawful orders of the President of the United States of America and free her slaves. And then a bunch of starving Union soldiers come through this aristocratic cunt's palatial estate, and do they burn it down, rape her, and kill her? No, they just take the food and burn the cotton. That's it.
This wasn't a fucking war crime; if anything, the fucking soldiers showed an incredible amount of restraint. Fuck. What the fuck is wrong with you? "Slaves marched away against their will?" Yeah, boy, I'm sure she never made any slaves do anything against their will, right? Fuck.
This is seriously the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread. She lost thirty thousand dollars worth of product--much of which was in slaves--because she refused to comply with the lawful orders of the President of the United States of America and free her slaves. And then a bunch of starving Union soldiers come through this aristocratic cunt's palatial estate, and do they burn it down, rape her, and kill her? No, they just take the food and burn the cotton. That's it.
This wasn't a fucking war crime; if anything, the fucking soldiers showed an incredible amount of restraint. Fuck. What the fuck is wrong with you? "Slaves marched away against their will?" Yeah, boy, I'm sure she never made any slaves do anything against their will, right? Fuck.
No, I'm not sure what stormfront is. If you read the rest of her journal she talks about how they broke in and destroyed all their china, silver, etc. How do you know they were starving? Sounds like they were strong enough to take a thousand pounds worth of meat. Ugh.
I realize this is D&D, but some of you dudes just live in a different reality, I think.
This is seriously the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread. She lost thirty thousand dollars worth of product--much of which was in slaves--because she refused to comply with the lawful orders of the President of the United States of America and free her slaves. And then a bunch of starving Union soldiers come through this aristocratic cunt's palatial estate, and do they burn it down, rape her, and kill her? No, they just take the food and burn the cotton. That's it.
This wasn't a fucking war crime; if anything, the fucking soldiers showed an incredible amount of restraint. Fuck. What the fuck is wrong with you? "Slaves marched away against their will?" Yeah, boy, I'm sure she never made any slaves do anything against their will, right? Fuck.
No, I'm not sure what stormfront is. If you read the rest of her journal she talks about how they broke in and destroyed all their china, silver, etc. How do you know they were starving? Sounds like they were strong enough to take a thousand pounds worth of meat. Ugh.
I realize this is D&D, but some of you dudes just live in a different reality, I think.
This is seriously the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread. She lost thirty thousand dollars worth of product--much of which was in slaves--because she refused to comply with the lawful orders of the President of the United States of America and free her slaves. And then a bunch of starving Union soldiers come through this aristocratic cunt's palatial estate, and do they burn it down, rape her, and kill her? No, they just take the food and burn the cotton. That's it.
This wasn't a fucking war crime; if anything, the fucking soldiers showed an incredible amount of restraint. Fuck. What the fuck is wrong with you? "Slaves marched away against their will?" Yeah, boy, I'm sure she never made any slaves do anything against their will, right? Fuck.
No, I'm not sure what stormfront is. If you read the rest of her journal she talks about how they broke in and destroyed all their china, silver, etc. How do you know they were starving? Sounds like they were strong enough to take a thousand pounds worth of meat. Ugh.
I realize this is D&D, but some of you dudes just live in a different reality, I think.
I'm not sure why you think the minute details about china or silver really make any difference at this point.
A rich plantation owner disobeyed a lawful order from the President of the United States to free her slaves. Soldiers came and freed them. She is not the victim here.
This is seriously the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread. She lost thirty thousand dollars worth of product--much of which was in slaves--because she refused to comply with the lawful orders of the President of the United States of America and free her slaves. And then a bunch of starving Union soldiers come through this aristocratic cunt's palatial estate, and do they burn it down, rape her, and kill her? No, they just take the food and burn the cotton. That's it.
This wasn't a fucking war crime; if anything, the fucking soldiers showed an incredible amount of restraint. Fuck. What the fuck is wrong with you? "Slaves marched away against their will?" Yeah, boy, I'm sure she never made any slaves do anything against their will, right? Fuck.
No, I'm not sure what stormfront is. If you read the rest of her journal she talks about how they broke in and destroyed all their china, silver, etc. How do you know they were starving? Sounds like they were strong enough to take a thousand pounds worth of meat. Ugh.
I realize this is D&D, but some of you dudes just live in a different reality, I think.
Please, someone think of the poor slaveowners!
The Union did some bad things during the war, nobody is denying that. Every side of every single war in history does that. That is just what happens when you put thousands of young men into unit and tell them to kill other young men. It's unavoidable, pretty much. However the thing you posted is ridicolous on any standard. I'm sorry, with 100,000 dead on both sides I don't feel like shedding a tear when some asshole slaveowner gets her precious china trashed and her food stolen when she refuses to free the goddamn people she has enslaved.
And Sherman was a ruthless general who used total war and scorched earth tactics against the Confederates. His actions deserve harsh critisicm. But at least he didn't think that slavery was an totally awesome thing, which makes him a better person in my eyes then half of the people at the Confederate side. See, he did bad things while fighting to stop slavery. And the other side did bad things while fighting to keep slavery.
I'm sure if someone really wanted to they could come up with some actual bad shit that Union troops did.
I mean, shit, the stuff Custer's men did during the Indian Wars (beating babies' brains out against tree trunks, etc.) could probably fall under this classification, since even though it wasn't done to the South, it was the same organisation with many of the same people involved, albeit a few years later.
I'm sure if someone really wanted to they could come up with some actual bad shit that Union troops did.
I mean, shit, the stuff Custer's men did during the Indian Wars (beating babies' brains out against tree trunks, etc.) could probably fall under this classification, since even though it wasn't done to the South, it was the same organisation with many of the same people involved, albeit a few years later.
