The True Blue Federalist —Just another agenda driven Blog

In a recent discussion about slavery as the cause of the war, on Chris Shelly’s blog The True Blue Federalist at http://junehog.com/2014/07/27/slavery-and-secession-the-daily-shows-take/comment-page-1/#comment-430 I was lead to believe that this blog may be a cut above the usual neo- yankee blogs of Al Mackey, Brooks Simpson and the like, but in all honestly it is no different.

I had to endure all sorts of insults from the likes of Rob Baker and Jimmy Dick, none of which really bother me. Of course I will say I gave as good as I got. The real point of that exchange of insults is simply to prove that the moderator doesn’t care about his blog, and will let it slip in the sewer in order that a person with an opposing view is attacked.

What really bothers me more than the insults is for someone to try and prove I have said something which I did not say. Let’s look. Here Shelly tries to say that I said slavery was not the cause of secession —-\

Some editing of posts for length. Auto correct may change some spelling errors.

gpthelastrebel says:
August 4, 2014 at 10:03 AM
Only party true and any rate slavery WAS NOT the cause of the war. You have failed to prove that point

Christopher Shelley says:
August 4, 2014 at 10:19 AM
OK, George–I’ll play a round with you. Here is some proof:

How about we start with South Carolina, since they started all the craziness? They were pretty clear. Here’s South Carolina’s “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union“:

Edited for length

Adopted December 24, 1860 [My emphasis throughout]

There: South Carolina is stating in very clear terms that the reason for it leaving the Union was the North’s hostility toward slavery. That, my friend, is what we in the trade call “proof.”

Your turn.

gpthelastrebel says:
August 4, 2014 at 10:27 AM
Oh good grief the DoS have nothing to do with the war. There are documents and events that trump these docs. all day long. I have posted two passed by the US Congress.

Christopher Shelley says:
August 4, 2014 at 10:32 AM
Really? So, you think that SC’s “Declaration of Causes” has nothing to do with secession? Because that’s the topic here–that’s what you said earlier: that secession had little or nothing to do with slavery.

I am with child to see your trump cards here–especially the two passed by Congress.
gpthelastrebel says:
August 4, 2014 at 10:41 AM
I said war. Please take you time to read.

“that’s what you said earlier: that secession had little or nothing to do with slavery.”

Please post that exact passage.

I know you are trying to turn the tables on me. Won’t happen.

Christopher Shelley says:
August 4, 2014 at 10:48 AM
No, I don’t play word games, George. I’m into logic and argument. Here are your words:

Even so if secession was secession was only about slavery, so what? Slavery was a legal institution in the United States, and these Southern states were part of that country. Slavery was not the cause of the war.

So, I made the obvious connection: that without slavery, there’s no secession; without secession, there’s no war to restore the Union. That seems a very clear path based on this chain of events. What is your objection?

gpthelastrebel says:
August 4, 2014 at 11:05 AM
Are you going to post the exact quotation where I said slavery had nothing to do with secession or not. Shall you be noted as a person who doesn’t tell the truth???

Again slavery was not the cause of the war. Your problem is making all these connections.
Christopher Shelley says:
August 4, 2014 at 11:28 AM
Here’s the entire quote:

You are taking a narrow view of the secession documents. If you take them for what they are, they are nothing more than a list of grievances against the Federal government. I suggest you read each and every declaration and list these grievances to fully understand exactly what they are.
Even so if secession was secession was only about slavery, so what? Slavery was a legal institution in the United States, and these Southern states were part of that country. Slavery was not the cause of the war. This has nothing to do with what bothers me. It does appear that it bothers you because you can’t find the document that proves otherwise. What did you expect these states to say we are seceding because we are seceding? Does that make sense really?????

I am not going to go into what each individual soldier fought for, if slavery is the reason your ancestors fought then so be it. What side were they on?

