Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CNN and Roland Martin asks: Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?
CNN ^ | 4/11/2010 | Roland Martin

Posted on 04/11/2010 11:28:46 AM PDT by Altura Ct.

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."

Sherry Callahan said that supporting the Confederacy is "our history. Not hate; it's about heritage and history."

Javier Ramirez called slavery evil, but prefaced his remarks by saying that "Confederate soldiers were never seen as terrorists by [President Abraham] Lincoln or U.S. generals on the battlefield. They were accorded POW status, they were never tried for war crimes. Not once did Confederate soldiers do any damage to civilians or their property in their invasion of the north. The same is not true of Union soldiers."

Realskirkland sent me a Tweet saying, "Slavery is appalling, but was not the only reason for the CW [Civil War]. Those men, while misguided on some fronts stood up for what they felt was right. They embodied that American ideal that the states have a right to govern themselves. THAT is what a confederate soldier stood for."

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: cnn; dixie; history; mcdonnell; race; usa; virginiahistory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

1 posted on 04/11/2010 11:28:46 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

dupe


2 posted on 04/11/2010 11:31:17 AM PDT by culpeper (He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

If they are so against slavery at CNN why then are they doing nothing to stop Obama from bringing it back?


3 posted on 04/11/2010 11:32:14 AM PDT by TheVitaminPress (as goes the Second Amendment . . . so goes the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

No, but the North were a bunch of war criminals, with “General” Sherman being exhibit #1.


4 posted on 04/11/2010 11:34:13 AM PDT by Oceander (The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance -- Thos. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheVitaminPress
If they are so against slavery at CNN why then are they doing nothing to stop Obama from bringing it back?

Because, this time, the "right people" will be enslaved.

5 posted on 04/11/2010 11:35:18 AM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

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.
_________________________________________________

Ah most of the cannon fodder didnt own any slaves...


6 posted on 04/11/2010 11:38:40 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

What a maroon....

Though it should hardly come as a surprise that anyone at CNN failed to grasp the true reason for the War Between the States: States’ rights.

While it is true that the principal issue on which States’ rights turned was slavery (which, incidentally, would not have been an issue had not Africans sold their own people to others), the bottom line in the War Between the States was who makes the decisions about what each individual State does: the States themselves, or the Federal Government?

Sound familiar? This is the same issue that is being fought in almost every State in the country today. The painting of Confederate soldiers as domestic terrorists is no accident.


7 posted on 04/11/2010 11:38:54 AM PDT by lawyerchik1 ("Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom." - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oceander

Jeez...the comments on the article are interesting!


8 posted on 04/11/2010 11:39:13 AM PDT by vharlow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oceander

Jeez...the comments on the article are interesting!


9 posted on 04/11/2010 11:39:14 AM PDT by vharlow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

If the Confederate soldiers were all “terrorists,” all the more so Abraham Lincoln, and all of the Union officers and soldiers.

And none more so than General Sherman and the soldiers who participated in his march.

If you accept that view, then American slavery was abolished by terrorists.


10 posted on 04/11/2010 11:39:29 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oceander

I don’t look at the soldiers of either side as war criminals. I believe we have to look at the politicians of the times. Just as we have to today. Today, there is much more to loose if we don’t prosecute these criminals and get rid of them and take the country back.

During the Cival War, we didn’t have all the media like we have today. The average soldier looked at the war differently. He thought someone was going to try and take their freedoms away from them.......on both sides and they were willing to fight for those freedoms. Compare that to today and you have people that are too scared to stand up for those freedoms. That shows you how far we have come in regards to government control.


11 posted on 04/11/2010 11:41:04 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheVitaminPress
"Slavery is appalling, but was not the only reason for the CW [Civil War]. Those men, while misguided on some fronts stood up for what they felt was right. They embodied that American ideal that the states have a right to govern themselves. THAT is what a confederate soldier stood for."

That really is what it is all about. As I understand it, the Civil War didn't even start over slavery, that was actually a side issue.

As for CNN, how come the diversity crowd isn't complaining about the obama administration's oppressive policies? How we're all being forced into actions and commonality? How certain segments of the population are being intentionally singled out and harmed for the benefit of others? Oh, that's right, it is because it is their boy in office doing it to "the rich."

