Were confederate soldiers terrorists?

cnn.com ^ | 4.11.2010 | Roland S. Martin

[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."

[southernsunshine]

“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”!!!!!!!

[Salamander]

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

[rockrr]

more of that highly vaunted southron hospitality?

[southernsunshine]

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.

[rockrr]

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?

[southernsunshine]

“more of that highly vaunted southron hospitality?”

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

[rockrr]

How very transparent of you.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Thank God we have sophisticates like you to keep us rubes on track.

As well you should!!

[southernsunshine]

Transparent? Just truthful.

[Idabilly]

“No More Mule Tit Republicans”!!!!!!

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

[southernsunshine]

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

[stop_fascism]

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

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

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?

[rockrr]

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.

[Jack Hydrazine]

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

[Idabilly]

Weekends are my busiest days at work :(

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

[southernsunshine]

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.

[stop_fascism]

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.

[x]

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.

[rockrr]

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!