It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Were Confederate soldiers terrorists? CNN Continuing The Domestic Terrorist Fears.

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
So keeping in line with making anybody against the government a Terrorist, CNN has published quite the interesting editorial.


(CNN) -- 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."

If you take all of these comments, don't they sound eerily similar to what we hear today from Muslim extremists who have pledged their lives to defend the honor of Allah and to defeat the infidels in the West?


When you make the argument that the South was angry with the North for "invading" its "homeland," Osama bin Laden has said the same about U.S. soldiers being on Arab soil. He has objected to our bases in Saudi Arabia, and that's one of the reasons he has launched his jihad against us. Is there really that much of a difference between him and the Confederates? Same language; same cause; same effect.

If a Confederate soldier was merely doing his job in defending his homeland, honor and heritage, what are we to say about young Muslim radicals who say the exact same thing as their rationale for strapping bombs on their bodies and blowing up cafes and buildings?

If the Sons of Confederate Veterans use as a talking point the vicious manner in which people in the South were treated by the North, doesn't that sound exactly like the Taliban saying they want to kill Americans for the slaughter of innocent people in Afghanistan?

Defenders of the Confederacy say that innocent people were killed in the Civil War; hasn't the same argument been presented by Muslim radicals in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places where the U.S. has tangled with terrorists?

We can't on the one hand justify the actions of Confederates as being their duty as valiant men of the South, and then condemn the Muslim extremists who want to see Americans die a brutal death. These men are held up as honorable by their brethren, so why do Americans see them as different from our homegrown terrorists?

The fundamental problem with extremism is that when you're on the side that is fanatical, all of your actions make sense to you, and you are fluent in trying to justify every action. Every position of those you oppose is a personal affront that calls for you to do what you think is necessary to protect yourself and your family.

Just as radical Muslims have a warped sense of religion, Confederate supporters have a delusional view of what is honorable. The terrorists are willing to kill their own to prove their point, and the Confederates were just as willing in the Civil War to take up arms against their fellow Americans to justify their point.

Even if you're a relative of one of the 9/11 hijackers, that man was an out-and-out terrorist, and nothing you can say will change that. And if your great-great-great-granddaddy was a Confederate who stood up for Southern ideals, he too was a terrorist.

They are the same.

As a matter of conscience, I will not justify, understand or accept the atrocious view of Muslim terrorists that their actions represent a just war. They are reprehensible, and their actions a sin against humanity.

And I will never, under any circumstances, cast Confederates as heroic figures who should be honored and revered. No -- they were, and forever will be, domestic terrorists.


Source

Thoughts?

Obviously this is an opinion piece, although I know it's part of the broader scheme to put this into perspective as Domestic Terrorism.




posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
yup, someone has an opinion.

astounding.

no really, what some call terrorist, others call patriot.

its a matter of perspective.

i would think twice about calling those below the mason-dixon line that fought against those above terrorists, not that you are.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Thoughts? O.k. just a few, first comparing apples to oranges never works. How long ago was the War of Northern Aggression compared to the actions of today? It's the same as saying slavery is responsible for all of todays ill's. No, sorry, a Confederate soldier forced to fight is and never will be comparable to the terrorists in the middle east. For one, the middle east terrorists are fighting a Holy war, in a perverted hope of gaining sexual domination of even further women after death. The Confederate soldiers were forced to fight against the north who failed to recognize states rights.......big difference. And frankly it's rather disgusting to even compare the two.......might wanna not spout that b.s. down here in Dixie.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I remember when situational ethics were first introduced - I was still in grammar school when given "The Lifeboat Scenario".

Since that time, two generations have been raised with the inability to draw distinctions and make moral judgment.

This is one such case - and it is chilling.

Even more disturbing is the writer's ignorance of the causes of the War Between the States. Most of the States that became Confederate did so not for slavery but to defend other States against federal invasion. To say they fought for slavery is a nasty and deliberate lie. (And I write this as a proud Yankee.)

