It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

At which point did it become backwards? Those against a corrupt puppet government are PATRIOTS not terrorists. A terrorist is someone who targets the innocent to instill fear not someone who targets the guilty to attain liberty.

Most Confederate soldiers were fighting for their states and the right to secede from the Union, I fail to see the terrorist part of that. In many way the Civil War was morally ambiguous for although the North fought against the Southern slave driven economy they also fought FOR a strong federal government. It was a tragic war of brother against brother and CNN should be reprimanded for smearing the soldiers that fought, on any side of the war, by dubbing them terrorists.

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:18 PM
You've got it all wrong IMO when you look at this announcement from past perspective - as in Civil War times.

This is could well be aimed at everyone TODAY the flies the Conferderate flag, or has a bumper sticker or license plate with that flag.

In other words, a lot of conservatives both in the South and elsewhere - now they're all terrorists too by association.

The liberal noose tightens ...

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:46 PM
Actually no, there is no way that Confederate soldiers could possibly be mistaken for terrorists. Just by the simple fact that they wore a standardized uniform.

They were soldiers, enemies of the United States.

My opinion is, the Confederate flag should still be considered an enemy flag. The Confederate states lost the civil war and surrendered at Appomattox. The Confederate soldiers were all given pardons and so, they were not terrorists but legitimate enemies.

[edit on 4/11/2010 by whatukno]

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:07 PM

Originally posted by whatukno
Actually no, there is no way that Confederate soldiers could possibly be mistaken for terrorists. Just by the simple fact that they wore a standardized uniform.

They were soldiers, enemies of the United States.

Actually, in the interest of truth, the Confederates did not wear a standardized uniform. They were made up of a lot of different regiments and groups of soldiers from different states.

The "gray" uniform most people think of when they think of the Confederate side was the uniform of The Army of Northern Virginia. This is the group that was directly commanded by Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard, General Stonewall Jackson, and Robert E. Lee.

Most soldiers from the South wore either regional uniforms or even just normal clothes.

BTW, the flag most people also think of as the "standard" flag of the Confederacy, the Stars and Bars, was also just the flag of that same army.

I can see how with that known, people could mistake the Southerners fighting in the War of Northern Aggression as terrorists, simply because of the multitude of uniforms and the lack of a standard, but this just isn't the case. They were not terrorists, and CNN should really be chastised for this article.

On a totally unrelated note to whatukno, I'm very glad to see you have the correct word, politesse in your signature, instead of politics that most people seem to think it is....

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:41 PM
reply to post by webpirate

The point remains the same that they were in fact soldiers in the employ of an army recognized by the United States as the Confederacy. They cannot be considered terrorists because of that fact.

That would be akin to calling the Japanese Imperial navy or Nazi's Terrorists. They were enemies of the United States to be sure, but they weren't terrorists.

[edit on 4/11/2010 by whatukno]

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:56 PM
Wow. Is this just sheer stupidity or propaganda? If anyone during the civil war were terrorists, it was the union soldiers. They burned people's farms and houses and killed innocent civilians. Also to compare the confederates to Nazis or Muslim extremists is just idiotic. Seriously, how does defending confederates come anywhere close to defending Nazis and suicide bombers?

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:01 PM

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.

That's not the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. But it's failrly close. Now white people are equating the Civil War with owning slaves, completly ignoring the federalist vs confederacy issues and that of State's rights.

This is prime anectdotal evidence that the Civil War was engineered with this exact later movite in mind. To permanently link State's rights with that of racism.

I direct everyones attention to the mockumentary. Confederate States of America.

Lincoln may have freed the slaves, but the basically had the exact same lifestyle for the next 100 years before they began to be recognized as equal men in society. And thats under Federalist rule. So really. Whose the racists?

I consider Northern soldiers terrorists, who violated the constitution and were guilty of treason. But hey.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland Martin.


posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:03 PM
What i find funny is the fact that about hundred years before the start of the civil war the north did what the south was trying to do, declare its freedom from a corrupt nation. but now CNN is trying make the CSA out to be nothing but terrorist.

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:27 PM

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.
reply to post by joeofthemountain

Thanks for that. You said it very well. Being the mother of a hardcore Civil War reenactor, and a confederate one at that, I have been well educated on the truths of the Civil War... and honestly, before my 15 year old son opened my eyes to the truth, I had no idea. I ignorantly asked why he wanted to be confederate when they were fighting for slavery. He let me know right away that there was far more to the story and that the majority of the confederate soldiers out there weren't risking their lives and dying for the right to own slaves. I have read many "letters to home" from confederate soldiers, and most were very clear that they were willing to die for what they believed was right and many were clear on their beliefs, but not one time was slavery ever even mentioned. Basically, we were misinformed by our teachers in school and it's been going on for a long time. It looks like you've done your homework and it's good to see that.
Besides all the misinformation though, I just agree with overall opinion and wanted to say so.

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:36 PM
These are the same people who would probably call George Washington a terrorist but it that's the case then by today's standards, our heroes are our enemies and our terrorist are our true heroes. I get it.

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 08:06 PM
reply to post by MaxBlack

Had George Washington lost the revolutionary war, he would have been called a traitor and been hung, thankfully for us the victors write history and so he is a hero.

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 08:29 PM
I tell ya what...CNN and Obama have a way of making friends. Such statements are some of the most iggnorant I've ever heard... and certainly the least educated concerning history.

My great grand father fought for the South and served under Robert E Lee as a Confederate. Funny how some apples don't fall far from the tree...

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 10:12 PM
i'll quote shelby foote here...

A union soldier asked a confederate prisoner, "what are you figthing for?" The prisoner said, "I'm fighting because you're down here."