Let’s look at a few facts shall we? First we agree that secession was not addressed in the Constitution, and we all agree that sovereign can mean independent. Therefore the Southern States believed that had a right to withdraw from the Federal government. So with that behind us there is no need to revisit those issues. It is agreed that the war started at Fort Sumter with Major Anderson leaving Moultrie to occupy Sumter. Where are the freed slaves? For now we shall say the Confederates fired on Sumter and Anderson surrendered that fort, where are the enslaved people? There are none either way. In all of the communications I have read about the issue at Fort Sumter slavery was not mentioned the first time. Now the firing at Fort Sumter caused the war, why did the Confederates fire on this fort. It was because Lincoln sent an invasion fleet to Charleston and Pensacola. So now we see the Confederacy fired on an invasion fleet. Where are the slaves? Again there are none. This is not my opinion these are historical fact.

I have also posted two US acts of Congress to this page you simply overlook them because they do not fit your idea of what the war was about. One gives the South a chance to come back under the Federal and keep their slaves; the other clearly states the war IS NOT about slavery. Again these are historical facts; to say otherwise is not being honest.

I really don’t understand, George. Are you saying that my connecting of the dots here is wrong? I have shown that slavery caused SC to secede. Are you saying you need proof now that that secession caused the war? That is self-evident. That’s why it’s called a “civil war.”

gpthelastrebel says:
August 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM
Chris I do not see where I said slavery had nothing to do with secession. Please narrow it down to the exact sentence. Yes your problem with connecting the dots is you skip what doesn’t support your agenda.

Christopher Shelley says:
August 5, 2014 at 7:57 AM
“Even so if secession…was only about slavery, so what? Slavery was a legal institution in the United States, and these Southern states were part of that country. Slavery was not the cause of the war.”

I took that to mean that slavery did not cause the war. And my point is that it caused secession, which certainly caused the war. But if you want a quick, succinct summary of events to refer to, look no further than Mike’s comment:

The facts are: (1) Lincoln was elected president on a platform against slavery’s expansion to the territories. (2) SC and other states declared secession, issued ordinances, and began forming the CSA. (3) SC and other states stopped complying with the federal government. (5) Confederate forces fired on Ft. Sumter. (4) President Lincoln began preparing a response and explained his view of the situation to Congress on July 4, 1861. (5) Congress approved of Lincoln’s plan to militarily resolve the conflict so that the Union would remain intact.

That’s pretty much it.
gpthelastrebel says:
August 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM
Gee it looks to me like that says slavery was not the cause of the war. Am I correct?

Why do you damage your credibility in that manner? What else have you not read correctly???

BTW Indian raids was also a cause of secession.

*********************************
You can clearly see I said no such thing. You can also see I can’t type worth a darn!!!! LOL I will try to do better.

Another thing that clearly bothers me is the fact someone uses slavery as the cause of the war and not know what they are talking about. here is a clear example–

******************************************

Christopher Shelley says:
August 5, 2014 at 8:19 AM
“BTW Indian raids was also a cause of secession.”

Prove it. Where is your evidence?
gpthelastrebel says:
August 5, 2014 at 8:49 AM
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
Proof that you don’t read all of the available material. ‘Nuff said.

Christopher Shelley says:
August 5, 2014 at 8:59 AM
Thank you. No, just proof that you have the ability to do support your assertions with evidence.

And, BTW, much of the “property” that the federal government was failing to protect from the “savages” was slave property

Andy Hall posts this —

Andy Hall says:
August 5, 2014 at 10:11 AM
Chris, as far as I know, Texas’ justification for secession is the *only* one that mentions Indians on the frontier.

And finally Shelley answers with —

Christopher Shelley says:
August 5, 2014 at 10:31 AM
I’ve done some reading on the Comanche, but only up to and not including their conflicts with Texas. Pekka Hämäläinen has done some fascinating work on the evolution of their horse-trading culture.

And now, thanks to George, I have read the whole document, and see that slavery indeed gets a full treatment from Texas.

