CNN's Roland Martin calls Civil War-era Confederates "terrorists"

CNN = Communist News Network

I probably don't really know enough about American history to properly comment, but if slavery wasn't the difference between Confederate and United States what actually was?
I don't agree with the terrorist comment, as I see that as more of a 'combat style' or tactic that the Confederate's did not employ; but I see no reason to celebrate anything pro-slavery.

Do you live in the south? Because I can tell you where I live, many of the the Southerners or "Rednecks" often use the Confederate flag as a sign of hatred toward blacks and anyone not a white christian. The Confederate flag is also often used as a symbol of "Southern Pride" to many of them, which I never understood considering they lost the civil war. The point I'm trying to make is that while, yes some of the Confederates during the Civil War were against slavery, the Confederate flag still leaves behind a legacy of "Southern Pride" and a dislike for anyone other than white christians.

I'm not sure if terrorist is a good choice of words, but I don't think it's a good idea to have a month celebrating a bunch of secessionist states who were mad over the idea of not being allowed to have slaves.

Its a stupid thing to say, i cant remember who started the war but was it not due to the North shafting the South economically, those people fought for what they thought was right, both sides deserve some respect.

In that time period, slavery was common and a accepted way of doing things. Technically since the South was a rebellious and wanted to separate from the U.S, I can see where the "terrorist" label comes into play. There's a blur sometimes between a rebel and a terrorist. There's no international agreement on the definition of a terrorist. However, it's agreed that any violent psychological or physical attack with the goal of spreading fear if terrorism. That of which, the South isn't guilty of.

Being from Virginia, I think that both the 'terrorist' labeling and the month honoring Confederates are stupid ideas. All either of those do is try to stir up unnecessary emotions over a sad time in our history, and twist what happened into something entirely different for political reasons. The Union committed many terrorist-like actions, possibly more than the Confederacy (I'm not sure, I'm not an expert) but to honor a group of people who tried to destroy the US is insane.

"That of which, the South isn't guilty of. "

I would say that's about right. I mean they're terrorizing and going against the organization that kept them up.

" I'm not sure if terrorist is a good choice of words, but I don't think it's a good idea to have a month celebrating a bunch of secessionist states who were mad over the idea of not being allowed to have slaves. "

"Its a stupid thing to say, i cant remember who started the war but was it not due to the North shafting the South economically, those people fought for what they thought was right, both sides deserve some respect. "

It was more about state sovereignty than slaves. Northern states also had slaves, and even those that did not were certainly not tolerant towards black people.

" @Korone said:

" I'm not sure if terrorist is a good choice of words, but I don't think it's a good idea to have a month celebrating a bunch of secessionist states who were mad over the idea of not being allowed to have slaves. "

We're pretty much in agreement here, although if you look at history, the real differences stemmed more from extortionist tax-policy, aimed explicitly at southern businesses,  that came from the politically-dominant north than they did from disagreements over slavery. At the start of the civil war, there was little thought in anyone's mind of abolishing slavery; that was a thought that developed over the course of the war, and was due more so to the aid provided by slaves in fighting against their former southern "masters" than it was to some high-minded ideals that were commonly accepted in the North. "

The North and the South had very different economies. The north was wealthier relying on industry while the South relied on its vast plantations which required blacks to operate.  Obviously life in the north was much better than the south,so the southern americans were mostly uneducated and treated blacks working at their plantations like animals. there were obviously economic reasons to the civil war but nobody can defend the outright racism and hatred of the South.

Wow love all the Southern bashing and sad misinformation in this thread Yall can all go to hell.

" Wow love all the Southern bashing and sad misinformation in this thread Yall can all go to hell. "

" @ShaneDev said:

"Its a stupid thing to say, i cant remember who started the war but was it not due to the North shafting the South economically, those people fought for what they thought was right, both sides deserve some respect. "

The same could be said of the IRA in Ireland, ETA in Spain and Hamas in Palestine though they are considered terrorists by the US.  I don't agree with the terrorist label nor any celebration of the Confederacy. "

The Confederates were not terrorists. They were another country, who went into war with our country.
 
