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

reply to post by Southern Guardian


The north is just as guilty as the south is for owning slaves.
Here is a quote from Abraham Lincoln

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

It doesn't matter anyway because the USA will not last forever, it will crumble and fall like many other empires have done before it and when it finally does meet its end...The south will rise again.

Many, including myself, seem to drift off topic on many posts,as seems to be the case with this post.
The op was," Were confederate soldiers terrorists? " And how CNN claims in their opinion they are.
Most of us agree slavery was and is wrong.
Others choose to debate what the south was fighting for or should the confederacy be celebrated, which is off topic .

The MSM job seems to be, not to give us the news, but to influence how we think and feel on the important issues.
The mission of the MSM is acknowledged, on how they confuse , divide and conquer the peole through public opinion.
Which they, the MSM have done by our responses.

The question was and still is "Were confederate soldiers terrorists?"

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


No, the Confederate soldiers were not terrorist's, they were soldiers, in a nation divided.

Just as much as the Union soldiers, were serving their nation, in a nation divided.

The man writing the original C.N.N. article is a misinformed malcontent.

That C.N.N. would allow him to write such trash, which holds no water, shows the credibility of their news writer's and opinion piece writers, which shows how much the Mainstream Media does not care what crap it spreads, in the name of news.

The man lumps a Civil War and a foreign war into one and the same context.

A Civil War is about a nation, within, and a foreign war is about the outside world.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Civil war

A civil war is a war between organized groups within a single nation state, or, less commonly, between two nations created from a formerly-united nation state.

The aim of one side may be to take control of the nation or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.

It is high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale.

Civil wars may result in large numbers of casualties and the consumption of significant resources.

Civil wars since the end of World War II have lasted on average just over four years, a dramatic rise from the one-and-a-half year average of the 1900-1944 period.

While the rate of emergence of new civil wars has been relatively steady since the mid-1800s, the increasing length of those wars resulted in increasing numbers of wars ongoing at any one time.

For example, there were no more than five civil wars underway simultaneously in the first half of the twentieth century, while over 20 concurrent civil wars were occurring at the end of the Cold War, before a significant decrease as conflicts strongly associated with the superpower rivalry came to an end.

Since 1945, civil wars have resulted in the deaths of over 25 million people, as well as the forced displacement of millions more.

Civil wars have further resulted in economic collapse; Burma (Myanmar), Uganda and Angola are examples of nations that were considered to have promising futures before being engulfed in civil wars.

Scholars investigating the cause of civil war are attracted by two opposing theories, greed versus grievance.

Roughly stated: are conflicts caused by who people are, whether that be defined in terms of ethnicity, religion or other social affiliation, or do conflicts begin because it is in the economic best interests of individuals and groups to start them?

Scholarly analysis supports the conclusion that economic and structural factors are more important than those of identity in predicting occurrences of civil war.

Of course, I am speaking about a "civil war" in the context of a war within a nation, which the American Civil War was a war between different states.

Quote from : Wikipedia : American Civil War

The American Civil War (1861–1865), also known as the War Between the States as well as several other names, was a civil war in the United States of America.

Eleven Southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America, also known as simply "the Confederacy".

Led by Jefferson Davis, they fought against the United States (the Union), which was supported by all the free states and the five border slave states.

In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed.

The Republican victory in that election resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861.

Both the outgoing administration of President James Buchanan, and Linocln's incoming administration rejected the legality of secession, considering it rebellion.

Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a US military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina.

Lincoln responded by calling for a volunteer army from each state, leading to declarations of secession by four more Southern slave states.

Both sides raised armies as the Union assumed control of the border states early in the war and established a naval blockade.

In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal, and dissuaded the British from intervening.

Confederate commander Robert E. Lee won battles in the east, but in 1863 his northward advance was turned back with heavy casualties after the Battle of Gettysburg and, in the west, the Union gained control of the Mississippi River after their capture of Vicksburg, Mississippi, thereby splitting the Confederacy in two.

Long-term Union advantages in men and materiel were realized in 1864 when Ulysses S. Grant fought battles of attrition against Lee, while Union general William Tecumseh Sherman captured Atlanta, Georgia, and marched to the sea.

Confederate resistance collapsed after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865.

The American Civil War was one of the earliest true industrial wars in human history.

Railroads, steamships, mass-produced weapons, and various other military devices were employed extensively.

The practices of total war, developed by Sherman in Georgia, and of trench warfare around Petersburg foreshadowed World War I in Europe.

It remains the deadliest war in American history, resulting in the deaths of 620,000 soldiers and an undetermined number of civilian casualties.