So we can clearly that Shelley was arguing without having read his sources. We can clearly see how biased he is and how he is willing to lie and damage his credibility to support his agenda. I am done with him. Mission accomplished.

Advertisements

37 thoughts on “The True Blue Federalist —Just another agenda driven Blog

  1. You are quite correct George, “True Blue Federalist” is just another crude agenda-driven blog with no interest in historical facts and truths. The insults from the neo-unionists begin almost as soon as they are confronted with a different prespective and opinion from their own. It’s basically a cesspool of neo-unionist propaganda.

    • You know I really don’t mind someone not knowing any fact at all, butt if you are teaching or debating a subject, at leat read the documents you are bringing as sources. The insults I expect

      I knew when Mr. Shelley kept arguing the Decalarations of Causes as proof positive the war was about slavery that he had no idea what they stated. It was just a matter of time before I caught him twisting the truth and exposing himself.

      Are you likely to read posted links??? What do you think most people feeel about going to linked material???

  2. Hey George, don’t feel bad Big Al Mackey blocked me caused I told him I served in the Air Force with jerks just like him, and he knew I was speaking the truth. I am very confused why they spend all their time attacking a few folks on the web who are not trained historians? Maybe they can’t hold their own with true historian’s who have PHD’s? And by the way Mackey you are still a JERK.

    • I have been banned from all of our neo-yankee blaogs and most of the major talk forums on the web. Facts really get folks in an uproar!!LOL LOL.

      Trained is the key word. You know– sit boy sit. Good boy. They attck people like you and me because they think they can shout us down and insult us and we will leave. Not true with me. I can give as well as take. For the issue of the start of the war, and slavery as a cause, I can stand with anyone and exchange facts. I did my homework. What I don’t know i can find out.

      Here are two things you should know, most neo-yankees will bring forth two documents as proof positive the war was about slavery– The Immediate Causes of secession and the Cornerstone Speech. That is pretty much all they have. The rest of their time is spent on insults. Read and learn these documents and you will be in good shape for most debates.

      Are you related to the Sanford/Stanford family of Mississippi???

      Same question to you as to Carmichael — how do you feel about linked material????

      • Hello George
        Yes I am a direct descendent of John D. Sanford PVT CO 9th Mississippi Calvary Regiment. He was from Covington County. The Sanford community there is named after him. He is buried in a marked Confederate grave in the Sanford/Bullock cemetery in Covington County.
        The folks like the one’s I mention before only want to talk about the South leaving because of slavery I say so what, They don’t want to admit the the Union troops came South to force the South back in Union and not to free slaves. And once they did that they would not help relocate then Northward because they were racist scum.

  3. Rob,

    I don’t care who Carmichael is as long as he follows my rules — act like an adult, which you didn’t and no insults.

    It’s simple– apologize for acting like a child and I will allow your posts same with Chris Shelly and Corey Meyers.

  4. Dear George,

    I think Chris just didn’t comprehend, and was confused by, your questions and assertions — like you said, he didn’t take the time to read them carefully and he skipped over steps in his argument (and I did too) etc. You can see him struggling to figure out what specifically you are arguing. To him the idea that secession caused the war is so obviously true (he said it was self-evident) that he had difficulty realizing what your argument really was.

    You continually frame your argument as slavery didn’t cause the war, no? But your argument really is that secession didn’t cause the war, right? Like when Lincoln called up troops and then gave his July 4 address to Congress he could have done something else instead, such as to order troops to stand down and to advise Congress (a) to accept the Secession Ordinances and (b) to recognize the CSA as a foreign government, yes?

    I really think that you can dialog with Chris if you wish. If you have an clear argument to offer and an interesting discussion you want to get involved in to share your curiosity and perspective, then I suggest you try again sometime at The True Blue Federalist.

    Regards,

    Mike

    • Mike,

      If I may shorten your name. Good to hear from you.Yes I agree that Chris was a bit out of his element so to speak. That was obvious very soon in the discussion. It is my belief that Chris knew my argument right up front.

