Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Confederate History Month Controversy - Other Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sun Apr 11th, 2010 09:59 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
CleburneFan
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1021
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

(Hi, folks. It has been a long time since I have posted here.)

When Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's declared April as Confederate History Month but failed to acknowledge the role of Virginian slave ownership, he stirred up controversy that just won't go away.  He did revise his statement to include "the abomination of slavery" but the discussion lives on. 

 This week, according to reports at Fox News. com and Yahoo News .com,  Mississippi governor Hayley Barbour,  speaking at the New Orleans conference of Southern Republicans opined that he felt McDonnell's original statement omitting mention of slavery was not wrong and "did not amount to diddly." He also pointed out that Mississippi long has had a Confederate Memorial Day, even honored by Democratic governors and a Democratic legislature.

In fact Mississppi is not alone in honoring Confederate Memorial Days, as Florida, Alabama, Georgia, North and South Carolina and Texas all have such days or one known as Confederate Heroes Day.

Today CNN .com has a provocative editorial, the link which I will put here, in which the writer says the Confederates were terrorists just as Taliban and Al Qaeda are terrorists. What do you folks feel about all this contorversy which has made people talk about the Civil War again?

What do you all think about this matter? Were Confederates terrorists and was Governor McDonnell making a grievous mistake when he failed to acknowledge the role of protecting the institution of slavery in Virginia's Civil War participation?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/martin.confederate.extremist/index.html?=C2

 

Last edited on Sun Apr 11th, 2010 10:28 pm by CleburneFan



 Posted: Mon Apr 12th, 2010 03:24 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
19bama46
Member
 

Joined: Thu Mar 23rd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 146
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

This is insanity!
The Confederates were NOT terrorists... was the word even in the lexicon?
CNN is just trying to stir a molehill into a mountain. I will go with Gov Barbour.

ed



 Posted: Mon Apr 12th, 2010 04:22 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
susansweet3
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 11th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 312
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I read the article and felt insulted.  I have relatives on both sides of the war .  I don't think my Confederate ancestors would think of themselves as terrorist nor do I . They were soldiers fighting for what they believed.  This article is out of right field.

Susan



 Posted: Mon Apr 12th, 2010 02:09 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

As Lincoln once asked, 'if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?'

To which he answered 'four. calling a tail a leg does not make it so'.

The Confederate cause was certainly one of the worst for which men ever fought, but there was nothing terrorist about it.

Martin himself provides no examples of Confederate 'terrorism'...



 Posted: Mon Apr 12th, 2010 04:28 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

In short this is why we should leave history to the historians and political comentary to people like Mr. Martin. However, he may have a point (though I doubt he knows it) when it comes to the guerrilla war in KS and MO. Terrorizing civilians (as opposed to the military industry) to sway political opinion was clearly part of standard procedures for both sides in those areas as it was in the occupied south right after the war. Just food for thought from a devils advocate...

Mark
(now ducking to avoid the large heavy objects thrown at me)



 Posted: Mon Apr 12th, 2010 04:45 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I suspect that McDonnell got hisself conned by the Virginia SCV.

First clue: There is no reason to "honor" Confederate History. The whole sordid affair is US History. It might have been better to proclaim the month a time to study the US Civil War.

McDonnell made a major booboo. For you Virginians on board, I hope it was just a temporary lapse in judgement, or a Grant-like favor to a good friend.



 Posted: Mon Apr 12th, 2010 04:53 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Dang! Ran out of large heavy objects to throw.

Mr. Martin is only one of the reasons I don't get my news from CNN.

I'm no southron, nor have I ever said anything nice about the secesh, but to call them terrorists? I expect more from my news commentators than slobbering drivel.



 Posted: Mon Apr 12th, 2010 06:14 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ole-

  If you're expecting more than drivel from the vast majority of today's main stream media, then I'm afraid that you will most often suffer profound disappointment.

  One advantage to being a cynic as I am is that since your expectations of the competence of journalists are far lower than the average person's, the degree of disappointment that you can suffer is also less severe.

Last edited on Tue Apr 13th, 2010 12:54 am by Texas Defender



 Posted: Tue Apr 13th, 2010 12:36 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
9th Post
TimK
Member
 

Joined: Thu Apr 10th, 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 311
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

This was not a news story - it was an editorial. An opinion. And if a controversial editorial gets people to log on to CNN, CNN and its advertisers are happy. CNN says this is not their opinion, it is strictly the opinion of Mr. Martin. It worked. People are logging on to CNN and talking about the editorial.



 Posted: Tue Apr 13th, 2010 01:13 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
10th Post
borderuffian
Member


Joined: Fri Mar 13th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 105
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

They are thinking of the number of hits to their website/page and don't care who they offend.

Their formula:  the more outrageous the statement the greater the attention they will get.

Ignore them...and you will see a lot less of this type article.

Last edited on Tue Apr 13th, 2010 01:15 am by borderuffian



 Posted: Tue Apr 13th, 2010 01:40 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
CleburneFan
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1021
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Have given the opinion piece much thought, I feel  that the majority of the combatants of the Confederacy were no more terrorists than the colonists who fought in the American Revolution.

Were there incidents in the Civil War that resemble modern day terrorism? Yes, indeed. Maybe most wars experience examples of the same, even from both sides of the conflicts.

One way I define a terrorist as different from a traditional combatant is that terrorists normally are not in uniform and do not act as members of a recognized and organized military structure.   Too, they often operate outside of formally declared wars.

