How Dumb Does One Have to Be in Order to Be a Neoconfederate?

How Dumb Does One Have to Be in Order to Be a Neoconfederate?

The above question is asked By Al Mackey at http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/how-dumb-does-one-have-to-be-in-order-to-be-a-neoconfederate/

There is no doubt that that he is referring to me. So I will answer the question as it pertains to me only. I’ll answer that question at the end of this post.

It appears that Brooks Simpson, a Professor at an Arizona university has taken issue with a census record that I posted on Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education at http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2010667

Anyone can visit there and see that I posted only an image of Lincoln’s 1860 census, no comments at all —NONE!!! So how does Simpson get to the point I said she was a slave?? He is assuming. Shouldn’t do that Brooks.

Of course Simpson’s usual idiots come out of the wall posting disparaging and insulting comments. For Simpson’s blog that is to be expected. Al Mackey and of course Rob Baker get in their insults on Simpson’s page—

 Al Mackey on July 16, 2014 at 2:03 pm said:
George Perv is really that stupid, Eric. The guy is an utter idiot.
Reply ↓
 Rob Baker on July 16, 2014 at 3:03 pm said:
I can attest to that.

That too is also expected.

To Mackey’s corruption of my name, all I have to say is this. Mackey I must be a Perv I have this burning desire to have sex with your face.

Note please Mackey’s facts as they are presented to his readers. He actually posts none that Brooks Simpson or that you and I cannot see by looking at the census image. He does post a link to a NPS website at—- http://www.nps.gov/liho/planyourvisit/upload/Hired-Girl-Site-Bulletin.pdf

Mackey also makes this statement in his attack post—“When faced with the fact that there is no such schedule for Illinois, this person doesn’t consider the reason for that is that Illinois was a free state and had no slaves.”

The website Mackey posted, clearly states that Lincoln hired Irish and Negroes to work for him. It shows a “No Irish need apply sign.” Hired a dressmaker who worked 12 hour days making dress for Mary. Do note the average pay— on the high end $1.50 a week.

One of the more interesting facts posted this website is the small article about indentured servants. Read this website and you can decide for yourself if Lincoln used slave labor or not, it certainly appears so. Thanks so much Al Mackey and Rob Baker for bringing this document to light. To be honest I didn’t have that link, but I did have this one that queued my interest—-

http://www.museum.state.il.us/RiverWeb/landings/Ambot/Archives/transactions/1901/IL-slavery.html

Now back to the question at hand as it refers to only me. — How Dumb Does One Have to Be in Order to Be a Neoconfederate?

Well Mackey—I am as dumb as a bowl of buttered grits but I still stand head and shoulders above you and Simpson.

39 thoughts on “How Dumb Does One Have to Be in Order to Be a Neoconfederate?

  1. Your twisting of the events make you look even dumber. You made a post claiming M. Johnson…Servant was a slave. If blacks were hired by people in Springfield they were free not slaves. It also goes to help me show that those laws forbidding blacks in Illinois were never really enforced.

    • You do not have the luxury of coming here insulting me. Your comment show just what kind of stupid bogot and biased person you are. apologize to me or this is your last post.

  2. Pingback: Yes, the Lincolns had servants…but not slaves | Past in the Present

    • I never said anything actually. I made no comment at all. I sure did get your drawers in a wad didn’t I?
      I let everyone do the talking I simply answered everyone in a generic way. I called Mary Johnson a slave, because to the best of my knowledge an indentured servent were the same as slaves. To be honest many of you folks are nothing more than slaves working for someone else. Think about that.

      I believe Rob Baker is far and beyond anyone else in research and facts. I’ll admit he found some references that I could not find.

  3. Pingback: The (Bent Out Of) SHAPE of Confederate Heritage | Crossroads

    • DUH. You mentioned SHAPE not me. I think every posting here knows how to find their way to Cold Southern Steel. Don’t you ??? REmember you can’t run with the big dog when you pee like a puppy.

  4. Mr. Purvis, it would be more straightforward if you simply admitted “I blew this one” and move on. Up to this point, being new to the Civil War blogging world, I have given you the benefit of the doubt. But the title of the blog post, coupled with your response to my comment: “yes do you have something to prove otherwise?” shows you clearly intended to “prove” that Lincoln owned a slave. Mistakes are one thing; dishonesty is another.

    Please, Mr. Purvis, restore my faith in you as an honest blogger.

    • I am not being dishonest. That is the whole history of how this came about. Check out my previous post and you will see. I even posted Jeff Davis census records as I could find them. I use Ancestry, and some records are not found or at least I cannot find them.

      • You avoided my question: I asked if you thought you had, and you wrote “yes do you have something to prove? I’m looking for facts not speculation.”

        If you did not really think you’d found proof of Lincoln owning a slave, why did you say “yes”?

        Keep in mind, I’m only dealing in facts here.

      • You avoided this question, which I asked in a comment on the original blog post:

        “Wait–do you really believe you’ve found a document that proves Lincoln and Mary owned a slave?”

        And you replied, “Yes do you have something to prove otherwise? I am looking for facts not speculation.”

        You made that reply 7/17, about 24 hours ago. Brook took a screenshot of that exchange, which you can find here: https://cwcrossroads.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/purvis-lincoln-slave.jpg

        And so again, since you said yesterday that you DID believe you had found a document that proved the Lincolns owned a slave, I am asking why you don’t simply state a retraction of the original post, and say “I made a mistake.” This is not a matter of where you got the doc–this is a matter of I-asked-you-a-direct-question-and-you-said-yes-but-now-you-are-saying-you-never-said-that.

        Which is it to be, sir?

      • Why should I issue a retraction for something that did appear to be true at the time? Now if I recall correctly you are one of those who has not posted any factual information at all. Seems to me Rob Baker carried the ball for your side the entire distance.

        Now again my question is do you have anything you have found that proves otherwise? Yes or No?

      • Because you made a bold accusation. If I made an accusation about you one day, but then the next day discovered that I was wrong–that I misinterpreted the information–it would be incumbent upon me to retract that statement formally. I doesn’t matter if it “appeared to be true at the time.” It also doesn’t matter if it’s a historical figure, because that’s what we’re discussing here. You are using the logic of a tabloid magazine.

        In short, the ethics of a blog (yes, I know, surprisingly there are such things, although it may seem like most people don’t follow them) require the blogger to be honest; and when they make a mistake, ethic require them to cop to their mistake. That tells your readers (me) that you don’t intend to mislead them. It also tells them you make mistakes, which we all do.

        And I don’t need to post any factual information, because I’m not the one making extravagant claims. If I say “The earth goes around the sun,” and you, correctly, say “no, it doesn’t,” I don’t get to say “Prove it!” That would be MY job to prove an extravagant claim. Same with “Lincoln’s slave.”

        If you want my interpretation of secession and the Civil War, supported by the facts, then come to http://junehog.com/. But it is not my job to disprove a notion you had because you read a document wrong.

        And so, Mr. Purvis, I am disappointed. I came to your blog open-minded; that even if I disagreed with your position, I figured you would at least not be dishonest. But unless you retract your assertion, that is exactly what your blog will be.

        And I must say, you’ve shown honor so far; I know many bloggers who simply would not approve my comments; make them disappear. But I’ve got to hand it to you, you’ve been a man of your word. So far.

      • Granted “slave’ was a poor choice of words. Still this just goes to show that Lincoln was not above the idea of having servants and he made no considerations for age as we can see. Still I am not sure that Mary was not an indentured servant.

        I have explained to you twice I think about how this came about. And speaking of blogs I note you post to Simpsons blog. I also find it starnge that you do not speak up regarding the insults on that blog yet you wnat to hold me to a higher standard.

        I do not need you interpation of secession and the Civil war. I have documents that support my position and i have posted them here. on Cold Southern Steel. You are free at any time to post your thought regarding that matter.

      • I was only holding you to a higher standard while dealing with me, here–as I would deal fairly with you had you come to my blog. Brooks and Co. have their own history with you on their blogs, and how they deal with you is their business. For my part, I entered this setting aside their judgements, since I wanted to deal with you fairly.

        But what I find in my very first exchange here is that you are dishonest. Your tale about “how this came to be posted” is not credible–especially since everyone can see what actually happened in the history of the comments.

        You may have a bunch of documents and “facts,” George, but it’s painfully clear you have no idea how to examine them, nor how to arrange them into something resembling a narrative. Indeed, it’s obvious that you have already settled on the narrative you prefer, however untenable that narrative, and facts can and will never penetrate that bubble.

      • You set the standard when you posted with Brooks Simpson. I am not seeking your approval. You posted no facts at all.

        Ok so I am dishonest. You are welcome to your opinion. Allyou have to deal with are the facts. You can either agree with them or not that is your choice. The only requirement I set here is that everyone be civil.

        Anytime you want to challenge facts fell free to do so. I’ll bet in the at the end of the day it will come out that you are just another biased person.

  5. You commentary is implied by the title of your post, “Lincoln and his Slave”

    You did not follow that up with any facts or commentary aside from the document itself. You highlighted said person in question. With the information provide, the title of your post shows your intent. Your follow up comments arguing that she could be a slave, furthers that conclusion.

