Confederate Soldiers= Terrorists

[Guest Bluemax]

I'm throwing the BS flag on CNN, for this gross misstatement...

Them sum beaches ought to be ashamed of themselves for this type of conduct...but, like a crack head...they have no soul left to be ashamed of.

A dying network, in it's last throes of life, is what we have here. IMO

They are a boil on the a$$ of society, and the quicker they're gone, the better.

+1000 In regards to the South and the Confederacy; mass media has again and again proven thenselves as either ignorant of history or sould be considered guilty of blatent libel. My typing is way to bad to try and give a outhouse history lession but any one that compares the history, the honor, and the truth about the Civil War to terrorism is a complete and total idiot and anyone who buys into their propaganda without researching the history themselves are idiots as well

My name is Bluemax and I support this message

[MCSCOTT]

So wanting to withdraw from a Union that was no longer adhering to the Constitution and was detrimental to the individuals is less than honorable?? And I definitely agree with 2HOW on getting rid of the writers of history based on their terrible inaccuracies. I get so tired of hearing that the "civil war" was over slavery. Yes, it played a role, but if it was "the" reason, explain why the still-confederate state of Tennessee abolished slavery in 1864 before the outcome of the war was decided! There's no way hundreds of thousands of poor southern boys would have put themselves through the hell of that war for the rights of a small percentage of southerners to own slaves. And let us not forget the 10's of thousands of free black men who volunteered for the CSA.

VERY well said.

By my way of thinking a definition of terrorism would be those that go against our Constitution or try to destroy it. IMO this should include those that protest against our rights, and it should also include those in government these days that are trying to "find a way around the Constitution" or trying to change it completely. Seems the government and the media these days want the people to believe that it's those that are against government that are the terrorists.

Like I've said, I never thought I would see it in my lifetime but I believe that if things keep going the way they are, those in this country that try to live based on the Constitution will be considered criminals.

[Guest rystine]

Wanna talk about terrorists. What about William T. Sherman.

+1000

Don't forget about Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley.

[kb4ns]

I really wish HK Edgerton could get around enough to educate everyone in this country-

[E4 No More]

Just another product of a public education.

[leroy]

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. ---

Roland S. Martin ---

Roland S. Martin is a history revisionist with an agenda to advance. That agenda is that anyone who opposes the Oligarchy (...the federal government...) is a traitor and terrorist. He follows the lead of another great communicator --- a fellow by the name of Joseph Goebbels. Goebbels lied for "Der Furhr" just like Roland S. Martin is lying for the radical hippy idiots that are striving to re-write the history of the United States.

Roland S. Martin would have us believe that over half of the officer corps of the prewar US Army who followed their consciences; who graduated the USMA, served honorably prior to 1861; then resigned their commissions to join the Confederate Army (...men like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, JEB Stuart, and others...) are terrorists --- baloney --- they were (...and still are...) patriots.

Don't worry about what Roland S. Martin has to say; he is a political hack. History will not remember Roland S. Martin. It has remembered and honored those that he has shamelessly lied about and slandered.

Food for thought.

Leroy

Edited April 12, 2010 by leroy
formatting

[JAB]

To me, a terrorist is one who uses threats and fear to try and force the outcome he wants. For example, terrorist activity would be the actions of a tyrannical president who illegally suspends habeus corpus and begins jailing people who have committed no crime simply because he doesn't like what they are saying. A good example of terrorist activity would be when that tyrant illegally uses his powers of office to seize lands and property simply because he considers the rightful owners to be political enemies and wants to scare people into not speaking out against him.

[Chief07]

CNN is a propaganda tool for Obama.

I give them no creditability.

They should go out of business.

Ugly woman too.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

CNN is a propaganda tool for Obama.

I give them no creditability.

They should go out of business.

Ugly woman too.

That's just about as good as can be said;)

[Guest CK1]

IMO if you want to celebrate the confederacy you can invite all your friends over and have yourself a great big "Gone With The Wind" marathon, but in reality, beyond that, there is no tact in celebrateing being on the wrong side in a war fought over who is a free man and who is property being based on the color of their skin and not the content of their character.

Historically, and maybe to some, unfairly, the confederacy was made up of poorer and dimmer men fighting for the comfort of wealthier and brighter men, just like the Union troops actually, but on what side of the slavery debate they chose to spill their blood matters in how history will count them, like it or not.

Edited April 13, 2010 by CK1

[Guest bkelm18]

IMO if you want to celebrate the confederacy you can invite all your friends over and have yourself a great big "Gone With The Wind" marathon, but in reality, beyond that, there is no tact in celebrateing being on the wrong side in a war fought over who is a free man and who is property being based on the color of their skin and not the content of their character.

