Did someone say racist?
Posted on 04/11/2010 11:18:54 AM PDT by trumandogz
(CNN) -- Based on the hundreds of e-mails, Facebook comments and Tweets I've read in response to my denunciation of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's decision to honor Confederates for their involvement in the Civil War -- which was based on the desire to continue slavery -- the one consistent thing that supporters of the proclamation offer up as a defense is that these individuals were fighting for what they believed in and defending their homeland. In criticizing me for saying that celebrating the Confederates was akin to honoring Nazi soldiers for killing of Jews during the Holocaust, Rob Wagner said, "I am simply defending the honor and dignity of men who were given no choice other than to fight, some as young as thirteen."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Roland is a slave to the past. by choice.
The fishing guy ?
no, since the CSA was a separate nation, they were uniformed combatants. Strangely enough, G Gordon Liddy says that it really wasn’t a Civil War since the CSA was a separate nation.
I despise the Confederacy, but you cannot equate terrorists who murder innocents who are just going about their business with men, often conscripted, who were willing to put their hide on the line in the meat grinder of 19th century combat.
Nobody could be that stupid.
Partly? Are they missing the part where they did not agree with the Federal government, so they wanted to withdraw from the Union?
Roland Martin is a damned idiot and poltroon.
parsifal, the southerner
Were Americans on both sides of the American Revolution terrorists ???
A milder form of slavery exists today with a different master but the concept is the same. Stay on the plantation and you’ll be fed, housed and given subsistence for clothing and other incidentals.
Leave the plantation and you have to fend for yourself.
Oh, yes, let’s fight the Civil War again! Like once wasn’t enough!
Nobody could be that stupid.
—
Roland is a
CNN “correspondent”
aka propagandist
There are some Freepers who are that stupid, as you'll find out by surfing through some of the Robert E. Lee threads.
I can think of one person.....
No, but Sherman was a war criminal.
No.
next question.
.
Robert E. Lee?
The greatest American general?
Was a terrorist?
No way.
That is equivalent to boy genius Jethro Bodine in the position of brain surgeon or double nought spy or Wolf Blitzer in the role of a Jeopardy contestant.
Hmmm. The old slavery canard. Glad I’m old enough to have been taught the states rights version.
If you do a keyword search for Civil War threads, you'll quickly find out that the smoke never clears on this board.
Well then we ain't too keen on you either, Colonel.
Mr Martin failed simple math....
Slavery under the Confederacy-1861-1865 (5 yrs)
Slavery under the U.S-1776-1865 (89 yrs)
5 is a more of a terrorist than 89?
NO. The Confederacy was a gov’t that wanted to split from the USA. War was declared. War is hell and both sides participated in the terrible war. Confederate soldiers were fighting in a declared war. The Civil War was about STATES RIGHTS not SLAVERY.... It is strange however for a state in the Union to be honoring a Confederate.....Hmmm
Wrong-headed maybe, but when considering the states still retained some sovereignty in 1860, many thought they were fighting for their "country".
Really? For wanting to inflict on CSA conditions so bad as to bring the War to a swift conclusion?
These people need to look up the word “anachronism” in the dictionary. YOU CANNOT DEMAND THAT PEOPLE WHO LIVED HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO BEHAVE ACCORDING TO YOUR STANDARDS.
“If you do a keyword search for Civil War threads, you’ll quickly find out that the smoke never clears on this board. “
Exactly!
But of course the opinions expressed are not those of Roland Martin there are contrived by Roland Martin to arouse a reaction, drive up his ratings, and ultimately line his pockets. The opinions expressed are naught but a cynical ploy, throwing bait to the boobs, as the practice was called during the Clinton administration.
Martin does not believe these things, he is laughing up his sleeve at us. This is a shameful but perfectly politically correct column for Martin to write. He knows he will provoke part of the people and he knows further that the louder the uproar the louder will he be applauded in the salons and circles inhabited by elitists like those who are running CNN into bankruptcy.
