From the Holler???

“Then Sir we will give them the bayonet”

From The Holler —-

As Rob Baker says “holler’ is a low place between two hills or mountains depending on where you live. It is a corruption of the word hollow, no real substance there, like Baker’s head. This is also the new name for his hate filled comments not worthy of a full-page.  I shall call mine what ever I want!!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL

 At any rate it seems that Baker is gloating about the Confederate Battle Flag coming under fire at Washington and Lee University. Figures that a bigot would love such a controversy.

I also am beginning to think Baker is so ashamed of being white, that he would readily change skin colors if he could. Just take for example over on the Cold Southern steel page at Baker defends fifthly rap music and tells us fifthly language is to be found in Dixie. Of course he has to leave in a huff after proclaiming that Dixie (performed by a Yankee minstrel group) makes fun of blacks. Of he never shows us the filthy language.

Now Baker with his “from the Holler” shorts has posted a video of the Rolling Stones performing “Paint it Black.”  Baker I hate to be the one to tell you but this song has nothing to do with race. Do you wat to challenge me on that???

No I am not going to tell you what it is about, read the lyrics and do some research on Jagger, maybe you will get a clue. Jagger may even convince you to try a little “Brown Sugar” if you are not too prejudiced!!!!!



More from a historian

“Then Sir, we will give them the bayonet”

Rob Baker, a HIGH SCHOOL “history” teacher, made the statement below  on Cold Southern Steel page at  “The filthy language is apparent in Dixie…it used to be a minstrel tune that made fun of black people”.

Remember he also said the same thing about Grand Funk Railroad’s “We’re an American Band”  I think he has now either removed his original post or edited that post to a website that displays the lyrics to “American Band”  Go there and find filthy language if you dare!!!

Hummm is that so? Well if that is so then I would love Rob “TuPac” Baker to point out the fifthly language in Dixie or American Band.  I want to see it. Should not be a problem just copy and paste and then I will admit I am wrong.

But wait TuPac has left this blog!!! It appears he was getting his butt kicked again so he up and leaves. Can’t get his hand on the edit/delete button or ban anyone here, so he does the next best thing, he leaves in a huff. LOL LOL LOL

Now as to TuPac being a historian, well folks he is just not. He is biased and prejudiced in  his views and goes out of his way to corrupt the truth. Not the mark of a good historian. You may say well George you are biased in your views. Sure I am I admit I am, but the difference is historical fact supports my views where Tupac’s is easily exposed as untrue, For example–

If Tupac Baker was any sort of historian he would know that Dixie was written and performed by a Yankee minstrel company. He would know that Dixie was one of, if not Lincoln’s favorite song. These are facts  and they are posted at

 A good historian would at least look up the lyrics to a song before posting a song offensive, but TuPac Baker is no historian .

Thoughts about a “real historian”

“Then Sir, we will give them the bayonet” Stonewall Jackson

Just got an email notification that Rob Baker, a “real historian” has put up a page attacking the Virginia flaggers in Richmond. Go to

Wonder why a “real historian” has to go around attacking another persons heritage and casting about charges of racism? Can’t he let the facts speak for themselves?

In this page Baker tells an out untruth in saying this– “I personally do not have a problem with words. Now of course, I am considerate of others.”

Not so. Baker has edited and deleted many of my posts for the most ridiculous reasons you can imagine and recently banned me on some trumped-up charge of racism. That is okay Baker; you still haven’t quieted me down. My invitation is still open for you to join SHAPE and put me in my place. Quit hiding behind your trashy blog and come out in the open. If you want you can face me here I am sure Connie (at Backsass– would provide the space. How do you know the CBF the flaggers are using are made in China? Bet neither you nor Mackey got close enough to find out!!!!!! The same Chinese company that makes the CBF more than likely also makes the United States flag!!!!!

Oh yeah I also got a notification about another page you took down What is wrong “we’re An American Band wasn’t offensive enough for you?

Perhaps you would be more offended by Paul Revere and The Raiders “Boys in the Band’ here are just a bit of the lyrics—

“Mississippi’s on the drums and the bass guitar is from Texas
And the organ bossman and the singer was raised in the Northwest
Now the electric guitars come far from the heart of the South land
And now with your permission now we’ll listen to the boys in the band”

And I bet Elvis’s “Dixie” just drives you mad doesn’t it ????? LOL LOL LOL

The Morrill Tax


Walter E. Williams Polishes the Turd on Tariffs

The blog page above is the title and link To Andy Hall’s thoughts on the Morrill tax as a cause of secession. I won’t dispute anything Hall says because the issue  not what the tariff rates of the day were; but what was coming down the pike at the Southern  merchants. It is a known fact that the Morrill tariff did not pass until some of the Southern representatives had left Congress.

Not claiming to be one knowledgeable in the economics of the situation; I went looking for some good solid references. I have found newspaper articles and articles from historians who agree the Morrill tariff was a cause of secession.

You may read what I have found to date at 

and see some rarely discussed issues facing the South.

