Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Were confederate soldiers terrorists?
cnn.com ^ | 4.11.2010 | Roland S. Martin

Posted on 04/12/2010 12:12:09 PM PDT by wolfcreek

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 ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 321-324 next last
To: central_va

“Your dealing with somebody who never tasted a federal boot that he didn’t like”

You have a way of telling just like it is:) May I......
“No More Mule Tit Republicans”!!!!!!!


181 posted on 04/12/2010 3:43:33 PM PDT by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Well, you’ve certainly just totally accomplished the author of the article’s intended effect.

We should all join hands and tacitly agree that the boot heel of government tyranny is far more desirable than the terrorism of state’s rights, lest we be branded racists and slavery supporters.

Congratulations.

But don’t fret...I’m sure they won’t use *any* of this to further malign the Tea Party people.

/s


182 posted on 04/12/2010 3:46:40 PM PDT by Salamander (....and I'm sure I need some rest but sleepin' don't come very easy in a straight white vest.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine

more of that highly vaunted southron hospitality?


183 posted on 04/12/2010 3:47:55 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep; Salamander

Lincoln’s slavery forever amendment read as follows:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Doc. No. 106-214) ...

“That’s what passes for an enlightened attitude in the old south.”

Apparently Lincoln’s attitude was as enlightened as those of the old South.


184 posted on 04/12/2010 3:54:02 PM PDT by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Salamander
Well, you’ve certainly just totally accomplished the author of the article’s intended effect.

It would appear that the authors intended effect met with your satisfaction from the start and needed no validation - real or imaginary - from me.

We should all join hands and tacitly agree that the boot heel of government tyranny is far more desirable than the terrorism of state’s rights, lest we be branded racists and slavery supporters.<

You're welcome to do as you please.

But don’t fret...I’m sure they won’t use *any* of this to further malign the Tea Party people.<

Cue the sign that says, "It doesn't matter what my sign says, you'll just call me racist". Who GAF what the left says?
185 posted on 04/12/2010 3:55:30 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

“more of that highly vaunted southron hospitality?”

Southern hospitality is tempered with the intelligence to know when it must not be extended.


186 posted on 04/12/2010 3:56:45 PM PDT by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine

How very transparent of you.


187 posted on 04/12/2010 3:57:20 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: 999replies
Thank God we have sophisticates like you to keep us rubes on track.

As well you should!!

188 posted on 04/12/2010 4:05:49 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Transparent? Just truthful.


189 posted on 04/12/2010 4:05:55 PM PDT by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine; central_va
“No More Mule Tit Republicans”!!!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------

Republicrat Pictures, Images and Photos

190 posted on 04/12/2010 4:08:43 PM PDT by Idabilly (Oh, southern star how I wish you would shine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

To your 190....LMAO:) Did you have a good weekend?


191 posted on 04/12/2010 4:10:23 PM PDT by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

George Washington was not at Lex & Con. He didn’t like militias. He organized a regular army and fought it in a traditional manner.


192 posted on 04/12/2010 4:10:56 PM PDT by stop_fascism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine
Yep, Lincoln offered to put his promise not to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed in writing. In fact, at his first inaugural, he said that he already felt that to be implied constitutional law, and that he had no objection to making it express law. What it doesn't say, and what Lincoln would not agree to, was that slavery would be allowed in the territories. So the south wasn't interested.

You do realize that nothing in that stopped each state from ending slavery on its own, as many had already done, right? Or are you demanding that Lincoln step on states' rights more?

193 posted on 04/12/2010 4:16:35 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine

Interesting.

central_va makes a gratuitous and addlepated insult that cannot be backed.

You compliment him for making the insult and double-down on your stupidity by making another broad-based and completely illogical insult.

I make an ironic comment about your inhospitable post and you boast that you turn it on & off at will using “intelligence”.

I express my surprise by pointing out how transparent you are and, once again you double-down on stupid by saying that’s the truth.

In this case I would agree with you.


194 posted on 04/12/2010 4:19:26 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: stop_fascism

So who were those colonial Americans that were fighting the Red Coats in an ungentlemanly manner - behind trees, fences, and other forms of cover?


195 posted on 04/12/2010 4:20:17 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine
Weekends are my busiest days at work :(

Summertime we'll put in 24-32 hours for the two days.

196 posted on 04/12/2010 4:26:07 PM PDT by Idabilly (Oh, southern star how I wish you would shine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

I do realize and heaven’s no, no more stepping on state’s rights! I just don’t see any moral high ground for either. To me, the degree of participation in slavery does not negate the fact of participation (in the context of North vs South as a whole). As I’ve stated before, there were individuals who were abolishionist, pro-slavery, and some that didn’t care either way, on both sides.


197 posted on 04/12/2010 4:28:06 PM PDT by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Those were colonial militias. Gates used similar tactics in the Saratoga Campaign. Militias did fight effectively in the revolution. In addition, Francis Marion is usually credited with being the father of modern guerilla warfare.

However, that is not to say, “George Washington fought a guerilla war against the Red Coats”. He did not. His letters to congress consistently denigrate (unfairly, IMHO) militias. He was a conventional general with a conventional army, fighting a conventional war.


198 posted on 04/12/2010 4:33:22 PM PDT by stop_fascism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
It's a problem when all these media people start poking their noses into things that they really don't understand.

Whatever you think about the Confederacy they did go the regular army route -- uniforms, flags, pitched battles, the whole thing.

If they had pursued the guerrilla path, things might have been different.

199 posted on 04/12/2010 4:39:31 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stop_fascism

Actually Washington served as a adjutant general in the Virginia militia, but he wanted a commission in the British Army. He ultimately obtained one but met with a setback in his first command that caused him to resign. We almost didn’t have our Commander!


200 posted on 04/12/2010 4:49:09 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 321-324 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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