My opinion of Roland Martin cannot be expressed.
The Confederacy was established for the purpose of further enriching and empowering its leaders through the expansion of slavery and the continued exploitation of their poor white neighbors. I have no use for the political Confederacy, but the semi-educated rantings of Martin seem to indicate that he cannot differentiate between the loathsome purposes of the Dixie political elite and the often much different motivations of the often impoverished soldiers themselves.
Domestic terrorists? They wore uniforms and fought other uniformed soldiers. They were rebels and traitors to the United States of America, but not terrorists.
A better, more current question is “are United Mine Workers, the minions of now big guy Richard Trumka, terrorists?”
The answer is of course. They donned camo uniforms, miners, wives,sisters, mothers and children and using stolen company explosives blew up power substations. The blocked access to roads and transport. They damaged and destroyed private vehicles of their betters. They occupied company property, some with guns. they recruited Roman Catholic nuns to use their Winebago mobile clinics to drive in the middle of roads and slow or stop coal trucks.
They harassed those who went to work with telephone threats and threatened their families while they were at work.
The UMWA scum are real terrorists
I despise the damn Yankees who raped and killed innocent women and the senseless burning and destroying of property as they marched through the South.
No way, indeed! Lee was not only one of the greatest soldiers byt one of the greatest gentlemen that this nation ever produced.
If the Civil War was not about slavery, why is it that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America stated:
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
OK, you got one reason out of eight.
Care to shoot for the other seven?
An interesting observation, given that Judah Benjamin, the Confederate Secretary of State, was Jewish. More than 100 years would pas before the US got its first Jewish Secretary of State.
Irrespective of what the war was or wasn’t about. This isn’t about ‘terrorist’ or slavery this is about race. I’ll bet you Mr Martin nor CNN give a damn about white slaves, indentured servants, the fact that blacks, Indians and others owned slaves or that slavery existed for thousand of years and exist today. This is specifically about White Western culture and the destruction thereof. You can bet you rear end if this is allowed to become accepted doctrine that the founders and 95% of American history are next. In fact all of Western history must be destroyed in order to achiever what they are after. Of course people like Mr Martin have myopic vision. Wanna talk about terrorist? How about we be more up to date and talk about current day black Thugs?? I am sure he doesn’t want to go there.
Do you also despise the stay at home Confederates who likewise murdered and oppressed Southerners many months before Sherman even reached Georgia or is a Southerner murdered by a Confederate any less dead than one murdered by a Yankee?
Informed response. Thanks for posting.
“Irrespective of what the war was or wasn’t about. This isn’t about ‘terrorist’ or slavery this is about race.
I’ll bet you Mr Martin nor CNN give a damn about white slaves, indentured servants, the fact that blacks, Indians and others owned slaves or that slavery existed for thousand of years and exist today.
This is specifically about White Western culture and the destruction thereof. You can bet you rear end if this is allowed to become accepted doctrine that the founders and 95% of American history are next. In fact all of Western history must be destroyed in order to achiever what they are after. Of course people like Mr Martin have myopic vision.
Wanna talk about terrorist? How about we be more up to date and talk about current day black Thugs?? I am sure he doesn’t want to go there.”
Good post!
The CSA were separatists with de facto control over part of the territory they claimed, but were certainly not an independent nation. The rebels were not recognized by the US Government nor were they by any foreign state. The purpose of their rebellion was to create an independent state, but the rebellion was defeated.
They had other reasons that they sold to the men actually doing the fighting. And that’s what people like Roland Martin cannot understand. The cause for which the leaders rebelled, almost 100% slavery, was often not a big factor for the soldiers themselves, particularly for the poorer soldiers and those from the Upper South where slavery was not very prominent.
How about the slavemasters who raped and killed innocent women? Sherman's army committed war crimes, but they pale in comparison to the crimes of slavery perpetrated over a span of hundreds of years.
“No, but Sherman was a war criminal.”
I think Mr. Peabody bears the ultimate responsibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.