And the hate just goes on

The hate never stops even with a hospital visit. Rob Baker just got out of the hospital or has made his recovery from a surgery and made his first post since coming back. In speaking of another blog Jimmy Dick starts right off insulting Southern heritage which I defended.  Well Rob Baker not being the sharpest tack in the pack, tells me my heritage is only worth insulting, these insults are simply facts and proves my heritage wrong. Of course he and Jimmy Dick together casts about their insults and demeaning remarks while he use the edit button on me and gives me a warning.  I think Baker must be a 13 year old kid that absolutely has to have his way.

Oh the post I made that he deleted. It was to Jimmy Dick’s comment about me and hot air. I replied and this may not be exact— “Speaking of hot air, there is plenty around here with your bad breath or did that stench come from another part of your body?”

Yeah Rob you and Dick hide behind the edit button it is the only way you can beat me.


19 thoughts on “Stupid Things People Say About the Civil War: Part 4”

  1. I have found Dunford and his toadie Carmichael to be the typical neo-confederate libertarian types who merely parrot the Lost Cause garbage in order to justify their uneasy relationship with the real world and their place in it. History is meaningless to them unless they can control its message in order to place themselves in a superior position. There is no discussion with them because they don’t want any discussion that involves facts.

    Furthermore, as we have seen from both of them in Dunford’s new blog there is nothing to learn from them. Both are saying nothing. They have no facts so everything they post is merely their opinion. Why even have a blog and say you’re going to educate people when you fail to do so? You can’t explain anything to them because they don’t want to hear anything that goes against their beliefs even when you show them the facts. It is an incredible amount of willful ignorance built upon the denial of anything they don’t want to hear.

    I will not be returning to that blog as it is a waste of time. Jerry has threatened one poster with rape while Carmichael threatens violence to everyone he disagrees with while hiding behind a fake name. In that aspect they’re just your typical Tea Party type in that they have to resort to force to get their way when their views are rejected by the majority. Then they want to use the law to force people to do what Jerry and Carmichael want when they of course don’t want the government to make them do anything they don’t want. They fail to see the paradox.

    What can you expect of people with limited intelligence?

  2. Rob ,

    Posted to Brook’s blog.

    Let me say this, I have a great disliking for most of your buddies because of their twisted views of history, their insults (you know who you are, their forwardness and their lies i.e., Levin, Mackey, Hall, and Meyer. The others I didn’t mention I can tolerate to some degree. That being said, and in the case of Dunford I have use of his language at all. I was going to make a halfhearted stand against some the comments you fellows made on his post, but after reading some of his comments to other people, I really don’t want my name associated with him.
    I do agree with one statement he made, if you insult me or my heritage expect the same in return

    George Purvis
    Website: Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education
    Blog: Cold Southern Steel

      • Like I said just an opinion of yours. True history is on the side of the South. Not my fault you haven’t a clue. Man I love this, glad you decided to go back to exchanging insults, I can do this forever. I sure missed you when you were down.

        • This post isn’t about the “true story” {which is



          on the side of the South}. And you won’t be exchanging insults. Comments about someone’s statements are fine, direct personal insults are blocked. You know the rules George.

    • Heritage? We are not heritage supporters. We are historians. There is a huge difference.

      “History is about the past exclusively and the modalities are inquire and understanding. Heritage is how we use the past and see it in the present. It is more about cultured identity and affirmation. The past doesn’t change.” Ray Raphael

        • I’d say he is, since he is published, has a degree and teaches at the college level. You run an internet site dedicated to cherry picked quotes void of context and analysis.

          Regardless, stay on topic.


Al Mackey = Al Bundy

Al Mackey  rushing headlong  in the vast expanse of the web  looking for any morsel of media bits reminds to attack Southerners and the Confederacy, reminds me of Al Bundy searching his refrigerator looking for food. He will take any little piece of garbage he can find!!!!!!!!

And some of these same neo-yankees that followed him had the gall to call me a troll!!!!!!!!

Al Mackey playing in the sewers

Mackey likes to holler about hate and not history and racism  when insulting Southern researchers. Looks like he should shed his hate and bigotry and not be in such a hurry to attack anything Southern. Now he has to eat crow!!!!!!  LOL LOL LOL What an idiot.

he is referring to this story found at a hip hop website—

I know they are not racist or biased— yeah right. To their credit, not one person on Mackey’s blog bought into his trashy post.

For the true story go to

Now tell me couldn’t this just be a story about a proud descendant of the Confederacy fighting to save another persons property regardless of the hate and bigotry shown towards the Confederate Battleflag?

In the near future I will be making some posts on a racist banner. Mackey you had better pull your panties up good and tight.