Terrorists are something else.

" Wow love all the Southern bashing and sad misinformation in this thread Yall can all go to hell. "

CNN was founded by Ted Turner.
 
Turner had a cameo as a confederate soldier in Gods & Generals.
 
OH SHIT, TED TURNER IS A TERRORIST!!!1

Guys, seriously the Civil War has ended.  If a douchebag politician wants to hold a month's celebration of Southern Confederacy then a news commentator can also make an equally douchebag driven comment.  Neither are particularly well thought out approaches to modern day America where you have a Black President and an ongoing War on Terror.  Let's just get on with living our normal, everyday lives and let the blowhards blow as hard as they feel they need to.  Even stupid, insensitive people have a right to blow off steam and the last thing the situation needs is more people arguing over it.
 
This is a games site.  Let's talk about games.

I've read a few things Roland Martin has written that were less controversial, but he has never impressed me with his acumen.  

Regardless of what he said, there's no point in honoring the confederacy.

" @Evilsbane said:

" Wow love all the Southern bashing and sad misinformation in this thread Yall can all go to hell. "

This is not a good post. No thank you. "

I haven't read all the posts so I'm sorry if something like this has already been posted.  Back during the civil war both the south and north were racist.  People don't like to admit it but northerners didn't like the idea of freed slaves coming and working for a lower wage and thus, taking their job.  This problem also comes up when Irishmen come to America.  The reason why the south stayed with slavery is because they could easily afford the cheap labor of slaves to pick the cotton and it seemed pointless for the ruling families at the time to modernize.  The north wanted the modernization because shipment of goods were too slow, towns weren't developing in the south, and too much power was concentrated in so few people in the south.  The civil war was not fought because the north wanted to free slaves.  It was fought because they wanted to modernize the south's economy, but the south resisted. 
 
As for the question at hand, I don't support calling Confederates "terrorists" but I don't support a month being set aside to "celebrate," "honor," whatever the Confederacy.  I understand southern pride but you also have to admit that the south seceded and actually are considered "traitors" in some people's eyes.  The problem with the confederacy and its flag is that there seem to be a loud minority of people who wave it around as "white pride" and piss off anyone who is not white.  I guess a few bad apples will spoil the bunch that way.  Also, consider this:  If you lived in Afghanistan or Iraq and let's say the U.S. military accidentally bombed your home and killed your entire family.  You decide to fight back against American troops because of what happened, not because you are an religious extremist, but you want revenge and are feeling that you are defending your homeland.  By the way, I'm not anti-military at all and I know these two situations are completely different.  It's just that it's pretty hard to go and label someone as a terrorist.  "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."  Sorry for the long response.

I wish I could say I was surprised at the ignorance surrounding the American Civil War, but I'm not.   
  
The Civil War wasn't about slavery, in fact, the original 13th amendment (which was in the process of ratification by the states in 1860) would have guaranteed the states the sole right to decide on issues such as slavery; however, the south seceded before the amendment came to pass.  The south seceded after Abraham Lincoln was elected as President.  Lincoln only got elected because the opposition to his ticket was so divided that after the ballots were counted Lincoln won with only 40% of the vote.  In other words, Lincoln was elected entirely by the North alone, while the southern half  of the US was now under a president with whom they didn't identify with at all.  Southern states felt that they already had been losing their representation in the federal government for decades before this election, and now sought to abolish that form of government in order to create one that better represented the people of the south. 
 
Obviously the election of Lincoln alone wasn't the only reason, there were many factors involved spanning from the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to the Election year of 1860.  But anyone who calls those who seceded terrorists, or to even consider their reasoning illegitimate is terribly misinformed. 
 
The Confederacy should be remembered and honored as equally as the Union.  After all, the generations who fought for the south were born in America, fought for the ideals of America, and died for America.  Both sides in the Civil War paid the price for the strength, resolve, and unity, that our country relied on for the tumult that was the 20th century, and still relies on today.