      No sir my argument is exactly as I frame it slavery did not cause the war. There are simply too many events that happened between secession and during the war for the cause to be slavery. To claim slavery was the cause of the war is nothing more than an excuse to justify the atrocities that were committed against the South. Now keep in mind I am not sayiing that some men did not fight to keep slavery and some men fought to free the slaves. Also keep in mind that slave owners fought for the Union.

      I cannot see how my argument can be any clearer than “slavery did not cause the war.” That was in the title of his blog post and on his invitation I visted there and to be honest he also asked me to move my first post to that location.

      I have no need to go back to True Blue Federalist. Chris came here and insulted me, he let Jimmy Dick and Rob Baker insult me. As far as I am concerned his is just another agenda driven trash blog. I believe that I proved that point.

      How do you feel about post that contain links??

      Best Regards,
      George

      • George,

        Thanks for your reply. I think it would help others, and I know it would help me, understand your argument if you told the story of what did cause the war. Your argument to me is unclear because I don’t know where secession fits in the argument and it seems to me that understanding secession is very important in understanding the war.

        There’s the issue of slavery and the expansion of slavery etc. and then there are the facts of Lincoln’s election, secession of deep South states, the firing on Ft. Sumter, Lincoln’s calling for troops, secession of other states, Lincoln’s July 4th address to Congress, and the brutality of the war.

        What should Lincoln have done following secession and what would have been the effect given the opinions of Congress and the states that did not declare secession?

        Regards,

        Mike

      • Mike,

        Short answer. The invasion of the South caused the war– the incident at Sumter to be more specfic. Nothing more nothing less.

        It appears to me that links are not very acceptable when trying to post information. That being the case, tomorrow i will start posting answers to your questions.

        Thanks for being civil.

        GP

  5. Hello George,
    Linked material is perfectly acceptable, and it is simply up to the reader to decide whether or not he chooses to follow the link. And again, as far as slavery being the cause of the war, that claim is preposterous. Slavery was legal in the United States and accordingly, there was no United States authority, absolutely none whatsoever, that could lawfully wage war against a state in order to eradicate slavery. A claim that the war was fought over slavery is an immediate and clear recognition that the war was utterly illegal.

    • Caldwell,

      Thanks for the imput. I will post the material here even though it will be long and as history goes boring. It will support a lot of points I have been arguing and just possibly give a better understanding of the events surriunding the events at Fort Sumter.

    • I agree that linked material is acceptable. In fact I far prefer links to long pasted material (I sometimes joke that the V in the paste command CTRL-V stands for Vomit). When you link material, you ought to have some introduction of what it is and what you think the reader should conclude after reading it. And if you have any technical questions about linking, please see this that I wrote for you.

      • Oh man, I already spent a couple of houers posting some very long material and now I am wore out!!!!! At any rate “Mr Buchanan’s” can be found online and more than likely much easier to follow.

      • The emphasis is on important facts that Simpson, Baker, Dick and Mackey have arguged and insulted me about. I want to make sure they see it. I added a note on part 1 that I was going to do this.

        Did I add commentary? My apologies. If it is any other place than the last page I will remove it.

        Going offline now I am tired of sitting.

    • BTW, these statements of yours are correct: “Slavery was legal in the United States and accordingly, there was no United States authority, absolutely none whatsoever, that could lawfully wage war against a state in order to eradicate slavery.”

      That’s why President Lincoln had to limit the reach of the Emancipation Proclamation and frame it as essential to winning the war.

      • The war had been going on for nearly two years at the time of the EP. Loyal slaveowners were allowed to keep their slaves, and west Virginai was brought into the Union as a slave state. Fremont’s emancipation was overturned and I am almost certain another Union general declared slaves emancipated in a state just cannot remember which state it was.

        Correct the EP was a war measure and nothing more.