Mostly, these childish pronouncements are written - and taken seriously! -- only because none of these idiots have suffered for anything, let alone their exalted superior morality. In other words, let's hear what they have to say when they pick up a rifle and risk their lives for anything.

Until then, these are the babblings of pretentious children and spoiled brats who reveal their complete ignorance of the hard, cold realities of life outside their hermetically sealed bubbles of perfection on earth.

"Let them eat cake" as it were.

reply to post by tothetenthpower
 




[edit on 11-4-2010 by joeofthemountain]

[edit on 11-4-2010 by joeofthemountain]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Confederate soldiers were terrorists? I think not.

Who raised an army against the South? Lincoln.

Who's idea of war was the 'scorched earth' policy? General Sherman.

I could go on, but why? The War of Northern Aggression was a terrorist act against the South.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Wow, those terrorist Confederates.


The real terrorist in the War of Northern Agression, in my opinion, was Gen. Sherman. He purposely carried little provisions on his march into the south and to the sea, so that his soldiers would have to resort to scavanging and looting the countryside along the way, thus striking terror in the hearts of civilians. Setting the city of Atlanta, Ga aflame obviously was just collateral damage. Damn those Confederate soldiers for remaining outside the city of Gettysburg, PA in that epic battle of Gettysburg.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
They weren't terroists.

A terrorists main objective is to cause fear. They think that if they instill enough fear into a people then they will do what they want in order for them to stop.

They do not care who they hurt in the process. Them willingly blowing themselves up is evident of that.

A Confederate soldier was part of a uniformed army. They did not go out of their way to kill women, children or the elderly. Of course since a lot of the battles happened in or near a town the killing of the innocent was never entirely avoidable. That is something that is still a problem today.

There is a big differance between a soldier and a terrorist. Even though there is a sizable group of "patriots" on ATS who would lump the two professions into the same category.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
IT looks as though the source writer never actually read any historic source material other than progressive history books. If slavery was the main issue of the war,I would like for these people to explain to me,why there were nearly three times more black soldiers fighting for the confederacy than for the union?
Read up on the cotton tarrifs from 1846 to 1860,and the morrill tarriff act if you want to see where the conflict started.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by daddyroo45]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I really can't believe someone had the nerve to flag this thread, well, yeah I guess I can. ATS does have alot of apologists on here that will jump on every opportunity to insult and degrade Americans at every turn. This will be my last post on this thread as I'm not willing to drive up the OPs points, at what seems to me to be nothing more than another anti American star and flag fest. I guess denying ignorance when it comes to American history vs. the history of the allah cult doesn't ever apply.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


C.N.N. royally irritates me to no end in reiterating ignorance on many levels.

The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery nor keeping slavery alive and well in the South.

The Civil War was about a state's right to secede from the Union, period.


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.


I have to wonder if C.N.N. said that or the Governor of Virginia.

Either way, it is ignorant to propagate that lie, that the Civil War was about slavery.

The rights of a state to secede was the only reason for that rather ignorant war.

Abraham Lincoln made it about slavery when he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Emancipation Strategy



Quote from : Wikipedia : Emancipation Proclamation

The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War.

The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863.

The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named ten specific states where it would apply.

Lincoln issued the Executive Order by his authority as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.

The proclamation did not name the slave-holding border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession, and so it did not free any slaves there.

The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, so it also was not named and was exempted.

Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties that were in the process of forming West Virginia, as well as seven other named counties and two cities.

Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and thirteen named parishes of Louisiana, all of which were also already mostly under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation.

The Emancipation Proclamation was criticized at the time for freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power.

Although most slaves were not freed immediately, the Proclamation did free thousands of slaves the day it went into effect in parts of nine of the ten states to which it applied (Texas being the exception).

In every Confederate state (except Tennessee and Texas), the Proclamation went into immediate effect in Union-occupied areas and at least 20,000 slaves were freed at once on January 1, 1863.