That explanation carries considerable weight.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 01:16 AM

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

Yes it did have to do about states rights, it had to do about states rights over slavery. Here are the declarations again from many of the confederate states and their reasoning to secede:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Mississippi Declaration of Secession

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

South Carolina Declaration of Secession

For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Texas Declaration of Secession

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

Alabama succession speech:

I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, the reasons that impel me to this act.

I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.

Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands-- the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection-- or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves. To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME! This being the alternative, I cannot hesitate for a moment what my duty is. I must separate from the Government of my fathers, the one under which I have lived, and under which I wished to die. But I must do my duty to my country and my fellow beings; and humanity, in my judgment, demands that Alabama should separate herself from the Government of the United States.

If I am wrong in this responsible act, I hope my God may forgive me; for I am not actuated, as I think, from any motive save that of justice and philanthropy!

Address of George Williamson to the Texas Secession Convention

Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. She congratulates herself on the recent disposition evinced by your body to meet this wish, by the election of delegates to the Montgomery convention. Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws and institutions. Between the citizens of each exists the most cordial social and commercial intercourse. The Red river and the Sabine form common highways for the transportation of their produce to the markets of the world. Texas affords to the commerce of Louisiana a large portion of her products, and in exchange the banks of New Orleans furnish Texas with her only paper circulating medium. Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity. Each of the States has an extended Gulf coast, and must look with equal solicitude to its protection now, and the acquisition of the entire control of the Gulf of Mexico in due time. No two States of this confederacy are so identified in interest, and whose destinies are so closely interwoven with each other. Nature, sympathy and unity of interest make them almost one. Recognizing these facts, but still confident in her own powers to maintain a separate existence, Louisiana regards with great concern the vote of the people of Texas on the ratification of the ordinance of secession, adopted by your honorable body on the 1st of the present month. She is confident a people who so nobly and gallantly achieved their liberties under such unparalleled difficulties will not falter in maintaining them now. The Mexican yoke could not have been more galling to "the army of heroes" of '36 than the Black republican rule would be to the survivors and sons of that army at the present day.

But the apologists will continue to deny... and history will be doomed to repeat itself in another way, in another form.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:42 AM
The Confederates were terrorists in terms of tactics as much as the Union was. The tit for tat as far as war attrocities is relatively equal. The headline of the article is divisive.

In fairness the author doesn't make his case on tactics but rather compares zealotry and rebellion and the general sentiment of a sub-set of a nation rejecting the authority of it's government, which might be a more valid argument for comparison...but when it is all said and done the Author looks to be aiming for headlines, not reasoned arguments.

Originally posted by centurion1211
This is could well be aimed at everyone TODAY the flies the Conferderate flag, or has a bumper sticker or license plate with that flag.

Sure. Or anyone that flys a flag of a nation or group that has waged war against the United States.

I am sure your sympathies extend to those US Citizens flying Iranian, North Korean, Russian flags etc? Right?....

It's about thier heritage.... right? Not actually endorsing all the policies that those entities endorsed? Right?..

Somehow I don't see the folks that proudly display the Confederate flag as having tolerance for other American Citizens who might proudly display flags of thier own "heritage".

this is what is meant by "hypocracy being the brand of the Republican party"

Originally posted by centurion1211

The liberal noose tightens ...

Nice choice of words. "Liberals" as a lynch mob...Those damn Liberals are just so intolerant of intolerance!

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:48 AM
The south were not terrorists. They do have a residual resentment of the north and that has been a hot-button that Republicans have used to thier political advantage for close to a century now.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:54 AM
I haven't read through this thread yet, but got excited when I saw this:

"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."

I sent those end of last at least makes me happy that he paid some sort of attention...kinda upset he left out the part where I commended him for speaking for what HE believes in. But figures that happens anyways...

After going through the thread, I'm glad to see many have a similar stance as I do.

We all just need to be aware what they are doing: We are being set up to turn against each other. they WANT another civil war to divide us and take out those who don't agree

[edit on 4/12/2010 by iamsupermanv2]

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:06 AM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity.

to preserve the blessings of African slavery?

Thank you for the post,

[edit on 103030p://bMonday2010 by Stormdancer777]

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:11 AM
reply to post by whatukno

Yeah, I wasn't disagreeing with you on your post. They were representing at least the state they were from if not the entire Confederacy against the oppression of the U.S. Government.

I just had to clarify the point about the standardized uniforms before someone being very anally retentive pointed that fact out while disagreeing with us about this.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:29 AM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

The "Domestic terrorist fears" is well manipulated and promoted campaign to get away with more restrictions, policies and laws to government the most important thing that makes this nation great.

The freedom of citizens, the constitutional rights of the people and to end civil rights to a point.

H.R.1955 - Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

10/23/2007--Passed House amended. Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add a new section concerning the prevention of violent radicalization (an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically based violeCloseOfficial Summary10/23/2007--Passed House amended. Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add a new section concerning the prevention of violent radicalization (an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change) and homegrown terrorism (violence by a group or individual within the United States to coerce the U.S. government, the civilian population, or a segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives). Establishes within the legislative branch the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism to:
(1) examine and report on facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States; and
(2) build upon, bring together, and avoid unnecessary duplication of related work done by other entities toward such goal. Requires:
(1) interim reports and a final report from the Commission to the President and Congress on its findings and recommendations;
(2) the public availability of such reports; and
(3) Commission termination 30 days after its final report. Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States to assist federal, state, local, and tribal homeland security officials, through training, education, and research, in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. Requires the Secretary to:
(1) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and
(2) report to Congress on lessons learned from survey results. Prohibits Department of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights or civil liberties of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Directs the:
(1) Secretary to ensure that activities and operations are in compliance with DHS's commitment to racial neutrality; and
(2) DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer to develop and implement an auditing system to ensure that compliance does not violate the constitutional and civil rights or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and to include audit results in its annual report to Congress.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in