Ten percent of all Northern males 20-45 years of age died, as did 30 percent of all Southern white males aged 18-40.

Victory for the North meant the end of the Confederacy and of slavery in the United States, and strengthened the role of the federal government.

The social, political, economic and racial issues of the war decisively shaped the reconstruction era that lasted to 1877.

Guns N' Roses - Civil War (Music Video)


There is nothing "civil" about war, it is one of the most uncivilized events, because people kill off people, in the name of insanity, a war of any kind, is an extension of politics by any other means than diplomacy, with the means of eliminating the opposition through any means, whether either side is right or wrong.

In my opinion, both sides are often wrong, and both sides lose, both physically with people dieing, and politically through losing the political process altogether.

And as well people gain, wealth, power, and ignorance as they feed off the means of making money for the propagation of war manufacturing, at the cost of humanity.

When mystics of old sought out how to turn lead into gold through alchemy, little did they know that one day, it would actually happen through organizations profiting off of warfare, and lead bullets turning into gold for those military suppliers.

Lord of War intro - Bullet Cam


War is good for nothing, neither side wins, both sides lose.

It is nothing more than a means for politician's on both sides to send men and women off to die for fallacious means, to enrich people, to purchase arms, and for population control through the false means of patriotism, a lie that you have to die for your country, because another country lies the same way to their citizens.

Edwin Starr - War (What Is It Good For?)


The man who wrote the article for C.N.N., is a sad excuse for an illiterate buffoon.

WWIII : The War On Terror, An Innocuous and Inane Sounding War, Until They Come For Everyone

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I don't have much to add to your post, but to answer your wondering why CNN lets him do this:

I am 100% positive now that CNN is the mouth piece of the White House. During this administration, they seem to have been saying everything the White House wants.

I'm ok with them doing it, I'm ok with FOX being the conservative mouth piece, just not ok that they aren't up front. The same sheep would still watch.

I was appalled when Roland went on this rant on live TV last week, that's why I sent him the tweets that appeared in the article (ok...I'm done bragging about that, the highlight of my boring day)

WOW! I would love to debate the author of that letter. What an easy target! What a moron!

Bases in Saudi Arabia are bought and paid for with the approval of the government. They are not "occupied." Gitmo is "occupied." LOL!

The Extremists from that area often take credit for kidnapping and murder of civilians! No Civil War troop was ever known for that. The only one close was Sherman, and guess who's side he was on!?!

Sure, I believe a lot of the casualties in the Middle East are good people defending their homeland. I believe once the war started, and our troops began moving through cities, that a lot of innocent people were harmed. (No offense to our troops, just nature of wartime.)

But comparing Confederate Soldiers to Extremists and terrorists is absolutely wrong!

Now, if CNN wanted to be honest, they would have compared our Revolutionary War Soldiers to the Terrorists. That would have been fairly accurate. They used guerrilla tactics and piracy and sabotage very effectively! They used Indians as "insurgents." They played politics with France and Spain to undermine their opponent. They used the size and resources of the enemy to their own advantage, and they played the game of public perception and political correctness to undermine the support of the war in Great Britain.

Plus, I can't believe that there are mainstream news outlets still proclaiming that the object of the Civil War was to continue the practice of slavery? Sure, the Plantation owners in the South thought that the abolishment of slavery would ruin them financially, and they wanted the Federal Government to butt out, but that wasn't the reason for the Civil War. The Civil War was fought, because the Southern States decided that they would opt out of the Union, and continue doing things as they thought was appropriate, and the remaining Union decided it should March down and FORCE the occupants of those states to comply with its rule and law! Who sounds more like an aggressor in that scenario?

Plus, the Civil War did not end slavery. The Chinese were still exploited for decades, and there are a great many people still being exploited today! Slavery did not die with the Civil War, but all hope of a Free Republic according to the Constitution did!

Shame on CNN! Learn some History!

Originally posted by Alien Mind
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

The north is just as guilty as the south is for owning slaves.

I do not in anyway deny that fact and have made it clear in prior posts.

Yep indeedy. Lincoln was a slave apologists and many Northeners benefitted from slavery in the South. That does not change the fact that Northern and westerm states had by the time abolished slavery, and the south wanting to leave in fear of them being forced to end it.

I don't consider either side of the American civil war as terrorists.I find it interesting that whenever Obama's poll numbers go down the MSM and various other government agencies start drumming up the "Domestic Terrorist." threat even the so-called opposition Fox News does it.They are all in it together fear drives up their ratings and brings in the money and speaking of the government agencies it brings in the funding and power anyone who opposes them can be painted as a supporter of those vicious "Domestic Terrorists."and being anti-American and possibly "racist."