TexasCHLforum.com

This CNN commentary poses questions about whether Confederates fighting for States' rights in the Civil War were/should be considered "terrorists". The responses to the opinion are varied and some are quite...interesting. Inquiring minds may visit http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/m ... tml?hpt=C2 for details/information.

I suppose Sherman's march to the sea and the burning of Atlanta was civilized warfare then?

A disgusting attempt to apply today's society's mores/standards/norms/acceptances to those of 150 years ago. How dare he.

TexDotCom wrote:This CNN commentary poses questions about whether Confederates fighting for States' rights in the Civil War were/should be considered "terrorists". The responses to the opinion are varied and some are quite...interesting. Inquiring minds may visit http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/m ... tml?hpt=C2 for details/information.

I've heard it said before, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". On a very basic level I can't say it's all wrong, depending. One's own perspective can alter the definition I spoze.

There is no truth in war history except that the people who win wars write history.

Fact: Abraham Lincoln said in his inaugural address that he will not abolish slavery "where it exists". That means he will not interfere with Southern states' slavery. However, the key term is "where it exists". This means that he simply will not add any more slave states. Here is a link to a transcript of the first inaugural address: http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive ... etail/3507 . The North won the war, so they rewrote history to paint the South as defending slavery during the civil war. Because Lincoln refused to free the slaves, many blacks actually fought for the South during the civil war: http://www.forrestsescort.org/blacks.htm . As a matter of fact, the so-called civil war is NOT a civil war at all. You might be surprised to find that it really is a war for states' rights: http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secession ... ights.html . However, most schoolchildren will not know this because they have been indoctrinated in public brainwashing camps, I mean, public schools. I invite you to tell all your young'uns the truth. Because the truth shall set you free.

I saw that CNN commentary, too. It made me sick. They said that "states rights" equals "racism". What?! States rights is a tool of liberty to defend against mob rule in a democracy. In a society that is "majority ruled", the danger is mob rule where a minority will have their rights voted away. Witness the Jews in WWII. Germany was a DEMOCRACY. In order to defend against mob rule, minority rights must be preserved and States' Rights and the filibuster are methods that safeguard liberty in a free country. You might be surprised to find that democracy without liberty is just mob rule. Why wasn't the filibuster allowed to block Obamacare? This just reeks of unconstitutionality.

To prevent the liberal news media from branding 2nd A and States' Rights issues as "racist" I think that these two movements seriously need to find a minority spokesperson to be a talking head on T.V. If you'll notice, the commentator that said states' rights is "racist" was a black woman. If they had used a black man as a spokesperson for states' rights, then it will negate the liberal news media's race card. On that note, I will try my best to get a day off from the hospital and see if I can get myself on T.V. as a tea partier for the tea party on the 15th. If you're clean cut, we want you there. If you're a brother, we REALLY want you there. See y'all at the tea party!

TexDotCom wrote:This CNN commentary poses questions about whether Confederates fighting for States' rights in the Civil War were/should be considered "terrorists". The responses to the opinion are varied and some are quite...interesting. Inquiring minds may visit http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/m ... tml?hpt=C2 for details/information.

Agreed, thats extremely incorrect. Guerrillas or traitors would be more accurate (or traitorous guerrillas I guess ). Now the Klan, that would more closely fit a terrorist organization.

Agreed, if for no other reason than the "terrorist" definition I've seen a lot of in the MLM lately. You know, the one where they say terrorists are folks who do things to cause fear and to...well...terrorize folks, for whatever (usually ideological) reason. I don't think that's why the folks fighting on the side of the South were doing what they were doing. frazzled, I think your response fit perfectly with my view of things. Thanks.

SQLGeek wrote:I suppose Sherman's march to the sea and the burning of Atlanta was civilized warfare then?

Civilized warfare? A term only a politician and or a non combat veteran military member could coin..LOL Trust me there is nothing civilized about war and the business of taking another’s life.

I know this...but I think you missed my point.

SQLGeek wrote:I know this...but I think you missed my point.

What was your point?

That I find it ironic to call Confederates terrorists when the Federals were burning down entire cities and razing the countryside to supply their armies.

SQLGeek wrote:That I find it ironic to call Confederates terrorists when the Federals were burning down entire cities and razing the countryside to supply their armies.

Thats just time honored motivational tactics.

If you want a man of color to champion states rights, here's your guy:

http://loyaltoliberty.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the link, Rex B.

Also, I *really* want to avoid this becoming yet another discussion about the reasons for the Civil War. Mostly, I wanted to share this opinion piece for it's sensational labeling of folks as terrorists to get emotion riled up...when those folks' reasons and actions didn't have much, if anything, at all to do with said label.

Keep the great commentary and civil discourse coming!

I don't know. Is being a traitor better than being a terrorist? Kind of six and one half dozen argument to me.