12 posted on 04/11/2010 11:41:56 AM PDT by ThunderSleeps (obama out now! I'll keep my money, my guns, and my freedom - you can keep the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Confederate were not terrorists.
General Sherman was a terrorist.
General Lee was a gentleman.
My family lost every male member of the family over the age of 12 and we never owned a single slave. The war was fought for state’s rights. Lincoln didn’t issue the Emancipation Proclamation to free the slaves until 1863 and then it only applied in the rebellious states. The were several slave states not in the rebellion and their slaves were not freed until the passing of the 13th Amendment.


13 posted on 04/11/2010 11:42:36 AM PDT by BuffaloJack (Ask not what's happening to your money,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Confederate and Union soldiers alike answered their country’s call to arms. They were brave and honorable as the men and women who serve in our armed forces today.


14 posted on 04/11/2010 11:43:01 AM PDT by advance_copy (Stand for life or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2

I don’t disagree with you; but if the fcuking liberals want to play silly name-calling games, then they’re going to have to accept the fact that, by contemporary standards, the North committed heinous war crimes against innocent civilians, and W’m T. Sherman is Exhibit #1.


15 posted on 04/11/2010 11:43:34 AM PDT by Oceander (The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance -- Thos. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Roland Martin

16 posted on 04/11/2010 11:44:51 AM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

I think the record will show General Sherman and his army definitely, on his orders, acted as terrorists in his march through the South.


17 posted on 04/11/2010 11:46:23 AM PDT by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Terrorists? Really? LOL Well, the better description of the Feds was/IS tyrants. Confederates could rightfully be called “Freedom Fighters,” though it would be somewhat flawed since the policy of the South was to support the institution of slavery... But one CANNOT claim the UNION was the virtuous party in this conflict. Indeed, the Confederacy’s cause as a whole was far more noble than that of the imperial designs of the Union, and the condition of our nation today is a result of the war perpetrated agaisnt the states of the South and against the Constitution as envisioned by the Founders.


18 posted on 04/11/2010 11:50:05 AM PDT by patriot preacher (To be a good American Citizen and a Christian IS NOT a contradiction. (www.mygration.blogspot.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

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.


19 posted on 04/11/2010 11:50:55 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.
"Not once did Confederate soldiers do any damage to civilians or their property in their invasion of the north."

That, I'm afraid, is not at all true but compared with what the Union Army did to private property in the Confederate States what they did (or had the chance to do) pales. I'm a descendant of a Union soldier, by the way, so let me quote one of his superiors ... "War is Hell" (especially for the civilian population unlucky enough to be in its path).

What we now call terrorists are those who specifically target civilians in order to inspire, well, terror. Considering how low the cumulative IQ is at CNN it's too much to expect them to understand the distinction.

20 posted on 04/11/2010 11:51:55 AM PDT by katana (Interesting Times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.
Actually, this is a great tactic by the left. From what I have seen, the view of the CW is one of best dividing lines of FReepers, and probably the conservative movement.

On the one side, you have those who claim the North was right by granting freedom to slaves and preserving the Union. Furthermore, it was republican who were against slavery but democrats who were for it.

On the other side, you have those who claim the CW was state rights issue, a matter of honor, and the freedom to dissolve the bonds of the Union. Also, they see the North was unjustly penalizing the South with tariffs and other economic burdens.

With this tactic, the left accomplishes two things: They divide us over an issue that should have been resolved long before any of us were born, and also equate the states rights movement to slavery.

At the end of the day, I think we should acknowledge that slavery is wrong, that the federal government has overstepped its bounds, and the states and the people have the right to rein in the fed. We need to stop the petty bickering about this issue and focus on the real issues.

Furthermore, if you want to fight the 1860 Civil War all over again in post after post, have at it. But both sides continue to damage conservatism in the here and now.

My $0.02 /soapbox

21 posted on 04/11/2010 11:53:31 AM PDT by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

My gggrandfather was a captain in the Missouri Homeguard
which supported the Union cause. He was murdered by Con-
federate sympathizing neighbors. By heritage I support
the Union cause. Having stated that I don’t understand
how people can get their panties in a twist because
Confederate soldiers are honored today. Folks have the
right to honor their ancestors. The vast majority of
“Rebels” were not slave owners. They believed they were
protecting their homes and states from invaders.


22 posted on 04/11/2010 11:54:15 AM PDT by Sivad (NorCal Red Turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Roland Martin makes some incredibly dumb statements. Even CNN should be embarrassed; but MSNBC should be embarrassed with Chris Matthews, too, soooo .....


