Gentleman who thinks Confederates were the good guys in the Civil War gets epically self-owned


I have yet to see a “revisionist” saying positive things about the Confederacy or “Southern Culture & Tradition” who wasn’t a white supremacist liar. You have not changed my opinion.

There is far too much in your Gish Gallop to unpack at once.

But lets make things clear:

  1. The Confederacy defined itself by the right to own human beings as chattel property
  2. The Confederacy took up arms and shed blood to defend that right
  3. Nothing you have said about the Union or Northern states negates 1&2
  4. No nation in its right mind celebrates both losing an armed insurrection or owning human beings as chattel property

Its telling that the descendants of the Confederates became the longest standing domestic terror group the nation has seen and went on to legalize attacks on civil liberties.


“Products”? You mean. . . cotton? Basically the entire economy of the South relied on slave labor as its foundation, so there’s no way to remove slavery from the equation.


Not sure what universe you’rr from, but it sure ain’t this reality.

In this reality, the dumbass Confederacy explicitly spelled out their reason of agitation: to preserve the institution of chattel slavery, and to uphold white supremacy.

Are you following me so far?

What had the confederate dumbasses downright terrified was the possibility that whites were actually inferior. Having brutally abused, mistreated, maimed, and killed people of colour, these whiteass dunces knew the same could be done to them, just like in the fledgling Dominican Republic.

So the confederates decided to attack the Union before people like John Brown could aid a slave uprising.

And the confederate dumbasses got their asses handed to them. It was never a war that the confederacy couls win. Nor were the continental powers likely to intervene, having recently dealt with destructive wars of their own.

And that, is why the dumbass Confederates are in the wrong in this universe we call Reality. Wrong morally, wrong aggresively, and niw mostly totally extinct.

… but you knew that already, didn’t you, you dumbass confederate?


Sadly, I’m pretty sure it’s probably more like a “not brown people” gun shop.

Edit: Well, “sadly” in that it exists it all. I mean to say that he doesn’t have such a technology, and instead he’s just a racist who assumes that brown people in general are Muslims.


I mean … I didn’t study the history, or even read a book, or pass 4th grade history … but I’m sure if you look!


They were trying to change the US Government legally until Kansas became a free state, then they knew they were in the minority and would never get the upper hand over free-staters.

The South fired the first shot on Ft. Sumter. Nevertheless, I would say true greed is having a huge source of labor you never have to pay.

That’s some nice capitalization there, the mark of a true intellectual. Simple question: is slavery moral and just or not? If you can justify invading a foreign country to free the citizens from tyranny (Iraq) then why is part of our own country off limits?

You are aware that plenty of Confederates engaged in their own war crimes, aren’t you? Sherman’s march to the sea was brutal, but slaughter of innocent civilians by Confederate guerillas is well documented.


Tobacco, rice and sugar too. :smiley:


There’s probably a “No Muslims Allowed” sign out front and it’s based on the honor system.


So you would disregard the words of the Confeds themselves in the Cornerstone Address, the various state Declarations of Independence, etc, which specifically state that the secession was over slavery and defense of the “natural state” of white supremacy over blacks. They were wrong, but they were literate and left no question as to why they did what they did. I disagree totally, but I will respect the words they left behind by accepting that they actually knew their own minds.


The legal theory behind the Emancipation Proclamation is that it fell under Lincoln’s broad authority to wage war, so he couldn’t have issued it if there HADN’T been an ongoing rebellion. If a peacetime President had the legal authority to end slavery singlehandedly then Congress wouldn’t have had to pass the 13th Amendment.

Honestly, I’m starting to wonder whether you really are a Constitutional scholar at all.


False.The US Constitution, Article VI says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

There were no sovereign states. The supreme law of the land could not be overruled by state acts or laws. No state could unilaterally decide to remove itself and its residents from the Union.


Bears repeating:


Adding to your list of facts, it’s also worth noting that the “Legal Right to Secede” (sic) is not explicitly enshrined in the Constitution. Per the 10th Amendment, secession was legal only in the sense that it wasn’t (and isn’t) forbidden by the Constitution. To place the term in Very Important Capital Letters is a sign of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty or both.

What was definitely not legal was a Confederate state following up its legally non-binding secession with a military assault on what was still a federal army installation staffed by troops loyal to the Union.

Correct. There was no formal legal mechanism then or now for a state to do that. Unilaterally terminating relations with the Union was not sufficient to make the Confederate states anything more than what they were (and what they proudly called themselves): rebels. And rebels with a particularly nasty cause at that.


But the South was an economic powerhouse before the war against the traitors?



Yes, but they were a rounding error compared to King Cotton.


Good lord, all these obvious sock puppet and obvious troll accounts that “suddenly just popped up.”

@ all happy mutants:


This topic is temporarily closed for 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.


This topic was automatically opened after 4 hours.


Sherman’s March to the Sea was destructive, but civilian casualties were nearly non-existent. By all accounts the burning of Atlanta was accidental. The march was so shocking for the South because Sherman was destroying civilian property behind their own battle lines with impunity. Bringing the war right to the doorstep of slavers who were used to safety with people fighting on their behalf. They were freeing slaves and there wasn’t anything the Confederate military could do to stop it.


The next one might not be!

And speaking of RK Milholland and the lost cause mythology, he had this exchange recently on the twitters with C. Spike Trotman (whose work I have not read, but would like to now):