      • Yes, I know the statements are correct, that’s why I wrote them. The insuperable obstacle preventing anyone from falsely justifying claims that the war was fought over slavery because Lincoln issued the EP is, quite obviously, that the EP was issued nearly two full years after the war began. And it did not free slaves in loyal States. And West Virginia was admitted into the Union, as a slave State, over five months after the EP was issued (George has already mentioned all this).

        Why must you persist with these arguments that are so easily proved false? How, for goodness sakes, can you claim the war was fought over slavery, when the war began two years before the EP was issued? And when Lincoln explicitly announced that the war was being fought to preserve the Union? How, in good conscious, can you ignore these historical facts and substitute you own personal preferences in their place?

      • “How, in good conscious, can you ignore these historical facts and substitute you own personal preferences in their place?”

        Excellent question.

  6. Could we please continue to agree on facts before, and preferably without, attacking character?
    Yes to the following:
    Lincoln explicitly stated that the sole purpose for the USA to fight the war was to preserve union.
    Lincoln issued the EP as a war measure nearly two full years after the war began.
    West Virginia was admitted as a slave state in the USA over five months after the EP was issued.
    The EP freed slaves in the states that had declared secession, not in all slave states.

    • “Could we please continue to agree on facts before, and preferably without, attacking character?”

      Mike I saw no attack on your character by Caldwell. He did ask a very good question, which you are entitled to answer.

      • “How, in good conscious, can you ignore these historical facts and substitute you own personal preferences in their place?” I don’t ignore these historical facts, and I don’t substitute my own personal preferences in their place. Thanks.

  7. MIchael agrees that:

    “Lincoln explicitly stated that the sole purpose for the USA to fight the war was to preserve union.”

    Which means that all now agree that the war was fought over the preservation of the union, and accordingly, the idea that the war was fought over slavery has been established as false.

  8. As Al Mackey explained to a certain “Sara Lee” here:

    “You seem to think that both sides must be fighting for the same thing in order for the war to be about something. Not the case, ma’am. The Federals were fighting to preserve the Union. In the second half of the war, ending slavery was added as a war measure because it was deemed to be the best way to win the war and to prevent future civil wars. For the confederates, though, their desire to be independent was because of their desire to protect the institution of slavery. The confederacy existed for that purpose and no other purpose–independence in order to preserve slavery. Slavery, very clearly, had everything to do with the war–for the confederates. It determined everything from the secession of their states to their strategy to their manpower policies.”

    • But as we can plainly see by reading “Mr. Buchanan’s” that Mackey is wrong. Alos we know by US documents that the war was about slavery.To fight for the Union is to fight for the Constitution and in the Constitution slavery is leagl.

      So you are actually going to promote the idea that the South was fighting for slavery and the North was not fighting to free the slaves??? Mike please think; does that really make sense to you??? That is one of the most absurb things I have ever heard.

      Why would anyone want to believe Mackey when he spends most of his time bashing the South and Southerners????

      • Al Mackey wears a ring with a Confederate flag on it. I’m sure he respects, as I do, the service and sacrifice of the Confederate soldiers who fought with honor for each other and for their units. They deserve respect because they performed their duty as they saw it and obeyed their chain of command which was overseen by the civilian authority of the states and of the Confederate government. And I’m sure Al Mackey also respects, as I do, people from the southern states as well as people from the northern states.

        The southern states that declared secession were trying to establish a nation with no free states. They wanted to include no free states in their new nation and to invite all slave states to join them in their new nation. The states that did not declare secession were happy to remain in a nation with both slave states and free states, in a nation where the opponents of slavery, such as President Abraham Lincoln, were successful in their goal to “arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction.”

      • Al Mackey has insulted Confederates way to many times and too often for me to believe he respects anything Southern or Confederate. The proof can be found on this blog as well as Mackey’s.

        First of all secession is not rebellion. The secession docs are nothing more than a list of reasons why the Confederate states were leaving the Union. They are not war declarations. The Confederate Constitution is almost a carbon copy of the US Constitution, in which slavery was also legal. The real difference is the Confederate Constitution outright outlawed African slavery.