A Peaceful Secession

Then Sir, we will give them the bayonet –Stonewall Jackson.

The DAILY PRESS. ( Cincinnati, Ohio)

Official Paper of the city.
Wednesday ……. November 21 (1860)

The Right of Peaceful Secession

The thing that politician in their haste, are most likely to overlook in the organic principle of their own government, perhaps it night be laid that this is the thing of which, in general, they have the least practical conception. We all admit that the organic principle of our form of polity is the right of self-government the will of the people constantly active in the frame-work and administration. We hold that that right of self-government is a native right, inherent in humanity, and vested, for its own purposes, in every body of people; and yet we are prone to forget that, as a corollary from this idea, we have no title to impose any species of constraint upon the self-governing power of other communities.

So it has been in all ages of the world. The Grecian Republics saw nothing in consistent in their claim to exercise despotic authority over their provinces. The Republics of Switzerland had their subject cantons, which they taxed and governed regardless of the principle upon which they founded their own title to independence; and the people of the thirty odd Republics of the United States find it impossible to get over the notion that their brethren in the Territories need some sort of outside permission before they can attain to the right to govern themselves.

South Carolina we employ the name of a single State to indicate the whole of those be they more or less, who assume a similar position South Carolina talk of seceding from the Confederacy of North American States; and the question urgent in proportion to the probability that she will carry her talk into effect is, What then? We suspect that the question is purely a fancy one; like thousands of others which the people will, and therefore the journals are obliged to discuss but it is up; and we should be, as the orators say, ”recreant to our duty,” if we should fail to meet it with a solemnity commensurate with its possible importance.

We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute that, in other words, if South Carolina wants to go out of the Union, she has the right to do so, and no party or power may justly say her nay. This we supposed to be the doctrine of the Declaration of, Independence when it affirms that governments are instituted for the protection of men in their lives, liberties, and the pursuit of happiness ; and that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new’ government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

Whether the Government of the United States is such an one as is best calculated to protect the lives, liberties and so forth, of the people of South Carolina, is a question which they alone are legally qualified to decide. We may have our opinions; but our opinions, whatever they may be, are not, and cannot be made, binding upon them. When the people of the British Colonies declared the Government of the Mother Country in tolerable, tbey did it as the result of their own reflection and experience: nor did they deem it necessary to inquire whether King George, his counsellors or his home subjects, concurred in their convictions. They thought it wrong and a burden, and therefore they threw it off. The world has pronounced a clear verdict in favor of their right to choose, and of the correctness of their conclusions.

If this view of the legal Aspects of the case is correct, it goes to settle the entire
.question. What is to be done? Simply nothing. Will we go to imitate the conduct of the “British tyrant,” which we have in many thousand forms condemned, and send armies and navies to South Carolina to reduce her to subjection? The idea of forcing men to belong to and carry on their share of the machinery of a government of which the very essence is the free will of the constituent parts to act as they please, or not to act if they prefer, is to the last degree preposterous. Let South Carolina, in God’s name, go if she wants to. The fact that she does want to, constitutes all. The titlo that is necessary. Let her go in peace. and the States of the North would be violators of the fundamental doctrine of the Declaration of American Independence, if they should take any forcible measures to prevent her departure.

If our opinion were asked upon the point, we should say that South Carolina has no good reason to offer for leaving the Union, nor any substantial cause of complaintagainst it, and that her conduct at the present time is as unjust in its professed aims as it is ridiculous in its demonstrations. But this misjudgment and folly works no disfranchisement. She has still the right to judge, and to act upon her judgment; and the only party to which she is responsible for the correctness of her decision is herself.

It’s a curious circumstance, however, that is in the South we find the advocates both the right of secession and of the right of coercion. The general voice of the North we believe, in favor of permitting South Carolina to go out of the Union, or not t go out of it, as she prefers. It is otherwise with the South, where the doctrine of the right of coercion pretty generally obtains. The South may, therefore, be quite safely left to itself; nor is it improbable that upon this very point of the right of peaceable secession there will be an almost irrepressible conflict.

Who Owned Fort Sumter?

Then sir  we will give them the bayonet! Stonewall Jackson

That is exactly what I am going to do to Al Mackey’s page  at

Here Mackey makes his case for the Union’s ownership of Fort Sumter. Most of what he says is true. I am unsure of the exact location of Sumter if it is not in the description of land described in the Fort Moultrie survey or not. That issue really doesn’t matter . What matters is this Mackey left out one important part of the Fort Moultrie document. That would be this part which is really, in relation to Sumter the only part that matters—

“That, if the United States shall not, within three years from the passing of this act, and notification thereof by the governor of this State to the Executive of the United States, repair the fortifications now existing thereon, or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein, in such case this grant or cession shall be void and of no effect.”

Now Mackey claims Fort Sumter is not addressed. The portion above in bold black clearly addresses any and all forts in Charleston Harbor, past, present and future.

Now to be fair I am currently looking through the Congressional record and viewing any and all information I can find on this matter. If there is evidence that Sumter is not covered by these conditions I will post to the Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education website at