Historically, and maybe to some, unfairly, the confederacy was made up of poorer and dimmer men fighting for the comfort of wealthier and brighter men, just like the Union troops actually, but on what side of the slavery debate they chose to spill their blood matters in how history will count them, like it or not.

Guess you slept through history class? Or went to public school. My whole family is from the north but at least I have the brains to realize what the Civil War was really about. It's unfortunate that others are incapable of handling that knowledge.

[leroy]

CNN is a propaganda tool for Obama.

I give them no creditability.

They should go out of business.

Ugly woman too.

Amen brother!!!

By the way: RE CK1's Post and opinion:

The same issues that are critical in today's world were the issues that fueled the Civil War. They are the issues of the power of various states to band together with the central government (...the Federal one...) to demand that other states pay tariffs (...taxes, in the old vernacular...) and submit to federal edicts that ran counter to the wills of those individual states. Abraham Lincoln was far from a "great uniter"; he was a tool of northern special interest seeking to control the southern states. As some great scholar said; Lincoln exchanged the idea of a union or confederation of states for an empire not unlike the British Empire. Whether you choose to believe it or not; you have far less freedom today than you did before the Civil War. The civil war wasn't all about slavery, as some history revisionists would have you believe.

Thus endeth the lesson

Leroy

Edited April 13, 2010 by leroy

[Guest stovepipe]

IMO if you want to celebrate the confederacy you can invite all your friends over and have yourself a great big "Gone With The Wind" marathon, but in reality, beyond that, there is no tact in celebrateing being on the wrong side in a war fought over who is a free man and who is property being based on the color of their skin and not the content of their character.

Historically, and maybe to some, unfairly, the confederacy was made up of poorer and dimmer men fighting for the comfort of wealthier and brighter men, just like the Union troops actually, but on what side of the slavery debate they chose to spill their blood matters in how history will count them, like it or not.

CK1, You are missing out on a fascinating part of Ameican history. Do yourself (and us) a favor and do a little homework before contributing to a topic that you obviously know nothing about.

[E4 No More]

Guess you slept through history class? Or went to public school. My whole family is from the north but at least I have the brains to realize what the Civil War was really about. It's unfortunate that others are incapable of handling that knowledge.

Unfortunately, public schools do teach that the civil war was all about slavery. I didn't learn that there was a lot more to it until I attended college and learned from other sources. I'm glad that I made the choice to expand my knowledge base unlike others.

[Ebow1]

The losing side of a war is not the same thing as the wrong side of a war. It is insulting that you would imply that all those who fought for the Confederacy were somehow less intelligent then others simply by being involved in the civil war.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Unfortunately, public schools do teach that the civil war was all about slavery. I didn't learn that there was a lot more to it until I attended college and learned from other sources. I'm glad that I made the choice to expand my knowledge base unlike others.

Same as above. I didn't really learn about the causes of the Civil War until

way after 'proper schooling' and started being corrected by others and picking up books on the subject. Regretfully, I have have been miserably wrong in the past.

I just bought "Patriots Guide to U.S. History". It chronicles the struggle

about this country, including slavery, from day one. A good book to help understand a bit about the issues in the Civil War, but by no means the whole story. When I read "Jack Hinson's One Man War" I got a huge insight about the classes of slaveholders and slaves, and a rich historical account about battles around western middle Tennessee.

I'm just saying this because most everything a lot of us may have learned in public schools is factually wrong and is propaganda, as was

Harriet Beecher Stowe's famous book "Uncle Tom's Cabin". I didn't start learning until I went to a private catholic college and learned to think for myself.

The southern states could never have been called 'terrorists', especially when you consider what Sherman did at the end. All the compromising that took place from the beginning of this country from both political sides, in

the end tipped the fight. Lincoln caused a lot of harm to the republic just to save the republic. Where have you heard something like that, recently?

Bush and capitalism. Lincoln usurped power when he suspended habeas

corpus. That was supposed to be by an act of Congress if I understand

that right.

How someone could equate terrorism to the South tells me he is nothing more than a propagandist. If anything, the South was more the more

gentlemanly in the Civil War.

CK1, I'm not criticising you, just saying we have been taught some mush

that needs to be explained and corrected. Read up, it's enlightening. The

politics is especially so.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

Wanna talk about terrorists. What about William T. Sherman.

Exactly! It is impossible to talk of the War of Northern Aggression without the mention of our nations first and worst war criminal.

His name alone is as repulsive to me as the article itself.

His actons today would earn someone either a life sentence at Levenworth or death by firing squad.