        Even so if secession was all about slavery, so what? Slavery was legal in the United States. Remember as you also agreed to West Virginia came into the Union as a slave state, the EP only freed slaves in the rebelling states and only in certain places. Now explain to me how on earth you determine the Confederacy was fighting for slavery when the Federal government was enslaving people. You are totally on the wrong track

        The states that did not declare secession were happy to remain in a nation with both slave states and free states, in a nation where the opponents of slavery, such as President Abraham Lincoln, were successful in their goal http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/house.htm

        Lincoln was a racist. He didn’t particularly care for Negroes.

        Mr. Lincoln’s Reply in the Alton Joint Debate.

        If you go to the Territory opposed to slavery, and another man comes upon t e same ground with his slave, upon the assumption that the things are equal, it turns out that he has the equal rig t all his way, and you have no part of it your way. If he goes in and makes it a slave Territory, and by consequence a slave State, is it not time that those who desire to have it a free State were on equal ground? Let me suggest it in a different way. How many Democrats are there about here [“A thousand”] who have left slave States and come into the free State of Illinois to get rid of the institution of slavery? [Another voice: “A thousand and one.”] I reckon there are a thousand and one. I will ask you, if the policy you are now advocating had prevailed when this country was in a territorial condition, where would you have gone to get rid of it? Where would you have found your free State or Territory to go to? And when hereafter, for any cause, the people in this place shall desire to find new homes, if they wish to be rid of the institution, where will they find the place to go to?

        Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home—may find some spot where they can better their condition—where they can settle upon new soil, and better their condition in life_ I am in favor of this not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over—in which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their condition in life.

        Did you read “Mr. Buchanan’s —” ? If you did surely you can see the war was about taxes and tariffs. Mike I have been patient with you either bring me something that proves the war was about slavery or I simply will not approve your posts. I am not getting into a long drawn out argument that is nothing more than a prop for Mackey or a play on facts and words. Post your document and let’s move forward.

        You have been warned.

      • In July 1861, newly-elected President Lincoln was a racist who wanted to end slavery eventually not immediately. When the war began, the USA fought solely to stop the seceding states from achieving independence.
        In July 1864, prior to President Lincoln’s re-election, President Lincoln authorized the consideration of peace under two conditions: (1) “the integrity of the whole union” and (2) “the abandonment of slavery.”
        Until then, yes, to fight for the Union is to fight for the power of each state to decide whether it is a free state or a slave state. After then, no, to fight for the Union is to fight (1) to keep the seceding states in the union and (2) to make them free states.

      • “When the war began, the USA fought solely to stop the seceding states from achieving independence.”

        So indepenmdence was what the South was fighting for. Thank you very much.

        I would hazzard a guess that in 1864 the Confederates were still fighting for independence.

    • Michael,
      Huh?

      PS- Michael, I noticed you recently complained that there was some sort of character attack made aginst you here, when in fact, there was none. I also noticed that when posting here, you are fairly well behaved. In terms of character though, I couldn’t help but notice that over at “Crossroads” yesterday, and when you were supported by a gang of like-minded posters, you happily took your turn taunting, bullying, and harassing a commenter who merely pointed out, in a very polite manner, that slavery was legal in both the U.S. and C. S.

      Care to comment?

      • You asked me here how in good conscience I could do something that I was not doing.

        On Crossroads, I said that the comment by Melissa Blue was silly because it’s all about who’s more guilty which is silly. Also Melissa Blue said slavery was the same economically in Kentucky and South Carolina, which is false. Finally, I did not taunt, bully, or harass anybody.

        In 1864 the Confederates were still fighting for independence. I’ll stop commenting now on this post and move on to a more recent post such as the Jefferson Davis post where I had some comments.

        Thank you both.

      • “In 1864 the Confederates were still fighting for independence”

        As well at the time of surrender. That being the case then the Confederates were fighting for independence the same as in 1776.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s