Take the 9/11 terrorists. Dressed as civilians, they struck the US when our guard was down because we did not believe we were in a traditional "fighting war" with Al Qaeda. Furthermore, Al Qaeda is not a recognized government, operating, as it does, across national borders.

Another reason I wouldn't call Confedrates terrorists, at least at the start of the war, is that Southerners adhered to the concept of a gentlemen's war fought in the style of Napoleon and European wars. Trickery was not honorable or gentlemanly...as I say, at first. As the realities of a hard fought war set in, certain individuals and groups on both sides, began to step outside boundaries of eighteenth century notions of accepted conduct. 

 

 

 



 Posted: Tue Apr 13th, 2010 07:41 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
12th Post
Old Sorrel
Member


Joined: Thu Mar 15th, 2007
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 66
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Sounds like Political Correctness at its worst.........Man I hate PC........and CNN.

Good Day:)



 Posted: Thu Apr 15th, 2010 04:15 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
13th Post
CleburneFan
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1021
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I just don't see how an outspoken and controversial opinion piece on the CNN web site is ONE BIT worse than the outspoken and controversial daily diatribes on Fox by such notorious luminaries as Glenn Beck and Shawn Hannity and their guests or daily radio diatribes by pompous bloviators such as Rush Limbaugh and flame-throwing writers such as the fire brand Ann Coulter.



 Posted: Thu Apr 15th, 2010 04:35 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
14th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

They are all armchair commentators.

None have actually done much of anything, much less 'field' journalism or other activism.

They rile others up and analyze the leftover pieces.

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt



 Posted: Thu Apr 15th, 2010 05:33 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
15th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

  Well, so much for javal's: "Ban" on commentary on the current political situation (now that the previous administration is no longer in office).

  At any rate, Cleburne Fan, I haven't heard anything said by the commentators you mentioned that is as offensive as the author of the article you linked to calling up to a million Confederate soldiers: "Terrorists." (Admitting that some terrorist acts were committed by those on BOTH sides in places such as Missouri). To me, that author is despicable.

  Painting AMERICAN soldiers (Union or Confederate) generally as terrorists is most unfair. As Ely Parker said at Appomattox, regardless of the side they fought on, they were ALL Americans.

  Did those other Americans who faced Confederate soldiers in battle regard them as terrorists? Here is the remembrance of one old soldier on how they appeared to him on a day in April of 1865:

  "Before us in proud humiliation stood the embodiment of manhood: men whom neither toil and sufferings, nor the fact of death, nor disaster, nor hopelessness could bend from their resolve, standing before us now, thin, worn, and famished, but erect and with eyes looking level into ours, waking memories that bound us together as no other bond, --- was not such manhood to be welcomed back into a Union so tested and assured?"            - Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

  Soldiers respect soldiers. They do not respect terrorists.

                                           

Last edited on Thu Apr 15th, 2010 11:51 pm by Texas Defender



 Posted: Thu Apr 15th, 2010 08:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
16th Post
Old Sorrel
Member


Joined: Thu Mar 15th, 2007
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 66
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I happen to like and enjoy Glenn, Rush and Sean. But what do they have to do with this? This was an opinion article on CNN'S website. :D



 Posted: Thu Apr 15th, 2010 11:57 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
17th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I'd leave Hannity out of the loop, and neither Rush nor Glenn has a place on this board -- or this thread for that matter. So far as I know, they haven't commented on Confederate History Month.

I liked the posts that noted that hits are the goal; the more outrageous the comment, the more hits the site gets. So we, like the hapless Governor, have been drawn into a controversy only a few wanted. I figure he, as the Chief Executive of a major state ought to have been a bit smarter. I give myself more leeway.

Ole



 Posted: Fri Apr 16th, 2010 12:02 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
18th Post
CleburneFan
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1021
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Old Sorrel wrote: I happen to like and enjoy Glenn, Rush and Sean. But what do they have to do with this? This was an opinion article on CNN'S website. :D

You said you hate CNN and I responded that it was no different for CNN to write a controversial editorial than for Fox's constant efforts to do the same.

However it is too bad that we couldn't have confined ourselves to just discussing the editorial itself instead of getting off on a tangent about CNN. I actually thought the writer's thoughts were thought provoking by themselves. I don't agree with his arguments, because using his same logic, Native Americans who fought Colonists could fit at least part of his definition of terrorits too.



 Posted: Fri Apr 16th, 2010 07:09 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
19th Post
Old Sorrel
Member


Joined: Thu Mar 15th, 2007
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 66
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Howdy CleburneFan,

All I was saying...... the article, to me, sounds very PC......and it didnt surprise me too see it on a CNN website. It seems to me that its ok in today's society to trash anything associated with the Confederacy. Attack the heritage, its ok.......attack the flag.......its ok.......attack the people back then......its ok........attack the south now...its ok. Its seem attacking anything southern past and present is now considered politically correct and encouraged.

Hope your day is well.:D

 



 Posted: Fri Apr 16th, 2010 07:34 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
20th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Promoters of a ‘Confederate History Month’ seem little interested in an accurate and comprehensive view of Confederate history and mostly push a single perspective.

What doors were opened by the CSA that need further investigation, study and celebration? What parts of the CSA would we like to see in place today?


HankC



 Current time is 11:22 amPage:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4615 seconds (8% database + 92% PHP). 26 queries executed.