23 posted on 04/11/2010 11:59:01 AM PDT by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, John 11:25, 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13, John 6:69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: culpeper
rolin and martin - commic(s) - right?
24 posted on 04/11/2010 12:01:30 PM PDT by ldish (Looking forward to Independence Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sivad

True. This is from CSA Gen. John Gordon:

This is a great site, btw.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm

I submit that this brief and incomplete summary is sufficient to satisfy those who live after us that these great leaders of conflicting thought, and their followers who continued the debate in battle and blood, while in some sense partisans, were in a far juster sense patriots.

The opinions of Lee and Grant, from each of whom I briefly quote, will illustrate in a measure the convictions of their armies. Every Confederate appreciates the magnanimity exhibited by General Grant at Appomattox; and it has been my pleasure for nearly forty years to speak in public and private of his great qualities. In his personal memoirs, General Grant has left on record his estimate of the Southern cause. This estimate represents a strong phase of Northern sentiment, but it is a sentiment which it is extremely difficult for a Southern man to comprehend. In speaking of his feelings as “sad and depressed,” as he rode to meet General Lee and receive the surrender of the Southern armies at Appomattox, General Grant says: “I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and who had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.” He adds: “I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us.”

The words above quoted, showing General Grant’s opinion of the Southern cause, are italicized by me and not by him. My object in emphasizing them is to invite special attention to their marked contrast with the opinions of General Robert E. Lee as to that same Southern cause. This peerless Confederate soldier and representative American, than whom no age or country ever produced a loftier spirit or more clear-sighted, conscientious Christian gentleman, in referring, two days before the surrender, to the apparent hopelessness of our cause, used these immortal words: “We had, I was satisfied, sacred principles to maintain and rights to defend for which we were in duty bound to do our best, even if we perished in the endeavor.”

There were those, a few years ago, who were especially devoted to the somewhat stereotyped phrase that in our Civil War one side (meaning the North) “was wholly and eternally right,” while the other side (meaning the South) “was wholly and eternally wrong.” I might cite those on the Southern side of the great controversy, equally sincere and fully as able, who would have been glad to persuade posterity that the North was “wholly and eternally wrong”; that her people waged war upon sister States who sought peacefully to set up a homogeneous government, and meditated no wrong or warfare upon the remaining sister States. These Southern leaders steadfastly maintained that the Southern people, in the exercise of the freedom and sovereign rights purchased by Revolutionary blood, were asserting a second independence according to the teachings and example of their fathers.

But what good is to come to the country from partisan utterances on either side? My own well-considered and long-entertained opinion, my settled and profound conviction, the correctness of which the future will vindicate, is this: that the one thing which is “wholly and eternally wrong” is the effort of so-called statesmen to inject one-sided and jaundiced sentiments into the youth of the country in either section. Such sentiments are neither consistent with the truth of history, nor conducive to the future welfare and unity of the Republic. The assumption on either side of all the righteousness and all the truth would produce a belittling arrogance, and an offensive intolerance of the opposing section; or, if either section could be persuaded that it was “wholly and eternally wrong,” it would inevitably destroy the self-respect and manhood of its people. A far broader, more truthful, and statesmanlike view was presented by the Hon. A. E. Stevenson, of Illinois, then Vice-President of the United States, in his opening remarks as presiding officer at the dedication of the National Park at Chickamauga. In perfect accord with the sentiment of the occasion and the spirit which led to the establishment of this park as a bond of national brotherhood, Mr. Stevenson said: “Here, in the dread tribunal of last resort, valor contended against valor. Here brave men struggled and died for the right as God gave them to see the right.”

Mr. Stevenson was right — “ wholly and eternally right.” Truth, justice, and patriotism unite in proclaiming that both sides fought and suffered for liberty as bequeathed by the Fathers—the one for liberty in the union of the States, the other for liberty in the independence of the States.

parsy


25 posted on 04/11/2010 12:01:31 PM PDT by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

I thought it was a war between the states.


26 posted on 04/11/2010 12:02:05 PM PDT by TET1968 (SI MINOR PLUS EST ERGO NIHIL SUNT OMNIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

NO, the Confederate Soldiers simply wanted to be left alone to live their lives in freedom. The Muslim terrorists want to subject the World! (subject the World = Slavery)

Roland S. Martin like CNN is propagating the BIG LIE!

