Two More Problems With Neoconfederates

Al Mackey says that neo-Confederates have two more problems

I know one of them, is we catch Mackey spinning the truth every time can anyone name the other?
At the above blog post Mackey posts a snapshot of what is a Facebook page. He goes on to say that “unilateral secession is not a legal act.” Yet he fails to prove this point by posting any sort of document to support his statement. The Constitution does not address secession.
Mackey’s next comment is this — “Notice they all accept the claim that West Virginia was formed by ignoring the Constitution. That’s pure baloney, and they don’t understand anything about it.”
Then he post this “First, as the article states, the Constitution says, in Article IV, Section 3, “… no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
He goes on to say that the legal government of Virginia did approve the creation of West Virginia, that legal government being the Restored Government of Virginia. First let’s just clear up a small fact, the Restored government of Virginia was not elected by all of the voters in the state of Virginia as was the government in Richmond.

Mackey then goes on to post a link to the Restored government he continues to proclaim the “rebellion was illegal but fails to prove that point and even notes a court case that he also cites another portion of the constitution that states “Under this article of the Constitution it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State. For as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not.”

That article was met when Virginia joined the Union at which time there was no West Virginia.

The fact that US Congress approved of the actions of the Restored government is no surprise as proven by this article at
Which tells us this “The Restored Government of Virginia, or the Reorganized Government of Virginia,[1] was the Unionist government of Virginia during the American Civil War. From 1861 until mid-1863 it met in Wheeling, and from 26 August 1863 until June 1865 it met in Alexandria. However, it claimed Richmond as the capital. The Restored Government had only executive and legislative branches; it did not form a judicial branch.’

Mackey as usual goes on with his insults but it does appear to me that Mackey is the one lacking in knowledge or more precisely the truth.


One Problem With Neoconfederates

According to Al Mackey at his blog post those of us he terms as Neo-Confederates has one problem. Well if that is the case I just can’t think of any except we may be to honest. Is that really a problem?

At any rate Mackey is going on, posting his ignorance for public display chanting Grant freed his only slave he did not on any, it was his wife through inheritance. That so Mackey??/ Boy are you dumb.

I will not address grant and his slaves again since I have already did that one time, the same as i did with Robert E. lee. I will just make this short and sweet. If Lee owned slaves at Arlington, through inheritance, then so did Grant. Nothing left to say about that issue.

An Excellent article from Al Mackey.

Be advised this door swings both ways. It has been countless times I have caught Al Mackey, Brooks Simpson and Rob Baker revising history to fit their agenda. What do they do when I point out these errors ? They ban me. Theat fact can be proven just by looking at the mentioned blogs.

So I made a mistake I should have used indentured servant instead of slave in my Lincoln post I said that several time admitting that it was a poor choice of words. These fellows have never admitted the slightest mistake. I’ll leave it at that.

Brooks don’t forget you pingbacks ya hea??????


Revisionist History

You’ve heard it before. Perhaps you’ve even used the term. “That’s revisionist history!” “Those people are revising history!” “S/He’s a revisionist!” People who use that term talk like it’s a bad thing to revise history. Is it?

I think we need to start first with understanding what we’re talking about by “history.” I like to start with the dictionary.

his·to·ry noun \ˈhis-t(ə-)rē\

: the study of past events

: events of the past

: past events that relate to a particular subject, place, organization, etc.

plural his·to·ries
CloseStyle: MLA APA Chicago

Full Definition of HISTORY
1 : tale, story
2 a : a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes
b : a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena
c : an account of a patient’s medical background
d : an established record
3 : a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events
4 a : events that form the subject matter of a history
b : events of the past
c : one that is finished or done for
d : previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)
Examples of HISTORY
1.I studied history in college.
2.a professor of medieval history
3.They were one of the greatest teams in history.
4.It was one of the most destructive storms in modern history.
5.It was a period in American history when most people lived and worked on farms.
6.The history of space exploration is a fascinating topic.
7.He wrote a well-known history of the British empire.
8.The book begins with a brief history of the Internet.
Origin of HISTORY

Middle English histoire, historie, from Anglo-French estoire, histoire, from Latin historia, from Greek, inquiry, history, from histōr, istōr knowing, learned; akin to Greek eidenai to know
First Known Use: 14th century
For this particular topic, this definition is applicable: “a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes.”
We’re talking here about written history of events, and specifically secondary sources. See a discussion of sources here, and primary sources in particular here.
When talking about “revising history,” we’re talking about revising secondary sources, not primary sources. A primary source doesn’t get revised. It’s contemporaneous testimony from someone who was there. What gets revised is our understanding of what those primary sources mean.
Now we need to talk a little bit about how historians work. They start by asking a question regarding a historical event. To answer that question they do research in primary and secondary sources to find out what happened. Based on their research and their insight into the event they come to a conclusion on the answer to their question and conclusions about the event. Answering that question leads to other questions to be answered, which are researched, and so on until they have findings about that historical event. Then they publish their findings and those findings are reviewed by other historians to ensure they’ve handled the evidence correctly. You can see more on this here, here, and here.
A conclusion about a historical event based on primary source evidence is one that can be defended.

If enough people are convinced of its accuracy, it then becomes the dominant interpretation of the event. Unfortunately, we don’t have 100% complete information about any event. We obviously can’t read the minds of people who lived many years ago, so we have to rely on the historical record which consists of written evidence, archaeological evidence, and other records. Also, each historical actor experienced the same event in different ways, so what one person writes may differ markedly from what another person writes, and both could be correct. Because we don’t have 100% certainty we have to interpret the past. See here and here for two perspectives on this. If there was not going to be any revision of interpretation, then all we would need to do is have one book about each historical event. You’d read that book and that’s all you would need to know. But things change. New evidence is uncovered. Perhaps someone finds an old book and some letters are in the book. Or perhaps a trunk filled with letters that has been in storage is discovered. These new letters are additional evidence, and perhaps they impact our understanding of a historical event. The new evidence just might mean we have to alter our interpretation of the event. In other words, we have to revise our interpretation. Another way historical interpretation is revised is if we approach an event from a different perspective and view the evidence through that new perspective. It may force us to revise what we previously thought.
This is something historians do all the time. So really, when people complain about “revisionists” and “revisionist history,” they’re complaining that historians are doing what they’re supposed to be doing–looking at the evidence and revising our understanding of it based on a new understanding of the evidence or based on new evidence. Revisionism, then, isn’t necessarily a bad thing provided it’s done through an honest handling of the evidence and is based on primary source evidence, and not a partial reading of that primary source evidence. Revising history isn’t a bad thing, but lying about history, abusing historical sources by claiming they say what they don’t say, and misclaiming facts are bad things. That’s not revisionism, that’s simply bad history.
So next time you come up against someone using bad history, call them on bad history. But don’t call them revisionists, because all historians are revisionists, and we wouldn’t want them to be anything else. We want them to revise our understanding of events based on new evidence. We want them to revise our understanding of events based on new perspectives and different ways of thinking about and approaching events.

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

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

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—-

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—-

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.