Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

S

signalmankenneth

Verified User
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/martin.confederate.extremist/index.html?hpt=C1
dixie-show-and-tell.jpg
 
How I wish they didnt require all history to be rewritten and all science to be ignored to defend their FAILED ideas.
 
I hate it that sooo many Americans defend and honor the people who would have torn this country appart to retain the power and finacial gain that owning other human beings gained them.

To pretend this war was about something else is spitting on this country we NOW have.
 
Dixie said:
But they weren't tried or convicted of treason. IF they had been, it would have been by the GOP, since they were in power at the time. We would have actually not had Democrats.
Click to expand...

Your own putrid racist party proves that you are a liar.

It was a Republican that afforded the rebel traitors status equal to that of real United States veterans May 23, 1958.

The Southern Strategy signaled the GOPs inclusion of the KKK.

Now the Republicans are the party of NO and domestic terrorism.
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
Your own putrid racist party proves that you are a liar.

It was a Republican that afforded the rebel traitors status equal to that of real United States veterans May 23, 1958.

The Southern Strategy signaled the GOPs inclusion of the KKK.

Now the Republicans are the party of NO and domestic terrorism.
Click to expand...


It was a REPUBLICAN who emancipated the slaves... Abraham Lincoln!
It was REPUBLICANS who decided not to try CSA leaders for treason!
It was REPUBLICANS who supported Civil Rights and DEMOCRATS who were split!
It is a DEMOCRAT who was a former Klansman... Robert Byrd!
 
Dixie said:
It was a REPUBLICAN who emancipated the slaves... Abraham Lincoln!THEN why the fuck do your fellow Rs keep trying to burry this proud part of your history by denying that the Civil War was about slavery?
It was REPUBLICANS who decided not to try CSA leaders for treason!Then why is your party now defending the losers as heros?
It was REPUBLICANS who supported Civil Rights and DEMOCRATS who were split!Then why do they now want it ended?
It is a DEMOCRAT who was a former Klansman... Robert Byrd!
Click to expand...



What was strom Thurman?
 
Confederates were traitors to the United States and tried to destroy the Union.

If you celebrate the Confederate flag, you might as well burn the Stars & Stripes.

If you call yourself a Confederate but not a racist traitor, then you're the one forgetting history.
 
From 1948 to 1984 the Southern states, traditionally a stronghold for the Democrats, became key swing states, providing the popular vote margins in the 1960, 1968 and 1976 elections.

During this era, several Republican candidates expressed support for states' rights, using "codewords" of opposition to federal enforcement of civil rights for blacks and intervention on their behalf.

In 1980 Republican candidate Ronald Reagan's proclaiming support for "states' rights" at his first Southern campaign stop was cited as evidence that the Republican Party was building upon the Southern Strategy again. The location was significant - Reagan spoke at the Neshoba County Fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi, the county where the three civil rights workers were murdered during 1964's Freedom Summer.

More recently, Republican politicians made appeals to "conservative values", and used cultural issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and religion to mobilize their base. This has also been viewed as the Southernization of American politics.
 
No. The soldiers who fought for the Confederacy were absolutely not terrorists. They were engaged in a political rebellion, but the same could be said for our own Founding Fathers.

Roland Martin, whose opinion I generally respect, is way off base here. From his use of language, you would think he is one of those folks who confuses Al Qaeda and the actual terrorists who attacked us with every potential middle eastern adversary and militant we might face in Iraq and Afghanistan as a consequence of being there.

Jack Hunter (The Southern Avenger) had a piece not too long ago that speaks to quite the opposite of Martin's article, though he notes that in their contemporary setting, the Confederates were branded as terrorists.

 
To address the article referenced, Roland Martin is an idiot studying hard to be an imbecile. While I personally view confederate soldiers to have been traitors - especially officers who were sworn to the United States before secession was declared - they most certainly were NOT terrorists, nor were their actions in any way comparable to the Nazis' holocaust.

When you make the argument that the South was angry with the North for "invading" its "homeland," Osama bin Laden has said the same about U.S. soldiers being on Arab soil. He has objected to our bases in Saudi Arabia, and that's one of the reasons he has launched his jihad against us. Is there really that much of a difference between him and the Confederates? Same language; same cause; same effect.
Click to expand...
How fracking brain dead can one be? In the first place, Osama Bin Laden was NOT at any time a representative of any government in the M.E. Therefore his call for U.S. troops to leave had no political basis. Second, the claim that the South wass angry for the North INVADING just shows a complete ignorance of history. The North did not invade until well AFTER war had been declared between the secessionist states and the Union. What the South was angry about, and the primary reason the South elected to secede was the innumerable economic sanctions and imbalanced interstate commerce rules, many of which were unconstitutional, being imposed by the northern industrial states who held a majority in the House of Representatives. Third (and most important), at NO time did the Confederates deliberately target civilians or civilian assets as a means to "prove their point". They fought a MILITARY war against MILITARY targets and personnel. Mr. Martin obviously has no CLUE what defines terrorism.

If a Confederate soldier was merely doing his job in defending his homeland, honor and heritage, what are we to say about young Muslim radicals who say the exact same thing as their rationale for strapping bombs on their bodies and blowing up cafes and buildings?
Click to expand...
Further proof Martin is a complete dough head who has zero concept of the difference between a military soldier (even one who is a traitor) and a terrorist. Again, Confederate soldiers did NOT attack civilian targets to make their point. They fought against the Union MILITARY. (Too bad the Union forces could not make the same claim when they did invade the South) To equate a rebellion soldier to the act of blowing up oneself to take out innocent civilians just trying to enjoy their lunch period shows Martin to be completely lacking in anything resembling genuine thought processes.

If the Sons of Confederate Veterans use as a talking point the vicious manner in which people in the South were treated by the North, doesn't that sound exactly like the Taliban saying they want to kill Americans for the slaughter of innocent people in Afghanistan?
Click to expand...
Unless Martin can point to Confederate veterans who wanted to randomly kill Americans, his comparison again falls way short. Yes, the Confederates and many in the South today complain, and rightfully so, of the way the South was treated, before, during, and after the War. And when it comes to complaining, the Taliban also has a popint in the number of innocents killed by American forces. The difference is the Taliban is calling for our slaughter in return. The confederates did not indicate any such desire.

In short, the Confederate Soldier was NOT, in any way, shape, or form a terrorist. Period. And while I personally object to HONORING the traitorous bastages, trying to equate them to terrorists or Nazis far crosses the line.
 
It's certainly going to be interpreted as insensitive by many.

But there's no way to deny that the Southern states have a heritage of people who fought in the civil war. I wouldn't seek to delete that, and as Hunter says:

"Complicated historical questions have been whittled down to politically correct bromides, more digestible to children and politicians."

I added the emphasis because the statement amuses me.

I do think it's also offensive (though not to as many people) to cast off the recognition of war dead and veterans of our country's civil war based on whether they sided with the Union or the Confederacy. That's not in the spirit of reconciliation or respecting our country's history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top