creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Roland Martin
Roland S. Martin
20 Jun 2012
The GOP's Sad Infatuation With Rev. Jeremiah Wright

EVANSVILLE, Ind. — Shortly after President Barack Obama was inaugurated, he said that his re-election … Read More.

11 May 2012
Mandatory Minimums the Problem in the Marissa Alexander Case

There is no reason Marissa Alexander should spend the next 20 years in prison. If you are the most hardened law-and-… Read More.

4 May 2012
Ignore Racism? Fat Chance, Rush

It's always funny to get tweets and emails from followers of radio entertainer Rush Limbaugh's. None of them … Read More.

Confederates, Al-Qaida are the Same: Terrorists

Share Comment

After reading the hundreds of e-mails, Facebook comments and Tweets in response to my denunciation of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's decision to honor Confederates for their involvement in the Civil War — which was based on the desire to continue slavery — the one consistent thing that supporters of the proclamation offer up as a defense is that these individuals were fighting for what they believed in and defending their homeland.

In criticizing me for saying that celebrating the Confederates was akin to honoring Nazi soldiers for killing Jews during the Holocaust, Rob Wagner said, "I am simply defending the honor and dignity of men who were given no choice other than to fight, some as young as 13."

Sherry Callahan said that supporting the Confederate is "our history. Not hate; it's about heritage and history."

Javier Ramirez called slavery evil, but prefaced his remarks by saying that "Confederate soldiers were never seen as terrorists by (President Abraham) Lincoln or U.S. generals on the battlefield. They were accorded POW status, they were never tried for war crimes. Not once did Confederate soldiers do any damage to civilians or their property in their invasion of the North. The same is not true of Union soldiers."

Realskirkland sent me a Tweet saying, "Slavery is appalling, but was not the only reason for the CW (Civil War). Those men, while misguided on some fronts, stood up for what they felt was right. They embodied that American ideal that the states have a right to govern themselves. THAT is what a Confederate soldier stood for."

If you take all of these comments, don't they sound eerily familiar to what we hear today from Muslim extremists, who have pledged their lives to defend the honor of Allah and to defeat the infidels in the West?

When you make the argument that the South was angry with the North for "invading" their "homeland," Osama bin Laden has said the same about U.S. soldiers being on Arab soil. He has objected to our bases in Saudi Arabia, and that's one of the reasons he has launched his jihad against us. Is there really that much of a difference between him and the Confederates? Same language, same cause, same effect.

If a Confederate soldier was merely doing his job in defending his homeland, honor and heritage, what are we to say about young, Muslim radicals, who say the exact same thing as their rationale for strapping bombs on their bodies and blowing up cafes and buildings? They say they are defending the honor of their ancestors by trying to rid the world of evil Americans.

If the Sons of Confederate Veterans use the vicious nature in which people in the South were treated by the North as a talking point, doesn't that sound exactly like the Taliban saying they want to kill as many Americans for the slaughter of innocent folks in Afghanistan? Defenders of the Confederacy say that innocent people were killed in the war.

Hasn't the same argument been presented by Muslim radicals in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and other places where the U.S. has tangled with Muslim terrorists?

We can't on one hand justify the honorable actions of Confederates as the duties of valiant men in the South, and then condemn the Muslim extremists who want to see Americans die a brutal death. These men are held up as honorable by their brethren, so why do Americans see them as different from our homegrown terrorists?

The fundamental problem with extremism is that when you're on the side that is fanatical, all of your actions make sense and you are fluent in explaining away every action. Of those you oppose, every position is a personal affront that calls for you to do what is necessary to protect you and your family.

Just like radical Muslims that have a warped sense of religion, Confederate lovers have a delusional view of what is honorable. The Muslim terrorists are willing to kill their own to prove their point, and the Confederates were just as willing in the Civil War to take up arms against their fellow Americans to justify their point.

If you're a relative of one of the 9-11 hijackers, that man was an out-and-out terrorist, and nothing you can say will change that. And if your great-great-great-granddaddy was a Confederate who stood up for Southern ideals, he, too, was a terrorist.

They are the same.

As a matter of conscience, I will not justify, understand or accept the atrocious view of Muslim terrorists who view their actions as representing a just war. They are reprehensible, and their actions are a sin against humanity.