Additionally, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for the emancipation of nearly all four million slaves as the Union armies advanced, and committed the Union to ending slavery, which was a controversial decision even in the North.

Hearing of the Proclamation, more slaves quickly escaped to Union lines as the Army units moved South.

As the Union armies advanced through the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (approximately 4 million, according to the 1860 census) were freed by July 1865.

Near the end of the war, abolitionists were concerned that while the Proclamation had freed most slaves as a war measure, it had not made slavery illegal.

Several former slave states had already passed legislation prohibiting slavery; however, in a few states, slavery continued to be legal, and to exist, until December 18, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted.


This was his way of guaranteeing that the slaves would make the South's worries far worse due to the slave owners needing to keep their property in check.

I have never agreed with slavery, nor ownership of people, and see it as "Human Trafficking", period.

All Lincoln did when he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation was shift the paradigm of the war, and shift perspective, something C.N.N. is trying to do with this puff piece in regards to the celebration of the Confederacy.

The Civil War was an ignorant part of our history when brother fought brother, where countryman was against countryman, and where we were divided.

We are to the point of being completely divided again and the Government is pushing this as an agenda, with the idiot Mainstream Media using its power as a focal point of pushing this ignorance, when we need to be united and nothing more.

Do I believe state's had or have the right to secession?

I believe people will do anything to stop oppression and tyranny.

Whether it is right or wrong.

And I detest racism because I see it as ignorant as hatred.

This "news piece" is a piece of crap because it is just adding more crap.

That people who disagree with how Government does things are not "terrorists".

They are people who are tired of our Government lying in our name with our money.

Racism : Self-Empowerment or Being an Ignorant Bully, and Suppressing Freedom

Deny Ignorance.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by joeofthemountain
Even more disturbing is the writer's ignorance of the causes of the War Between the States. Most of the States that became Confederate did so not for slavery but to defend other States against federal invasion. To say they fought for slavery is a nasty and deliberate lie. (And I write this as a proud Yankee.)


South Carolina declared it's secession on the basis of fears that slavery would be abolished. Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, and Texas did as well. Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee joined up after South Carolina fired on federal troops, and all of them declared solidarity with the other "slaveholding states" - If it was to defend states against an unlawful federal government, why didn't Vermont join in? Or Ohio? The Confederate constitution enshrined the right to own and trade slaves - and explicitly forbids future Confederate generations from making any law that would ever abolish the practice!

Secession was predicated for the purpose of slavery, slavery was the common cause of all the confederate states, slavery was a core principle of the government, and to argue that the institution was not involved is a lie. Even the claim of "state's rights" is bullcrap, since the right in question is the right to own slaves! It's especially ludicrous when one considers several slaveholding states had previously filed suits in order to prevent other states from exercising the right to harbor and emancipate runaway slaves. South Carolina had filed several injunctions against Indiana and Illinois, trying to prevent those states from using their right to determine the status of slaves within their borders.

You write this as a proud yankee who's been educated poorly.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
To the winners go the spoils of war , and so does the written record of history.

Many people are well of all the true facts of the civil war.
Does the fact no other country in the world ever went to war over slavery suggest there may have been more to the story than just slavery?



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
I would like for these people to explain to me,why there were nearly three times more black soldiers fighting for the confederacy than for the union?
[edit on 11-4-2010 by daddyroo45]


1) There were many more blacks in the north than the south

2) Black slaveowners had as much a stake in the institution as their white counterparts. Additionally free blacks were as much subject to conscription as whites.

3) Your numbers are likely inflated by the use of black slave labor in the Confederate military. There were many free blacks fighting - whether conscripts or volunteers - but most blacks on the fronts were in fact slaves, either owned by the free men on the front, or being rented to the military. Slaves were prohibited from being armed



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


Which is why we turn to primary sources from the period. Sorry, man. Secession was about slavery. The war itself was more complicated, but the states all seceded in the name of slavery, whether directly, or in response to other slaveowning states seceding and thus putting everyone's butt in the fire.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I'll bet you also believe the primary news sources of today too.
There is always two sides to a story , why is the souths side denied and supressed?



