Still protecting Mackey

Folks this may get a bit confusing since we have to jump to a couple of blog posts. I am goona prove that Nick Sacco’s is deliberately deleting civil but pointed question I addressed to Al Mackey. I am also going to show you how dazed and confused Sacco’s is when it comes to running a blog. perhaps it is lack of experience I don’t know,

Going to the link below a Sacco blog post titled “A Brief Reminder About My Disclaimer and Comment Policy”

Sacco tells of his rules for posting and his right to moderate comments. I agree he is in total control of his bblog and can let what ever posts he wants remain and remove those he wishes not to remain. I believe that is a given right of all bloggers is it not?

But, and there is always one isn’t there, if you are posting in public forums and expect the public to read your articles you should be willing to accept civil comments from people with opposing views. You should give the person to whom the comment is addressed to a fair and equal chance to respond. Do we all agree on that?

Well it appears that Sacco went on a rant against me 0on his blog when he was supposed to be defining his rules for posting. Let’s look at some of his points and comment to thme. After that I will address some of the comments which I copied .

Starting at this point in Sacco’s mentioned post — “I publicly supported the taking down of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina State House grounds”

Folks click on that link and it will take you to another Sacco blog post and the S.C. Carolina shooting.

The Confederate Flag: Yesterday…and Today
/ Here Sacco’s like everyone else blames Roof actions on the Confederate flag. Well I wonder how that object and convinced a mentally challenged person to commit those murders. Oh we have one picture of him holding a itty-bitty flag, that is all the proof we need. Of course Sacco goes on to use terms like white supremacists, and white terrorist in his article. But that is to call us names, we are nothing but Southerners.

Moving on down the page Sacco makes repeats a comment by Brooks Simpson– As Brooks Simpson notes at Crossroads, “it may be that in 2015 people marked the 150th anniversary of the end of the Civil War by doing to Confederate heritage what Grant and Sherman did to the Confederacy itself in 1865″

We will have to see how all of this plays out, but for now I will continue to stand with those who want to take down the Confederate flag–now.

To that I say, Sacco if you want to take down my flag just go ahead and try. I ‘ll be waiting,

Moving on down the page you notice Sacco whining about me posting to his blog, As I said earlier it is in public domain, why shouldn’t I post? You are attacking or advocating removing my heritage. Tell me one reason I shouldn’t post except your trumped up “insult” card you want to play.

Bigoted and bised views by Sacco. Yep I said that read You can read the full exchange here–

Proof the it is true. I also addressed his Black Confederate Comment at the time. So Nick, you have been caught in a lie on your on blog. You should learn how to read.

Now it gets good folks Sacco wants to show you the “insulting” post I made to Al Mackey. Here it is, if you don’t believe me go to his page and see for yourself—


I mean how insulting can one person get?

Of Course Nick ends up by saying —- Mr. Purvis and others are free to write whatever they want about me on their personal blogs and moderate their comment section as they deem fit. That is their right.

Don’t worry Sacco’s I will continue to write factual articles about those who would take down my heritage and lie about the events of 1861-1865. It would be my suggestion you learn some history.

As To Sacco’s addendum, That will be addressed later

Comments and responses Sacco removed posted in the below in the comment section-


3 thoughts on “Still protecting Mackey

  1. Al Mackey December 22, 2015 at

    As we can see from comparing my blog post on the New Orleans city council vote with Pervis’ rant, Nick, his version doesn’t align at all with what is actually in the blog post. We can speculate on reasons why that is, but none of the explanations I can think of reflect well on him.

    Nick Sacco December 22, 2015 at 9:56 pm | Reply

    His interpretation of your blog post is a complete fiction. It’s as if he read someone else’s post and then inserted your name into his rant. None of these interactions have reflected well on

    My response Sacco did not allow—


    I really don’t mind you spelling my name with an e. You see some of the earlist records spells it that way. Other variations are Perves, Pervis, Purvis, Parves, Pervees. Iaccept any of those

    In your post “New Orleans Acts Against White Supremacist Heritage” at you use the term “White Supremacist” 7 times.

    Blog post — “More Retreat of Confederate Heritage” you use the term “White Supremacist” at least once. You cite these reasons as given– ‘In Riviera Beach, Florida, crowds cheered as the Old Dixie Highway was renamed the President Barack Obama Highway. Riviera Beach Mayor Thomas Masters said, “[The Old Dixie Highway is] symbolic of racism, symbolic of the Klan, symbolic of cross burnings and today we are stepping up to a new day, a new era, and replacing Old Dixie with Barack Obama, who represents change.”


    Blog post — “The Anti-Americanism in Confederate Heritage”

    “Yet another anti-American scum of the confederate heritage movement has reared his ugly head.”

    So I am correct. No need to take more time my case is proven

    Now since Nick does not understand the question above here it is again just for you–

    Can you prove the people who filed suit are White Supremacist and the ones who would remove these statues are not Black Supremacist? I think that is a civil and fair question.

    Also can you prove they are not ignorant of events and cause of the WBTS AND ARE NOT BIGOTED AND BIASED IN THEIR VIEWS,

  2. A response to Sacco’s article which he cannot or refuses to answer

    So where have I lied??? Is this the best you can come up with as personal insults toward you? Show the insults.. Show the comments you claim I have left out, let’s see them.

    Now let’s get to facts, what are the reasons sited that “confederate” generally removed– just as I have stated, ignorance, racism bigotry and hate. That comes from the people who are engaged in removing these symbols and names. Bigorty is also apparent when a historian uses such words to describe Confederate Americans as scum, white supremacist and other names. Hurry Mackey edit your blog before others see the articles.

    Folks note where I used Black Supremacist and how. Makes me wonder how a person says I insulted them.

    Prove me wrong

  3. Another Comment—
    One last time, you can view all of the Negroes who supported the Confederacy at

    There are about 10,000 listed at this time. You are free to prove any of them did not support the Confederacy. here is a started for you ——

    Jenny “negro Girl”
    Signed William Lonergan–Keeper
    (Unfiled Papers and Slips Belonging in Confederate Compiled Service Records)

    Anything Else

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