But breaking china? Seriously?
No, don't get me wrong, the Union troops did a lot of incredibly fucked-up shit. This is not in any way an example of that, though.
Posts
...How were they planning to get close enough?
That is something I support yes.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I dunno, do we consider the Klan of the post-Reconstruction era to be terrorists? I think they are. If they are, then I don't see why a few years prior to Reconstruction these same people could do the same things to slaves and not be considered terrorists. In the end, they used violence to achieve political or social ends, namely the subjugation of black people. Slaves and free blacks were kept in check by the use of terror. Is that not terrorism?
Pretty much. It's why the term is a crapshoot and primarily reserved for hyperbole.
And, honestly, to say that white slave owners just used force and not fear to control and oppress blacks is so absolutely disingenuous that it blows my mind. What do you think the KKK and cross burning were?
Steam ID - BewilderedRonin
They were away from a supply line and needed to acquire food. Slaves being forced to do something against their will!? I am shocked, shocked I say! You are left with some transportation being burned. Sure, it sucks for her, but it isn't that bad.
Nobody is doing that. I'm calling the slaveowners and those who participated in controlling slaves (and free blacks) through violence and fear terrorists. Just because they're a slightly different flavor of terrorist from Al Qaeda doesn't make the name fit less.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I never said it sucks that she lost the slaves, just that they were threatened to be shot. I'm sure their life was much better as free men. It is unlikely that the connection was made to her that she was with that man who shot at anyone. She told him not to. She didn't have the the gun. That connection is weak and you know it.
She was a damned dirty southerner though. America should punish all its enemies.
Slavery was undoubtedly evil, but I don't know if I would use 'terrorism' as a means to describe its perpetuation. It would be more accurate to say that the ruling authorities in slave areas were simply inhumanly brutal. Cruelty and disregard for human rights does not equal terrorism, which (I thought) was the use of violence to achieve some political/religious/whatever/ goal - usually by a non-state actor.
So you're saying that terrorism isn't terrorism if it's widespread and government sanctioned? You're narrowing the definition to fit with terrorism that is most common today. I think that what most often gets used to describe these activities is intimidation. The very thin dividing line between them seems to be the end of the Civil War.
EDIT: Also, lynchings tended to be pretty random. If you include free blacks in the picture, terrorism was definitely in play because white mobs would use violence with impunity to keep free blacks at the bottom of society.
i hear the KKK were burning crosses before the civil war.... they used time machines....
It doesn't even matter. You're trying to portray the March to the Sea as some kind of atrocity, when that's bullshit. There was nothing wrong in that story, especially considering it was relayed through a plantation owner who was left with plenty to eat including livestock, was never threatened, and was left with a large house and bales of cotton.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
So what you are exactly arguing here? That the confederate Stars and Stripes is in fact not the official symbol of the Confederacy? Because it has featured in two of the three official flags, in the Navy Jack and apparently in 180 different military battle flags and is obviously the only part of the flag that can be used as a recognizable symbol.
This is seriously the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread. She lost thirty thousand dollars worth of product--much of which was in slaves--because she refused to comply with the lawful orders of the President of the United States of America and free her slaves. And then a bunch of starving Union soldiers come through this aristocratic cunt's palatial estate, and do they burn it down, rape her, and kill her? No, they just take the food and burn the cotton. That's it.
This wasn't a fucking war crime; if anything, the fucking soldiers showed an incredible amount of restraint. Fuck. What the fuck is wrong with you? "Slaves marched away against their will?" Yeah, boy, I'm sure she never made any slaves do anything against their will, right? Fuck.
I realize this is D&D, but some of you dudes just live in a different reality, I think.
Her journal is on Google Book so it'd be nice if you stopped making shit up.
And if they had "destroyed her silver" who gives a fuck?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
A rich plantation owner disobeyed a lawful order from the President of the United States to free her slaves. Soldiers came and freed them. She is not the victim here.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Please, someone think of the poor slaveowners!
The Union did some bad things during the war, nobody is denying that. Every side of every single war in history does that. That is just what happens when you put thousands of young men into unit and tell them to kill other young men. It's unavoidable, pretty much. However the thing you posted is ridicolous on any standard. I'm sorry, with 100,000 dead on both sides I don't feel like shedding a tear when some asshole slaveowner gets her precious china trashed and her food stolen when she refuses to free the goddamn people she has enslaved.
And Sherman was a ruthless general who used total war and scorched earth tactics against the Confederates. His actions deserve harsh critisicm. But at least he didn't think that slavery was an totally awesome thing, which makes him a better person in my eyes then half of the people at the Confederate side. See, he did bad things while fighting to stop slavery. And the other side did bad things while fighting to keep slavery.
Especially in a time when such tactics were commonplace...so basically all the way up to about WWI/WWII.
It's not like Confederate troops were perfect gentlemen when on Union soil, or anything.
I do, too. Because then I know I can safely just ignore them. My first thought whenever anybody utters these words is, "yep, we're done here."
right
i mean i guess in a way the confederates were the 'bad guys' but ethically speaking they were on more or less equal footing.
though I imagine that's not what they mean
I mean, shit, the stuff Custer's men did during the Indian Wars (beating babies' brains out against tree trunks, etc.) could probably fall under this classification, since even though it wasn't done to the South, it was the same organisation with many of the same people involved, albeit a few years later.
But breaking china? Seriously?
The South shot first.
A pre-emptive defensive strike.
I've heard this somewhere before...
If anything it should be the war of OvD, that started because the South was potshotting
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The best way to stop bullets is to send out a shield of other bullets in hopes that you clog their guns before they fire. It's math!