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Just to be clear, I was in no way advocating what is being said in the article. I think the guy has really got to read some real history and understand the complex differences that exist between today's society and that of civil war era.

Furthermore, this just proves to me, that CNN and the MSM in general are becoming increasingly bold in their attempts to create this "Domestic Terrorism Crisis" and sell it to the American people as a "real" threat.

First it was a war on the terrorists, retribution.

The it was war on "Violent Extremism" to broaden the scope.

Now they look inward to begin the process of demoralization and out right slander. Painting those who question the way the things work and wanting better for their country as Unpatriotic and potential Domestic Terrorists.

Using fear as their tool, they will attempt to remove more of your rights.

I suggest you all find legal and non-violent means of replacing your government and reclaiming your country. Seems like time is running out.

~Keeper



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
WOW! I never thought I would find someone who thought the same as me. The confederate soldiers were forerunners in terrorists and guerilla tactics. Ever wonder where the land mine came from? Look no further than the Raine brothers of the CSA.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

South Carolina declared it's secession on the basis of fears that slavery would be abolished. Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, and Texas did as well. Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee joined up after South Carolina fired on federal troops, and all of them declared solidarity with the other "slaveholding states" - If it was to defend states against an unlawful federal government, why didn't Vermont join in? Or Ohio? The Confederate constitution enshrined the right to own and trade slaves - and explicitly forbids future Confederate generations from making any law that would ever abolish the practice!


South Carolina wasn't worried about slavery itself being abolished. Neither were the other states who seceded. Shortly after SC and then several other states issued proclamations of secession, the US Congress created the original 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

This was called The Un-Amendable Amendment. It stated that slavery would never be abolished in current slave holding states. The problem was, there were NO congressmen from the Southern States who had already seceded there, so there was no quorum to complete the vote. This Amendment also could NEVER be amended.

Slavery where it stood in 1860 was never the issue. The issue was the spread of slavery, as well as what happened to a slave owner from the South where it was legal traveling to a state where it wasn't with his slaves. Would the slaves be allowed to go free?

Additionally, the issue was over allowing new states coming into the Union the right to decide themselves about the legality of slavery, not the Federal Government. The South never considered themselves the terrorists. They considered the Federal Government as the oppressors who took away peoples right to decide for themselves. Sound familiar?

By the way; Abraham Lincoln owned slaves. So did Thomas Jefferson and many other "Fathers" of our country.

I do not condone slavery. I believe it is wrong. It is immoral, and very outdated. But the South only wanted to protect what was theirs. They did not begin a terrorist campaign against the North. If anything, they tried to disassociate themselves from where they viewed the problem was.

This is entirely different from radical terrorists who strive to make others believe what they do through fear and intimidation.

You are correct though in saying the Emancipation Proclamation would have allowed slavery to continue in all states that returned to the Union before the deadline.

I simplified the history here, and greatly shortened it due to space. But no state seceded because of fears slavery would be abolished in their states. And the Confederacy was formed not to oppose the Federal Government but to remove themselves from it.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Furthermore, there were very few acts of Southerners using terrorists tactics to intimidate the North. Where anything resembling terrorism did exist, they were used to protect themselves and their property and homes.

Where they did exist, they were mostly very small groups of independently operating people who in no way represented the overall thought process or ideas of the South.

The North on the other hand... That's who should be compared to the modern day terrorists than the South. Sherman burned and slaughtered his way in a wide slough through the South in a very blatant attempt to intimidate Southern landowners to view the world the same way he viewed it.

Does that not sound more like terrorism as we know it, than people defending their rights from an oppressive government?

Sherman, just FYI, didn't arbitrarily burn everything in his path. He often left very nice homes and mansions standing where the women who were left there while their husbands were away fighting, convinced him to not destroy their property.

Now tell me who the real terrorists were. The agents of the Federal Government. Sherman was following orders from his superior, U.S. Grant, who later became President.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join