Rob Baker, The Tea party and History

Rob baker is on the attack again wielding his sword of ignorance at Southern heritage groups, the Tea party and history of the War for Southern Independence.

Here Baker claims the Southern Soldier was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery. Baker offers no proof of his OPINION. However in other discussions with Baker I know he brings as his proof positive for this statement the Declarations of immediate Causes for secession and Stephen’s Cornerstone speech. Of course neither of these documents mentions going to war. On the other hand Baker completely ignores the Crittenden resolution. Corwin Amendment, and Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greely, and the Lincoln quote “what about my tariff.” Each one of these documents will stand on their own and prove the war was not about slavery.
It is easy to expose his ignorance of history here just by referencing the Cold Southern Steel post at
All one has to do is read baker’s comments to see his lack of knowledge of the war.

Baker goes on trying to draw comparisons between the Tea Party and Southern Heritage groups and the use of insults. I cannot see any comparison between the Tea Party and the Confederacy except both are against high taxes. I am sure there are some Northern Tea parties with people in them that have no connection to the South. So Baker what is your point??? I am guilty of insults so is Baker. But there is a difference between the two of us. I never said I wouldn’t insult Baker, Mackey, Dick, Simpson, Levin or Hall. I have no policy on insults. My NEW policy for comments is posted below the articles however at the Cold Southern Steel link posted above Baker claims to have changed his policy regarding insults on his blog. In the comment section we see this comment
Jimmy Dick says:
June 29, 2014 at 1:21 AM
Nice to see Dunford doing the usual running of the mouth while doing no historical work whatsoever. My students are amazed that people like him exist in the world, but then they realize the KKK exists and are supported by Jerry’s kind.

Yes Baker your are correct as you said on your post “but like-minded individuals rarely disagree with one another.”

Borrowed Backsass —- Commenting policy: I will let through what I want to, and block what I want to based on whatever criteria or standards or whim I choose.


19 thoughts on “Rob Baker, The Tea party and History

      • True. I do know what is on your blogs and your arguments about the history of the WBTS. I would image that these arguments or the same slant on history carries over into your classroom.

        It can be said with a huge degree of accuracy that you have no idea why the Confederates were fighting.

      • Yes and you can too when it comes to the Tea Party.

        Ok give it to us, what is your angle here? A few days ago on your blog post your were saying they fought to keep others in bondage.

      • I say “Confederates” as a broad term meaning the CSA, and the soldiers fought for the state which dictated policy. I believe I’ve said time and time again, with much eloquence, that individual soldiers are not the state, and fought for a plethora of reasons. Some did include slavery, others: to see the elephant, conscription, to impress Sally Mae, etc. etc.

      • Yes, the overall war was about slavery. I’ve made that distinction numerous times as well.

        Yea, but that is an irrelevant point since the Union’s policy did not include the preservation of slavery as a goal of conflict.

      • Well then in your own words “Burden Of Proof.” let’s see the documents. You might as well not drag out the Secession Docs and the Cornerstone. Those provenothing.

        Then you cannot say the war was about freeing the slaves especially since west Virginia came into the Union as a slave state. The North did not have to fight to preserve slavery, the institution was already legal in the United States.

      • I’ve never said the intended aim of the war was to free the slaves. And I’ve already cited the documents on the aforementioned post I made.

        There is another document I need to include, I do not have the time to look it up at the moment. It’s Jefferson Davis’s address to Congress immediately after Ft. Sumter. In it, he spends a long time on the history of slavery in the U.S., pointing out the major issue of tension which lead to war.

      • I too have cited documents which absolutely prove the war was not about slavery.

        Bring the Davis speech at you convenience I will read it.

      • You cited some failed attempts at Constitutional amendments which highlight the tension slavery caused. They actually help make my point. Why would Congress attempt to appease the South with the Corwin Amendment, if slavery wasn’t that big of an issue?

      • Thank you have just made my point. The documents i cited are proof positive the war wasn’t about slavery. Instead of of accepting the documents I have cited for what they are you had rather put your slant on them and try to spin history to fit your agenda. They won’t work anymore.

        I am not gonna argue with you as long as your continue to spin history. You are proven wrong, be a man admit it. Bring your facts to the table and prove your point. Leave your arguing at home otherwise I will not approve your comments. Your choice.

      • I’ve actually asked you repeatedly to explain how those documents are “proof positive.” You never do. We are all waiting….And no, the documents do not “speak for themselves.” Those documents are purely legal documents that do not comment on the great rift at hand. So please, add that context; if you can.

      • Have you ever read these documents? You act like you have just heard of them. If you have read them then you know it true when I say the documents speak for themselves. As to your question of why did the North offer these resolutions? The answer is simple, it is what the North thought the South wanted and by keeping the South in the union taxes and money would still flow to the Northern States

        The Corwin Admendment clearly states —
        No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” –Joint Resolution of Congress, Adopted March 2, 1861

        Not only do we have the Corwin adm. but we also have the Crittenden resolution which states—
        Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.
        Both were adopted by the sitting US Congress.

        There is your proof. Now you have these in your hand Your sources will not make a pimple on the backside of these. If slavery was the issue then why in the world didn’t the South take up this offer? It is simple slavery was the issue.

        Now you can explain how the secession docs and the cornerstone speech are declarations of war. Be sure to context if you can. Please show us any proof you have from Yankee or Confederate leaders that state “we are going to war oto preserve slavery.

        Before you reply keep in mind I am not running all over the web as your gofer. If you want to ask silly childish questions, I will simply trash you responses.

        It’s my blog and I’ll do what I want

      • What do they say then George? One document recognizes that the South is upset about slavery. The other document shows the North is waging war for preservation of the Union. Yet again, you fail to prove your point and insist on copying and pasting documents.

      • Well you had your chance, you blew it. I told you about spinning history to fit your agend and acting stupid. This just proves you cannot carry on a serious debate and accept true historical fact. The documents speak for themselves a 5th grader can underrstand that.

        Your responses will no longer be approved

  1. It is an undeniable historical fact that the war was fought over secession, and Abraham Lincoln directly and explicitly said so. This revisionist, idiotic nonsense that the war was fought over slavery is spewed in series of seemingly endless rants by idiots who, rather hilariously, seem to think that by making this fatuous “argument”, they make themselves morally superior. It is a nauseating spectacle and a hopeless charade, and they fool no one.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s