His book>

Publisher: Third World Press

https://www.discountbooksale.com/store/productslist.aspx?ProdID=131&ec=1&sort=3&AWTrck=1023227736&searchAuthor=Martin+Roland+S.&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=roland%20s.%20martin%20books&utm_campaign=authacc-0836&b=GGL_DBS_131_authors-acc_0836_79842_00_*GeoUSCA*__{keyword

The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as Originally Reported by Roland S. Martin [With DVD]

He also wrote another book about Spirituality.

Obozo shill.


27 posted on 04/11/2010 12:02:35 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Good grief!


28 posted on 04/11/2010 12:06:03 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Part of black history is the selling of blacks into slavery by other blacks.

Should we ban black history month?


29 posted on 04/11/2010 12:07:09 PM PDT by freespirited (I'm against a homogenized society because I want the cream to rise. --Robert Frost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Roland S. Martin, ignorant race baiting collaborator.


30 posted on 04/11/2010 12:07:43 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Most Confederate soldiers were non-slave owners and peace loving, state’s rights people. Now they’re called terrorists, and Islamic radicals are not?

For political expediency, far left liberals and the MSM spew their divisive crap. Politics and government caused the Civil War, or good Americans would never have fought each other, and it could happen again.

And Lincoln proclaimed the end of slavery in the South only, and only when he knew he’d lose the war without that moral imperative. Lee had already recommended the same idea to Jefferson Davis, but it was rejected as cowtowing to the federal government.


31 posted on 04/11/2010 12:08:40 PM PDT by drierice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Click The Pic

32 posted on 04/11/2010 12:18:17 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo (FR.......Monthly Donors Wanted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NathanBedfordForrest

You’re not going to believe this one...


33 posted on 04/11/2010 12:18:32 PM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

General William T. Sherman was .


34 posted on 04/11/2010 12:24:12 PM PDT by lionheart 247365 (-:{ GLEN BECK is 0bama's TRANSPARENCY CZAR }:-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.
They had an interesting Civil War series on the History Channel back a few weeks ago where something similar that this was discussed. Lincoln and the Union generals were terrified that instead of surrendering, that Lee and the other Confederate generals would direct their soldiers to disperse into small groups and wage a Vietnam style Guerrilla war which could have lasted for decades. However, the confederates felt this would have been dishonorable, so they surrendered instead, which is the reason the relieved Lincoln basically allowed them to turn around and go home with a promise that they would not take up arms against the government again.
35 posted on 04/11/2010 12:30:30 PM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Confederates were insurrectionists, yes, but not terrorists. They did not attempt to make voters in Boston fearful for their own lives if they voted for Lincoln. They wore a uniform to distinguish themselves as soldiers, so they were not criminals. They fought under the flag of a legitimate government (Alabama, for instance, if not the CSA). Their targets were military. As disgusting, reprobate, and ahistorical as the attempts to whitewash the nature of the CSA are, those who fought for the CSA were soldiers, not terrorists; this article is not an attempt to consider the CSA, but to present the lie that “terrorist” is nothing different from “warrior.”


36 posted on 04/11/2010 12:31:46 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Mr. Martin is obviously not fighting the intellectual processing “war” with a fully-loaded weapon...and he can kiss my North Carolina a**....


37 posted on 04/11/2010 12:36:31 PM PDT by dtrpscout (A bad dog is better than most good people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drierice

Peace-loving? The confederate states STARTED the war. Lincoln had withdrawn federal troops from several federal forts (i.e., federal property), to Ft. Sumter. He had issued several assertions that he had no intent of coercing the South to free the slaves. He had even gone so far as to campaign against that during the war. BUT (here we come to Myth #2)...

States Rights? The South had no intention of permitting states to determine the issue as they saw fit. The West represented economic competition, providing a source of slave-free agriculture. So, the South had to make sure the West became slave-holders’ territory, regardless of the wishes of those who lived in the West, and remained under the political domination of slave-holders. THIS is why the South saw Lincoln’s election as such a death-blow.

Non-slave holders? Well, it’s true that most Southern soldiers didn’t own slaves. But the Southern economy was built on slave labor, which is why for a century it severely lagged the North despite a huge net influx of funds from the federal government.


38 posted on 04/11/2010 12:45:49 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.
The Civil War didn't have nearly as much to do with slavery as the revisionist historians would have you believe. Until the last 30 years, it was referred to as the War Against Northern Aggression, in other words, states rights, and it is occurring as we speak...
39 posted on 04/11/2010 12:47:00 PM PDT by richardtavor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patriot preacher

I do not believe that there was a general declaration of support for slavery in the South. There was, however a declaration that the Southern States would rule themselves...


