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 ...
dupe
If they are so against slavery at CNN why then are they doing nothing to stop Obama from bringing it back?
No, but the North were a bunch of war criminals, with “General” Sherman being exhibit #1.
Because, this time, the "right people" will be enslaved.
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...
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.
Jeez...the comments on the article are interesting!
Jeez...the comments on the article are interesting!
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Roland Martin
I think the record will show General Sherman and his army definitely, on his orders, acted as terrorists in his march through the South.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Roland Martin makes some incredibly dumb statements. Even CNN should be embarrassed; but MSNBC should be embarrassed with Chris Matthews, too, soooo .....
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
I thought it was a war between the states.
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
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.
Good grief!
Part of black history is the selling of blacks into slavery by other blacks.
Should we ban black history month?
Roland S. Martin, ignorant race baiting collaborator.
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.
You’re not going to believe this one...
General William T. Sherman was .
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.”
Mr. Martin is obviously not fighting the intellectual processing “war” with a fully-loaded weapon...and he can kiss my North Carolina a**....
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.
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...
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.
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?
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??!!
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.
Roland Martin?
Isn’t he dead?
So.. CNN you show your abject ignorance by even asking the question.
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.
Freedom fighters that wore uniforms.
Bill Ayers doesn’t not wear a uniform.
Neither does Pelosi or Odinga.
One day, Roland Martin may actually take the time to research why Confederate troops fought the war.
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
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.