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 ...
I dunno about the civil war... but the minutemen were definitely guerilla/terrorist oriented
Hitler's famous Fuehrerbefehl ordering the German army to act savagely prior to the Ardennes Offensive had very little effect on the behavior of the regular German Army. Hitler hope that the situation in the West would deteriorate into the same kind of savagery as occurred in the East, since the average German soldier knew he was much better off being taken prison by the Western Allies than continuing to fight. Hitler wanted to change that calculus.
Confederate soldiers were not terrorists. They, like the Federal troops were part of an organized national army. Terrorists, although they may be state sponsored are not recognized as an army because they do not adhere to the rules of war or the laws of warfare. There were some southern as well as northern groups which operated as terrorists outside of the rules of war but they were even then recognized at the time as being terrorists although all of the groups had some government connections. The postwar chartering and support of the KKK by the democrat party did constitute true terrorist actions.
I love good comedy, too.
Or more commonly known in the South as “The War of Northern Aggression”.
Yep - called “The War Of Secession” the way I read it ...
You don’t really want a bunch of Southern squirrel hunting boys chasing your butt through the woods with rifles!
Or, as it was known until early in the 20th century, War of the Rebellion.
This Pennsylvania Yankee would tend to agree with that statement, but there was some rough-fighting on between Kansas and Missouri both before, during & after the official dates of the Civil War. Looked pretty much like organized terrorist attacks by today's standards.
No more posting on this thread for me..this reporter is calling my great great grandfather a domestic terrorist..his little sisters and brothers..who wrote letters to him and preyed for his safety.
This madness forces me to sponsor someone who wants to join a militia.
Roland Martin is making erroneous historical arguments. But he believes he can get away with doing so.
A little reversed in your logic. The South sought to impose at the point of a gun by firing the first shots their will to change the election of Lincoln even before they knew what he might do with regard to slavery. Lincoln pleaded for constructive and non-violent agreement but the South chose to fire the first shots to keep slavery as an open option. Their arrogance got in the way of the reality that in the long run they would not win. They were lucky that for the first several years the North had really lousy generals. When Lincoln finally got past all of the prima donas and political generals to appoint Grant and Sherman as commanders things began to turn around because Lee and his lieutenants finally had to deal with union commanders who would fight and fight to win.
The Minutemen constituted about one fourth of the Colonial miltia in New England, none of whom could properly be called “terrorists”. The Minuteman tended to be the fitter, younger and more enthusiastic members of the militia.
I know from whats been handed down that the Southern States politicians wanted to preserve slavery while the combat soldier wanted simply to protect their states from Yankee aggression.
Not every Wehrmacht soldier was a Nazi and many fought honorably for the Fatherland.
The Left should save their hate for the Muslim slave trade still going on and stop digging up irrelevant bones.
It's heritage not hate we honor here in the South.The Romans had more slaves than any but I still think their invention of concrete was pretty cool.
They trying to stir up enough passion on the Right to cause an incident which they will expound upon.
And mine are with America.
Roland should look at any number of civil wars or uprisings in Africa. There he can find atrocities a dime a dozen. He may even be enlightened as to what terrorists and terrorism truly is.
“Grant and Sherman”
Scorched earth terorists.
FEMA calls our Founding Fathers, those who rebelled against the tyranny of England, terrorists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcaTtElhNSc
When George Washington fought a guerilla war against the Red Coats didn’t King George III call the colonists who fought from behind trees terrorists or something similar?
When the District of Criminals acted like a group of tyrants toward the South should it surprise me that the Southerners would rebel? Should those who rebelled be called terrorists for doing so?
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.