Pas d’ennemis a droit, but Jesus, guys, you aren’t doing yourselves any favors with baloney like this.  There are more flagrant lies about the Confederacy in an article defending the Confederacy from flagrant lies.  Let’s count ’em:

Yes, admittedly there was some damning rhetoric from some Confederate leaders supporting slavery in the 1860’s

If by “some” leaders you mean “pretty much ALL leaders,” then this isn’t a lie.  Otherwise, no.  Several ordinances of secession specifically cite slavery as a reason for leaving the Union.  The Confederate Constitution specifically prohibits abolition (Article I, section 9, 4: “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed”).  No serious historian would maintain that slavery was the only cause of the Civil War — nothing in life has only one cause, friends — but he would not deny that slavery was the proximate cause of the war, because it was, as every single American, North and South, acknowledged at the time.

95% of Confederate soldiers did not own slaves

The commonly accepted figure for slave ownership in the Old South was 25%.  Were slaveholders under-represented in the Confederate army, do you think?  From the definitive study of the Army of Northern Virginia:

Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.*

You’ll notice, I hope, that even if we restrict it to those soldiers who personally owned slaves, “slightly more than 1 in 10” is 10%, which is more than 5%.  Twice as big, actually.

compared to a negligible amount of black soldiers on both sides

Black soldiers made up about 10% of Union forces, which is hardly negligible.  It’s about the same proportion as draftees into the Union army, and no serious historian would argue that the North could’ve won the war without the draft.

here are some quotes from the battle flag’s top general, Robert E. Lee himself

Quotes damning slavery follow.  But like fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson, Lee could make eloquent anti-slavery remarks while holding slaves himself.  Lots of them.  While Lee did free the slaves at Arlington in 1862, it was because he was required to by his father-in-law’s will, not any personal sentiment of his own (Lee was widely known as a tough taskmaster).

All the evidence clearly points out the Confederacy was peacefully following principles laid out by the founding fathers, the declaration of independence, and the 12 amendments of the U.S. constitution which were in place as of 1861. “Patriots” the Confederates may or may not have been. But “traitors” definitely not.

Absurd.  Taking up arms against your countrymen is, by definition, treason.

“The Confederates were Terrorists.”

This is supposed to be a lie?  Victims of Quantrill’s Raiders, John Hunt Morgan’s guerrillas, etc. would vehemently disagree.  Confederate irregulars, especially in the border states, were infamous for their brutality.  That the North too practiced the hard hand of war doesn’t let their enemies off the hook.  And let’s not forget the widespread terrorism of the ex-Confederates in the original Klan.

It is undeniable and unfortunate that the Confederate government (not Lee’s army) fought for the maintenance of slavery as one of it’s core objectives

Again, absurd.  A national army fights, by definition, for the core objectives of its nation — one of which was, as we’ve seen, the maintenance of slavery.  This is like claiming Patton’s 5th Armored fought for the US government, but not for the defeat of Nazi Germany.

So that’s, what, five flagrant lies about the Confederacy in an article titled “Four Flagrant Lies about the American Confederacy”?  The retard is strong in this one.  Look, if you want to maintain that the CSA got a bad rap, and that Lincoln was America’s worst tyrant, you’ll get no argument from me.  But before you start, please get your basic facts straight.



*Yes yes, quoted in The Atlantic, one of the biggest piece-of-shit liberal publications around, but the quote is accurate, and the study’s author is one of the biggest names in Civil War military history.


Loading Likes...

5 thoughts on “Alt-Retards

    1. Severian Post author

      Yes, by definition. Had they lost, they would’ve been hung for treason, like any other rebels in any other country in the world. If you’re going to commit treason, you’d better win. 🙂

      1. nightfly

        “If this be treason… make the most of it.” -Patrick Henry

        “Gentlemen, might I remind you that if we are all arrested now, my name is still the only one on the damned thing!” -John Hancock in 1776

        1. Severian


          I really don’t see what’s so hard about this. Treason is treason, whether your cause is good, bad, or indifferent. The only difference is, if you win, you’re no longer guilty of treason, because the peace treaty says so.

          John Hancock was as guilty of treason in 1776 as Lenin was in 1917, as Henry Tudor was in 1485, as Claus von Stauffenberg was in 1944, as Bonnie Prince Charlie was in 1746, as Robert E. Lee was in 1861. The only difference is, the first three won, and the second three lost. Heck, look at the English Civil War — Cromwell and Charles I each accused the other of treason, and they were both right. But Cromwell won and Charles lost, so Chuck got executed.

          Words mean what they mean.

          1. Macumazahn

            I think that what’s “hard” about this is the connotation of dishonor. George Washington is today revered, while Robert E. Lee is reviled. Both were (technically) traitors, but neither was dishonorable. Nowadays, though, the loony Left is eager to imply that Lee was dishonorable – and I suspect that similar “deconstruction” of America’s Founding Fathers isn’t far off. After all, some of them owned slaves!
            BTW, they would have been hanged for treason. I have no idea how they were hung.

Comments are closed.