You're dancing around the issue, Tony. Do you consider - based on the FBI's definition of "Terrorist" the original Colonists to be terrorists? Because either you do, and you do for the Confederacy, or you don't, and can't for the Confederacy. There's no difference, other than the "why" both armies rose up. One you like, the other you don't. Fortunately the first one won, and the second one didn't. I know I'm certainly glad it worked out that way. But I don't consider either to be terrorist groups.
And by the way, I very much enjoy our discourse. You're always civil and you believe very strongly in your positions, which is admirable. You hold to them even in the face of your own side disagreeing. You don't resort to cheap shots (which is rare around here) unless first provoked into doing so. I was wrong to - at one point - go off on you over your beliefs. And I apologize.
Those who participated in the war and acts that led up to it like The Boston Tea party personally I do as they fit the definition of domestic terrorism.Once terrorist acts turn into a full blown war it often stops being called terrorism though.
But that's kinda what happened with the Confederacy. It wasn't some small conflict. It was a war where over 600,000 soldiers died.
True and I see where you're coming from.If a US right wing militia group were to attack a US miltary base (Fort Sumpter) the goverment would immediately call it domestic terrorism.
And I would totally agree with that label - they would be a terrorist group. But if, say, Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi suddenly lost their minds and declared war on Virginia and the United States, which then proceeded to a protracted conflict where hundreds of thousands died in a meet of two armies, I'd not call it terrorism. Lots of other things to call it (like "stupid" for instance) but not terrorism.