40 posted on 04/11/2010 12:54:06 PM PDT by richardtavor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Agree with the folks who say the ‘rats are trying to divide us again. Don’t let them! No matter which side you & yours were on, WE MUST STAND TOGETHER to assure their loss of political power for another generation. Keep your eyes on the prize people!

This is a distraction similar to the abortion issue..they whip it out & up when they need to get conservatives to fight amongst ourselves. NOT THIS TIME and NOT THIS ISSUE! Filter out the BS!!! Don’t BITE THE BAIT!

If you feel you MUST comment or take a different stand from a fellow conservative, please remember this one thing...there is absolutely nothing YOU can say or do to change one blasted thing that happened 1860-1865. NOTHING! YOU CAN’T CHANGE A THING! It all happened, and it’s done, END OF STORY! Let’s all move on and CHANGE the FUTURE for OUR kids.


41 posted on 04/11/2010 1:00:43 PM PDT by graywaiter (Sure you can trust the government.......just ask any Cherokee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Sad!!! Barack Hussein Obama knows nothing at all about American history, and neither does Roland Martin. The “Martin” remarks are not worth commenting on save this. Were the twenty million dead Russian soldiers and civilians killed by Hitler’s German Nazi troops in WWII fighting to protect Joe Stalin, the Communist Party and Communists in general, or were they fighting for their Homeland, families and loved ones?


42 posted on 04/11/2010 1:07:14 PM PDT by JLAGRAYFOX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Soooooo...confederates were TERRORISTS, but Muslims blowing themselves up and murdering hundreds or MORE are NOT!!! Kinda tough to keep up with the “thought” process of the left, ain’t it??!!


43 posted on 04/11/2010 1:08:52 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: richardtavor

I do not believe that there was a general declaration of support for slavery in the South. There was, however a declaration that the Southern States would rule themselves...
___________________

That is what I meant — forgive me if I mistated this. No, the Confederacy as a whole never made that generalized “declaration.” They simply allowed what Washington had grown increasingly to forbid — Self Government of the States.


44 posted on 04/11/2010 1:19:04 PM PDT by patriot preacher (To be a good American Citizen and a Christian IS NOT a contradiction. (www.mygration.blogspot.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Roland Martin?
Isn’t he dead?


45 posted on 04/11/2010 1:22:59 PM PDT by BuffaloJack (Ask not what's happening to your money,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.
With the exception of Merrill's Marauders the Confederacy followed what are now accepted rules of Land Warfare. They were uniformed, had distinguishing rank markings, a clear command structure, abided by what would become under the GHC of 1947 protected structures (churches, hospitals, etc.) and did not go after noncombatants the wounded, or those that had surrendered.

So.. CNN you show your abject ignorance by even asking the question.

46 posted on 04/11/2010 1:32:02 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.
..celebrating the Confederates was akin to honoring Nazi soldiers for killing of Jews during the Holocaust,...

CNN you need to learn history. "Nazi" soldiers i.e. the Wehrmacht did not commit the Holocaust atrocities. Those crimes were done by the SS and Waffen SS. Do your homework and learn before opening your pie-hole.

47 posted on 04/11/2010 1:38:05 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Freedom fighters that wore uniforms.

Bill Ayers doesn’t not wear a uniform.

Neither does Pelosi or Odinga.


48 posted on 04/11/2010 1:51:15 PM PDT by NoLibZone (Now- EVERY US Tax payer is an abortion provider. We are the great satan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

One day, Roland Martin may actually take the time to research why Confederate troops fought the war.


49 posted on 04/11/2010 2:35:24 PM PDT by carton253 (Ask me about Throw Away the Scabbard - a Civil War alternate history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

I can not agree with you more on this issue. The LIBs are trying to split America into tiny camps, the easier to control us. Here they are using moral equivalence to denigrate the Confederate soldiers.

Let us agree on what UNITES us, namely, limited government, low taxation, strong defense and against abortion. Rewrite President Reagan’s 11th Commandment:”Speak no evil against any CONSERVATIVE.”

This is not 1861, for now ALL of America is threatened. The fight for freedom never ends.

Deo vindice


50 posted on 04/11/2010 3:12:46 PM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson