Al Mackey prove your statement

Confederate Heritage Advocates Don’t Know History

AS I have told you Mackey, anytime, any place, how about right here. I don’t mind you showing your bigotry and ignorance on my forum. You banned me from your cheap, lying blog because you could not stand to be proven wrong. You, like many others cut from the same cloth of ignorance and bigotry won’t come out from your little turtle shell of protection and have an honest debate.


Who Owned Fort Sumter 2

South Carolina’s Fort Sumter:

“This claim of property “belonging to the Government” rested on a very weak foundation, as a brief history of the terms on which the United States acquired their title to it will make clear.

The States conferred upon the Congress the power “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever…over all the places purchased by the consent of the legislatures of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.” While Mr. Jefferson was Secretary of State, he wrote to the authorities of South Carolina, and advised that her Legislature consent for the Congress to purchase certain lands. This was done, but exclusive jurisdiction was denied.

The act was passed December 12, 1795 (House Ex. Doc., Number 67, 2nd Session, 23d Congress) “to enable the United States to purchase a quantity of land in this State, not exceeding two thousand acres, for arsenals and magazines.” And it provided, “that the said land, when purchased, and every person and officer residing or employed thereon, whether in the service of the United States or not, shall be subject and liable to the government of this State, and the jurisdiction, laws and authority thereof in the same manner as if this act had never been passed; and that the United States shall exercise no more authority or power within the limits of the said land, than they might have done pervious to the passing of this act, or than may be necessary for the building, repairing, internal government of the arsenals and magazines thereon to be erected, and the regulation and management of the same, and of the officers and persons by them to be employed in or about the same.” But there was a proviso that the land should not be taxed by the State.

But this act did not transfer from the State her title to the forts and other defensive works in Charleston Harbor, which she built during the Revolution. The transfer was made by an act passed in 1805, to which the following proviso was added: “That, if the United States shall not, within three years from the passing of this act…repair the fortifications as may be deemed most expedient, etc., on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein; in such case this grant or cession shall be void and of no effect.”

This proviso was disregarded by the United States, the defensive works, including Fort Moultrie, were neglected for years, and Fort Sumter was not commenced till 1829. According to all the laws of justice, therefore, the title to the property reverted to the State, and the repairing and building were carried on solely by the sufferance of the State. Thus it is clear to anybody who respects the laws governing property titles that the United States occupied the defensive works in the harbor of Charleston without any legal rights of ownership; and since the money spent in building came out of the pockets of the people of all the States, it cannot be disputed that whatever equitable rights were acquired belonged to the seceded States as well as to the others. And it is equally clear that South Carolina never surrendered her sovereignty over the sites of the forts and other defensive works.”

(Note: Neither South Carolina nor any other State was paid anything out of the Federal Treasury to reimburse her for her expenses incurred in erecting defensive works in her harbors during the Revolution, nor for cessions of State lands.—See Act of March 20, 1794)

(The Case of the South Against the North, B.F. Grady, Edwards & Broughton, 1899, pp. 286-288)

Wo owned Fort Sumter?

That is the question Al Mackey asks at

That would depend on how you stand on the value and integrity of a binding contract. Mackey gives us some background on the fort(s0 in Charleston harbor, which I will not revisit because I think most people already know the history.

Mackey also gives us South Carolina’s Statues at large which turns over land around Charleston Harbor to the Federal government for building forts for the purpose of PROTECTING CHARLESTON This was part of the plan to build forts on the coastal areas to at least Ship Island, Mississippi for the DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mackey goes on to post history of the transaction, which does nothing but confuse the issue. I am going right to the heart of the matter.

Note this agreement between South Carolina and The United States.—

Note the part of this agreement that says the work will be completed in three years. Mackey says nothing in the doc refers to Sumter, holy cow this is an educator and he doesn’t see the line that says “other forts?” No matter if the document as Mackey says does not refer to Sumter as Mackey says —
Nothing in the area covered by the statute pertains to Fort Sumter. Further, the statute was written in 1805, long before building Fort Sumter was ever contemplated, and 1808, which is three years after the statute as delineated within, was also long before Fort Sumter was ever contemplated

Then it just doesn’t. Mackey just admitted he is doing nothing but using smoke and mirrors to try and put the wool over our head.

Mackey then trying to confuse the issue moves to another resolution that covers FORT SUMTER Let us take a look shall we—

HUMMM I see the description of the fort and the same agreements still in place. So what has changed??? Look up just above Castle Pinckney, what date do you see? 1901!!!! Hardly a resolution authorizing the building of Fort Sumter. Mackey’s resolution is a farce!!!!!

Well it is no matter, regardless of who owned Fort Sumter, the fact of the matter is there was a gentleman’s agreement and orders that Maj. Anderson would not do anything to upset the South Carolina commissioners and add fuel to the hostilities. History shows us that order and agreement was not honored.

It is that simple.

Not the Cause of War

Nick Sacco ask at his blog page here

where can you go to find source documents of the causes of the Civil War.he goes on to tell you to checkout a website here

I glanced at the website, it is well-done and easy to navigate. I give the author an A for that. As far as content, it really is hardly anything of use there. As usual you can find your speeches made by Southerners which is supposed to proclaim slavery as the cause. Very little on the actual causes of the war. for content I would give him a C. I say go there waste some time reading and increase your knowledge.

Mr. Sacco also suggests that you view the Secessi0on documents as a source for finding the cause of the war. Go ahead and read them but make sure you get the unedited version. A quick search of said website leads me to believe that these are the unedited versions. Sure read them they are a valuable source of info.

Perhaps Mr. Sacco will be kind enough to tell us what the Secession documents are all about. Give us the cause if you will.

My opinion is this you are not going to find the cause of the war in the secession docs. They are just what the title implies “causes of secession” a list of grievances if it please you. They DO NOT ven come close in telling what the war was about.

Email from a friend

This is an email from my friend Jimmy Shirley. Jimmy is on the front lines of these Confederate issues day in and day out. I ask you to support, any way you can, Jimmy and the many other people who fight these battles everyday.


Not my first dance with the PBPost.
I am barely quoted after nearly 45 minutes on the phone, quoted not in sequence and certainly not in context.
Jimmy L. Shirley Jr.

Here we go again

NEW: Confederate statue in public cemetery sparks debate in West Palm

Paige Fry  Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
1:43 p.m Tuesday, June 13, 2017  Local News

This monument bearing the Confederate flag is near the front entrance of Woodlawn Cemetery in West Palm Beach. (Bill Ingram / Palm Beach Post)

As pieces of history honoring the Confederacy fall from city to city, the mayor of West Palm Beach has one monument left that honors the rebel army’s veterans in her city. It’s been there since 1941, but as markers to the Confederacy fall in other cities, its presence is sparking new debate.

Standing directly behind the American flag, the 10-foot tall marble monument is unmistakable when visitors drive through the front gate of Woodlawn Cemetery. A Confederate flag is carved into the side with words honoring that army’s soldiers who are buried there. Early in her term, Mayor Jeri Muoio worked to remove all Confederate flags and symbols on city property, but the monument is owned by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
Some recognize the monument as a piece of history that honors the buried veterans. Others call it a racist tribute and demand its removal.
“My preference would be that the monument just disappears,” Muoio said. “I think the history that it stands for is racism.”

Cemetery marks its own history: 100 years owned by West Palm Beach
Florida was pro-South in the Civil War and the third state to secede. After the war, the bankrupt state started to attract migration through tourism, which is why it’s common to find Union and Confederate veterans buried at places like Woodlawn.

The Historical Society of Palm Beach County’s website lists more than 20 veterans of the war buried at Woodlawn. Debi Murray, the society’s chief curator, said some remains from Pioneer Cemetery, which used to be across Dixie Highway from Woodlawn, were relocated to the newer cemetery after it opened in 1904, and Civil War veterans who died after that year also were buried there.

Yet blacks weren’t allowed to be buried in the cemetery until 1966, when under pressure the City Commission approved it. Under that rule, 69 white victims of the 1928 hurricane were buried at Woodlawn while 674 black victims were anonymously dumped into a mass grave at 25th Street and Tamarind Avenue.

The issue of the Woodlawn monument to the Confederacy rose again in May. A 116-year-old monument of Confederacy President Jefferson Davis was taken down in New Orleans on May 11. It was the second statue of the kind in that city to removed this year.

On May 22, less than two weeks after the New Orleans monument fell, William McCray, who is known for his passionate appeals to city commissioners for racial equality and his past lawsuits against the city, demanded for the removal of his city’s own monument.

“Woodlawn Cemetery, that’s where you bury white people. They wouldn’t even sell caskets to black people,” McCray said at the meeting. “And it hasn’t been that long ago.”
McCray said it was disgraceful that West Palm Beach officials won’t take down their own “vestiges of racism and discrimination and hatred” while white officials in North Carolina and the mayor of New Orleans are striking down their own.

“Other places in the heart of Dixie have more courage and fortitude than any of you,” he said.

Muoio responded to McCray saying that he forgot the city took down all the Confederate flags in the area several years, and the city hasn’t been able to take the monument down yet because it’s not owned by the city.

During an interview with The Palm Beach Post on Friday, Muoio said the city has been trying to contact the United Daughters of The Confederacy to have them remove the monument from the cemetery, which is public property. The city’s law department has also been investigating if the city can tell them to move the monument.

She said she only heard positive responses when she removed all Confederate flags on city public property.

Jimmy Shirley of Palm Springs, camp commander of Sons of Confederate Veterans camp 1599, said he’s angry the mayor is considering taking down the monument and that she should back off. It’s in a cemetery, not in front of the courthouse, he said.
“This honors the men who were buried there,” he said. “It’s where it’s supposed to be.”

Shirley said even though the cemetery is technically public, people buy plots on the land. He said the Confederate’s history deserves to be told along with the Union’s side. Children should know fully about the American Civil War to understand the foundations of the country, so to take down the monument would be misguided and wrong, he said.
“History can’t be erased, but it can be hidden,” he said.

Civil War Monuments

Al Mackey has written more than one article about the removal of Confederate Monuments. So many in facts I just do not read them any more. Why? Well anyone who has followed Mackey’s writing for any length of time knows he doesn’t like anything Confederate. Also he cannot come up with any good reason, rooted in history, for the removal of these monuments. I admit Mackey has never came right out and admitted he advocates these removal, you can just about see the joy in his writings when such action is taken.

Now I really do not care what the reasons Mackey gives for the removal, they are nothing more than lies. The true reasons are ignorance, bigotry, hate and yes racism. Nothing more to say about that.

John S. Mosby quote

This quote “I’ve always understood that we went to war on account of the thing we quarreled with the north about. I’ve never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery.” is often used by the “other side” as proof positive the Confederacy was fighting the war to preserve slavery. Those that use this quote fail to understand that Mosby was not a policy maker for the Confederate government. In fact most fail to realize that John S. Mosby went into the Confederate Army as a private.

This quote is found in many places on the web without a source. It appears that so many were so anxious to take a swipe at the Confederacy and prove their “knowledge of the causes all they did was copy and paste the quote from one website to another. No research what-so-ever. Nothing about context or content.

I admit the quote was not easy to find, in fact I had to go to someone who is an authority on Mosby and ask for help. After a few days of digging this is what she came up with—-

New York Tribune – November 17th, 1907

Colonel John S. Mosby, the famous cavalry leader of the Southern army, is as keen with his tongue as he was with his sword when it spread panic through the Federal outposts in the 60’s.
He has always maintained that the South went to war over slavery, not secession, as claimed by later apologists of that section. One evening, while sitting in the Occidental Hotel in San Francisco, a fire eating ex-Confederate from Alabama approached him and entered into a lengthy dissertation to prove that the South had never fought to perpetuate slavery, but only in defense of “States’ Rights.”

Colonel Mosby bore it in silence for a time, but finally, growing impatient, “Look here,” he interrupted, “what were we quarreling with the North about from the time of the Missouri Compromise in 1820 to the day Sumter was fired on? Slavery, wasn’t it?”

“Ye-e-es,” reluctantly admitted the other.

“Well,” continued Colonel Mosby dryly, “during the four years I was in the Southern army I was always under the impression we were fighting about the same thing we had been quarreling about.”

His course in voting from Grant in 1872 was bitterly resented by many of his old comrades of the Virginia army, and in the heat of politics, it was charged that he had deserted the Southern cause; and this, though in actual war he had kept his battle front for three weeks after Lee had surrendered.

“Colonel Mosby,” said an Englishwoman who had heard these charges, “is it true that you deserted Lee’s army?”

“No, madam,” replied the Colonel. “Lee’s army deserted me.”

After the war a soldier said to him, “General Blank says that he’s tired of all this talk about your men having done all the fighting that was done on the Southern side,” to the Colonel. “What shall I tell him you say about it.”

Colonel Mosby read the man’s malicious intention. “You tell General Blank that I say I am too.” Was the Delphinian response.

A Southern General who was invited to address Mosby’s men at one of the reunions drew a contrast between “the poor regulars sleeping in wet trenches and living on hard-tack” and Mosby’s men, “sleeping in feather beds and living on the fat of the land.”

Colonel Mosby was not present, but the remark came to his ears. “In war,” was his comment, “the paramount duties of a commander are two: To take the best possible care of his own troops and to inflict the greatest possible damage upon the enemy. Now, if I kept my troops in such comfort and even luxury as General Blank maintains I did, and if I inflicted on the enemy as much damage as the official reports of the Northern officers admit I did, then instead of criticizing me, General Blank ought to rank me as a greater military leader than Napoleon.”

Not that Mosby was in the middle of an argument when the quote was made. Did he make the quote to agitate his opponent? Did he really believe this, what was his knowledge of the cause of the war? Had he ever heard of the 13th or Ghost Amendment?

Note the image is hard to read and without the aid of another researcher, I would not have the text.

To be honest I am sure some men fought for the institution of slavery, just as some fought tofree the slaves. As I have said over and over slavery was not the cause of the war. To date not one person has proven, with credible sources, that slavery was the cause of the war.