And I will never, under any circumstances, cast Confederates as heroic figures who should be honored and revered. No, they have been, and forever will be, domestic terrorists.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book "The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin." Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

7 Comments | Post Comment
As a student of history with nearly 300 college hours of training, I've long found it interesting that the United States has supported regions that were breaking away from 'mother' countries in the same way that the South broke away from the United States, while condemning that secession. In some cases, we've even sent soldiers to help make the break permanent. I wonder why that is. We honor those who helped the United States break away from Great Britain, and yet we say secession is wrong. We honor those who helped Texas break away from Mexico in 1836 and we honor those who fought to keep Mexico from re-claiming Texas 10 years later. We honor those who fought in Korea and Vietnam. We have largely forgotten about, but would likely honor those who helped Panama break away from Columbia in 1901 and 1902. In 1999, we helped regions break away from Yugoslavia. And why is that?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Paul H. Davis
Fri Apr 9, 2010 9:53 AM
Wow... you make our argument for us.
Your way of connecting Confederate soldiers to Muslim terrorists:
QUOTE
The Muslim terrorists are willing to kill their own to prove their point, and the Confederates were just as willing in the Civil War to take up arms against their fellow Americans to justify their point.
END QUOTE
The confederates reaction was to leave the union, not kill their own. On April 15, Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 volunteers from the state militias to march south and crush the new Confederacy. It was because of this, that two days later, April 17, Virginia seceded rather than provide soldiers or militia to participate in a war on their brethren. North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas followed Virginia out over the same issue. They would not be a party to a war on their kinfolk. (NOTICE HOW SLAVERY WAS NOT THE ISSUE FOR THESE STATES?)
So these states left the Union because they did not want to kill their fellow citizens, and now you compare them to Muslim terrorists because they had to kill their own.
Your argument does not hold water. Try again.
And while you are at it, answer this: Are the Yankee soldiers therefore the same as Muslim Terrorists, because they killed their own (instead of letting them leave)?
Comment: #2
Posted by: KidC
Fri Apr 9, 2010 10:47 AM
This is one of the most ridiculous articles I have ever read. Rational thought must certainly have been ignored. To think some people will read this and think: "WOW, this is so profound and makes sooooo much sense!" With this logic anyone that has ever killed anyone in defense of anything is a terrorist. Mr. Martin is surely smarter than this.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Nick
Fri Apr 9, 2010 4:43 PM
Your comments seem to be colored by racism. The confederacy was formed primarily over the states rights versus the federal government. It had nothing to do with salvery. Most of the heinous acts were carried out by the north on the southerners. There were no rules of war to abide by and Sherman had none on his march to the sea.
Any correlation between terrorism and the confederacy is not only absurd but beneath your intellilect for logical conjecture. I have watched you for years and occassionally begged to disagree but always held you in high regard.
Comment: #4
Posted by: RHSaar
Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:50 AM
I am amazing to see Mr. Martins say what the south did was terrorists, when all the south did was seceded to keep it way of life and to started there own country away from the United States. IF Mr. Martin go up date himself about what actually happened back then he will come to find out that President Lincoln sent Union Troops to break up the secessions and to put the Union back togething. So the real terrorists were the union army and the President of the United States since the South States didn't attacked the Union and Washington but the opposite happened. So even Mr. Martin doesn't know what he is talkng about and should go and reeducated himself what really happened than coming on here and changing the facts around.

Comment: #5
Posted by: Richard Jones
Tue Apr 13, 2010 5:00 PM
Re: KidC
I'm not going to agree with Roland by equating the Confederacy with terrorists. However, your assumption that the issue wasn't about slavery is mistaken. What pray tell besides slavery would unit Arkansas with Virgiania, or Texas with Virginia. Absolutely nothing. The Civil War was about the preservation of the Union. Note that Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri did not secede and were not attacked. Instead those Slave states who were "kin" with the confederacy attacked the confederacy as the rebellion they were.
Comment: #6
Posted by: craig
Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:39 AM
Re: RHSaar

"The confederacy was formed primarily over the states rights versus the federal government. It had nothing to do with salvery."
The Confederates would beg to disagree. Read the declarations of secession: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
Count the number of times slaves or slavery are mentioned, then count the number of references to states' rights. Furthermore, you will find that in the few places states' rights are mentioned, they're mentioned in the context of the right to own slaves.

"Most of the heinous acts were carried out by the north on the southerners."
My great grandfather and the 45,000 other Union soldiers who passed through Andersonville would disagree. So would all the free blacks who were enslaved by Confederate troops in Maryland.

"Any correlation between terrorism and the confederacy is not only absurd but beneath your intellilect for logical conjecture."
I agree that the Confederates' tactics were not terrorism, but I think it's inarguable that they had very similar motivations.
Comment: #7
Posted by: james
Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Roland S. Martin
Jun. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

22 Jan 2008 Ignoring White Dems in S.C. Isn't Smart

22 Aug 2008 Obama and McCain's Mantra Should Be 'Just Win, Baby'

11 Mar 2011 Can We Now Get Serious About Alternative Fuels?