    The document from the National Park Service is not hard to find. All one has to do is Google ‘M. Johnson Lincoln Servant’ and it comes up as a result. It’s called investigation.

    The honest thing you can do about this post, is to post a response about how your inclinations were wrong about M. Johnson being a slave instead of what she was….a paid employee. Humility goes a long way.

    Her pay, $1.50 per week on high is not that big of a deal. The year in question is 1860, not 2014.

    The “No Irish Need Apply” was for contextual information of the time, and it demonstrates that despite that, Lincoln employed Irish workers.

    • Actually I had searched several websites before I posted the census image. I did not find the NPS website.

      My follow comments were of a generic nature. She could still be an indentured servant for all we know. Boy you are a fine one to talk about honesty. You have told the truth since I first met you. I noted the 1860 and the term servant as well.

      • I know I’ve “told the truth since [you] first met [me].”

        And your comments were not generic. You said point blank in the comments section that you thought M. Johnson was a slave.

      • Which is an indication she was hired help living in the residence. You do know that Census takers took numbers through numbered households right?

      • And so much for the much ballyhooed Yankee knowledge.
        Well let’s see how you like this for honor. I know you never had a clue that this was coming, even though I told you to be civil from the start and mentioned it several times. You should have listened.
        I have put up with your thinly veiled insults long enough. As I always said it is the neo-yankees who always cast the first insult. You serve to prove that case and nothing else. You claim to have some sort of superior integrity and intelligence yet you are the only one who has not brought ANY fact to the table. That being said you are the most useless one on this blog. Unless I get an apology your comments will no longer be approved. You can sit on the sidelines and scratch your butt and pick your nose.

      • Well, what do you expect really? Now he’s switching his rhetoric from “slave” to “indentured servant.” How much history has George dug up to justify such a claim? As much as he did for the slave argument; zero.

      • I have postec my sources. The fact you cannot prove them wrong has your drawers in a wad.

        I have already admitted slave was a por choice iof words. kepp it up and you can join Corey and Shelly on the sidelines. Your last warning

  6. Excellent post George. The wailing hyenas are annoyed because whether slave or free, the Lincoln domestic servant was certainly treated worse than the typical Southern agricultural laborer, whether black or white.

      • Hired female servants were of an abundance in a great many states. They usually tended to the women of the house. To say that the “Lincoln domestic servant was certainly treated worse than the typical Southern agricultural laborer (slave)” is such an asinine and erroneous claim. For starters, how do you know how Lincoln treated his servants? By historical accounts, Lincoln treated them wonderfully so where is your proof to the contrary. See the story of William Johnson (no relation to Mary). Additionally, to say that domestic servants were treated worse than agricultural laborers is a poorly formed argument to begin with. One is domestic work, the other intensive farm work. In its worst natures, one involves being owned, whipped and oppressed; the other, poor wages. Thanks for the watered down George Fitzhugh rhetoric though. I sure do love some Cannibals All!.

      • In an era with no child labor laws, and given the fact that Lincoln himself worked at that age, it isn’t that big of an issue.

      • Well the little girl wasn’t much better than a slave, being hired out being fired.Wonder if she got beat because she didn’t please the Lincolns??? Oh it is nothing just matters in which as a “free” person in which she had no say so.

      • Yea, sure. Except for the part about being an employee that earned wages with the freedom to leave if need be. And to be recognized as a legal citizen of the state/nation with the privileges that entails. But other than that, ya, just like being a slave (he says sarcastically).

        I mean, you’re really just engaging in conjecture now. Honestly, your arguments in the post and subsequent comments arguing that M. Johnson was a slave, owned by the Lincolns, has been proved inaccurate. How long are you going to attempt to warp, twist and manipulate the dynamics of that employee employer relationship? A relationship that you are making up without posting any facts to support your argument. Just post a retraction, and move along.

  7. Well, in an era when “slavery” was perfectly legal in 15 States, and given the fact that as a lawyer Lincoln once represented the interests of a slave-owner, owning “slaves” wasn’t really that big a deal. And claiming that these Southern agricultural laborers were treated worse than Northern workers, or “free” blacks is palpably ignorant and a laughable farce. As for Lincoln in particular, and by all historical accounts, he was an especially cold, ruthless, and cruel man, so it would absolutely shocking to think that he would, in any way, be decent and humane to his underlings. But really, thanks for perpetuating the Pollyanna, superficial, and worthless interpretations of Lincoln. Really, I burst out laughing when I read your typically empty and brainless remarks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s