We Are Fighting for Independence, Not Slavery

Well we have it folks solid proof the war wasn’t about slavery. Al Mackey, and many other neo-yankees, have gone out of their way to try to prove slavery was the cause of the war, however historical documents prove otherwise. Nice try boys.

Richmond Examiner editorial


August 02, 1864

Mr. Davis, in conversation with a Yankee spy, named Edward Kirk, is reported by said spy to have said, “We are not fighting for slavery; we are fighting for independence.” This is true; and is a truth that has not sufficiently been dwelt upon. It would have been very much to be desired that this functionary had developed the idea in some message, or some other State paper… instead of leaving it to be promulgated through the doubtful report of an impudent blockade-runner.… The sentiment is true, and should be publicly uttered and kept conspicuously in view; because our enemies have diligently labored to make all mankind believe that the people of these States have set up a pretended State sovereignty, and based themselves upon that ostensibly, while their real object has been only to preserve to themselves the property in so many negroes, worth so many millions of dollars. The direct reverse is the truth. The question of slavery is only one of the minor issues; and the cause of the war, the whole cause, on our part, is the maintenance of the sovereign independence of these States.…

The whole cause of our resistance was and is, the pretension and full determination of the Northern States to use their preponderance in the Federal representation, in order to govern the Southern States for their profit. . Slavery was the immediate occasion–carefully made so by them–it was not the cause. The tariff… would have much more accurately represented, though it did not cover, or exhaust, the real cause of the quarrel. Yet neither tariffs nor slavery, nor both together, could ever have been truly called the cause of the secession and the war. We refuse to accept for a cause any thing… than that truly announced, namely, the sovereign independence of our States. This, indeed, includes both those minor questions, as well as many others yet graver and higher. It includes full power to regulate our trade for our own profit, and also complete jurisdiction over our own social and domestic institutions; but it further involves all the nobler attributes of national, and even of individual life and character. A community which once submits to be schooled, dictated to, legislated for, by any other, soon grows poor in spirit;… its citizens, become a kind of half-men, [and] feel that they have hardly a right to walk in the sun.…

The people of Virginia do not choose to accept that position for themselves and for their children. They choose rather to die. They own a noble country, which their fathers created, exalted, and transmitted to them.… That inheritance we intend to own while we live, and leave intact to those who are to come after us.…

It is right to let foreign nations, and “those whom it may concern,” understand this theory of our independence. Let them understand that, though we are “not fighting for slavery,” we will not allow ourselves to be dictated to in regard to slavery or any other of our internal affairs, not because thatwould diminish our interest in any property, but because it touches our independence.

New England Federalists and their Secession Doctrine

New England Federalists and their Secession Doctrine

 An irony in American history has the doctrine of secession originating in the South when it was first advanced by New England over the issue of Louisiana’s admission to Statehood. Jefferson and Madison, both Southerners, opposed secession; New England Federalists demanded it.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
“Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty”
“The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial”
New England Federalists and their Secession Doctrine
“The final political phenomenon to arise out of the North-South competition of the 1790s was the doctrine of Secession.  It represented the death rattle of the Federalist party.  The pivotal year was 1800 when the Democratic leaders Jefferson and Burr succeeded in putting together a coalition of the have-nots of the country – the agriculturalists of the South and the proletarians of the Northern cities.  They won control of the nation.
The Federalist party survived another sixteen years, although it never again won control of the House, Senate or presidency.  It did not take defeat well.
Barely three years after the Democratic rout, Northern Federalists began arguing for the secession of the New England States from the Union. There was nothing understated about their secessionist position. It was widespread, and if it could not be done peaceably, they said, it should be done violently.
Listen to one of the many secessionists, Josiah Quincy III, scion of the New England Quincy’s, future mayor of Boston and future president of Harvard University.  In 1811 he was a thirty-eight-year-old congressman standing opposed to the admission of Louisiana as a State:
“It is my deliberate opinion,” he said, “that if this bill passes, the bonds of this union are virtually dissolved, that the States which compose it are free from their moral obligations, and that as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some to prepare, definitely, for a separation; amicably if they can; violently if they must.”
One man who listened carefully that year was a freshman congressman from South Carolina. He was John C. Calhoun, who had been taught the secessionist doctrine in the law schools of New England, who had listened to it in the Congress, and who would one day carry it back down South . . . . Meanwhile, it is an unfair stroke that history has identified the South with secession when in fact the earliest and clearest arguments against it were proposed by Jefferson and Madison.
The creators of secession doctrine, and the teachers of it from 1800 to 1817, were New England Federalists.” 
(The Natural Superiority of Southern Politicians, A Revisionist History, David Leon Chandler, Doubleday & Company, 1977, pp. 114-116)