This is a good joke

Al Mackey send us to a blog GPB news at http://gpbnews.org/post/why-understanding-civil-war-monuments-matters.

The title of this particular article is Why Understanding Civil War Monuments Matters Ok nothing so bad there reading down I notice they DID NOT interview no pro-Confederate person. NOT ONE I am telling you. They did interview some anti- Confederate people like KEVIN LEVIN (OH MY GOSH) you know he is not biased.

At any rate they make the statement “but a new study about these symbols raises questions about how much Confederate enthusiasts known about the Confederacy.”
Let me just say this you will never know how much a Confederate enthusiasts knows about the Confederacy unless you interview one.

Let me also make this perfectly clear Celeste Headlee & Sean Powers, if you want to know how much I know why don’t you come here and debate me in a civil manner? Or you can bring yourself down to Mississippi and I will introduce you to some very educated and unbiased Confederate enthusiasts who are very capable of educating you. Either invitation is open end, show up at any time. A little advance notice on the Mississippi visit please.

Oh and anyone who can comment on the GPB blog, please pass these comments to Celeste and Sean.

George Purvis

And Mackeys 2nd attempt at showing hate

In this post Mackey comes right out of the box calling pro-Confederate marchers “white supremacists.” I noticed he failed to call the anti- Confederate group of protesters any names. Why Mackey are you a bigot?

Trump has it right he called both sides for their actions.

I see that Mackey blames the pro group for the violence, yet he cannot prove who started the fights. Why is that Mackey? Were you where the first punch was thrown?? No you are too much of a coward for that.

I also saw on the new a few Black Lives Matter signs, could these be black racist, why didn’t you call that Mackey? When are you going to speak out about racism from that quarter?

Mackey never mind about answering these questions, we all know you have no backbone for a civil factual discussion. We know your heart is filled with hate for anything Confederate. We know you are a bigot, and we well know that you lie about the facts of the War Of Northern Aggression.

https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2017/08/12/who-supports-confederate-monuments/

Ignorance in pictures

Hooo Hummm Al Mackey is scrapping the bottom of the barrel when he posts some select phoytoes from Charlottesville at https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2017/08/13/is-it-valid-to-compare-confederates-with-nazis/

What a feeble attempt to paint anyone who attempts to protect their history and their heritage from being removed by a bunch of IDIOTS. Yes I say IDIOTS they haven’t a clue about the history of the Confederacy, just like you. Were you the one who taught them Mackey??

And Speaking of Nazi’s isn’t it more like the Nazi’s to remove a statue thru hate and ignorance than anyone else? Isn’t that what you advocate Mackey? Yes this is a valid comparison. to you and Nazi’s

YOU SHOULD REALLY LOOK IN A MIRROR

What does the Confederate Flag mean—

Again Al Mackey shows his biased and bigotry with a article that only touches a negative aspect of the Confederate flag, which is a George Wallace speech– https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/whats-the-confederate-flag-mean/

Heck I can do the same thing–

What Does the united States Flag mean—-

And—

Want to keep playing Mackey?????

Al Mackey prove your statement

Confederate Heritage Advocates Don’t Know History

https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/confederate-heritage-advocates-dont-know-history/

AS I have told you Mackey, anytime, any place, how about right here. I don’t mind you showing your bigotry and ignorance on my forum. You banned me from your cheap, lying blog because you could not stand to be proven wrong. You, like many others cut from the same cloth of ignorance and bigotry won’t come out from your little turtle shell of protection and have an honest debate.

WHAT ARE YOU SCARED OF?????

Who Owned Fort Sumter 2

South Carolina’s Fort Sumter:

“This claim of property “belonging to the Government” rested on a very weak foundation, as a brief history of the terms on which the United States acquired their title to it will make clear.

The States conferred upon the Congress the power “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever…over all the places purchased by the consent of the legislatures of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.” While Mr. Jefferson was Secretary of State, he wrote to the authorities of South Carolina, and advised that her Legislature consent for the Congress to purchase certain lands. This was done, but exclusive jurisdiction was denied.

The act was passed December 12, 1795 (House Ex. Doc., Number 67, 2nd Session, 23d Congress) “to enable the United States to purchase a quantity of land in this State, not exceeding two thousand acres, for arsenals and magazines.” And it provided, “that the said land, when purchased, and every person and officer residing or employed thereon, whether in the service of the United States or not, shall be subject and liable to the government of this State, and the jurisdiction, laws and authority thereof in the same manner as if this act had never been passed; and that the United States shall exercise no more authority or power within the limits of the said land, than they might have done pervious to the passing of this act, or than may be necessary for the building, repairing, internal government of the arsenals and magazines thereon to be erected, and the regulation and management of the same, and of the officers and persons by them to be employed in or about the same.” But there was a proviso that the land should not be taxed by the State.

But this act did not transfer from the State her title to the forts and other defensive works in Charleston Harbor, which she built during the Revolution. The transfer was made by an act passed in 1805, to which the following proviso was added: “That, if the United States shall not, within three years from the passing of this act…repair the fortifications as may be deemed most expedient, etc., on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein; in such case this grant or cession shall be void and of no effect.”

This proviso was disregarded by the United States, the defensive works, including Fort Moultrie, were neglected for years, and Fort Sumter was not commenced till 1829. According to all the laws of justice, therefore, the title to the property reverted to the State, and the repairing and building were carried on solely by the sufferance of the State. Thus it is clear to anybody who respects the laws governing property titles that the United States occupied the defensive works in the harbor of Charleston without any legal rights of ownership; and since the money spent in building came out of the pockets of the people of all the States, it cannot be disputed that whatever equitable rights were acquired belonged to the seceded States as well as to the others. And it is equally clear that South Carolina never surrendered her sovereignty over the sites of the forts and other defensive works.”

(Note: Neither South Carolina nor any other State was paid anything out of the Federal Treasury to reimburse her for her expenses incurred in erecting defensive works in her harbors during the Revolution, nor for cessions of State lands.—See Act of March 20, 1794)

(The Case of the South Against the North, B.F. Grady, Edwards & Broughton, 1899, pp. 286-288)

Wo owned Fort Sumter?

That is the question Al Mackey asks at https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/who-owned-fort-sumter/

That would depend on how you stand on the value and integrity of a binding contract. Mackey gives us some background on the fort(s0 in Charleston harbor, which I will not revisit because I think most people already know the history.

Mackey also gives us South Carolina’s Statues at large which turns over land around Charleston Harbor to the Federal government for building forts for the purpose of PROTECTING CHARLESTON This was part of the plan to build forts on the coastal areas to at least Ship Island, Mississippi for the DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mackey goes on to post history of the transaction, which does nothing but confuse the issue. I am going right to the heart of the matter.

Note this agreement between South Carolina and The United States.—

Note the part of this agreement that says the work will be completed in three years. Mackey says nothing in the doc refers to Sumter, holy cow this is an educator and he doesn’t see the line that says “other forts?” No matter if the document as Mackey says does not refer to Sumter as Mackey says —
Nothing in the area covered by the statute pertains to Fort Sumter. Further, the statute was written in 1805, long before building Fort Sumter was ever contemplated, and 1808, which is three years after the statute as delineated within, was also long before Fort Sumter was ever contemplated

Then it just doesn’t. Mackey just admitted he is doing nothing but using smoke and mirrors to try and put the wool over our head.

Mackey then trying to confuse the issue moves to another resolution that covers FORT SUMTER Let us take a look shall we—

HUMMM I see the description of the fort and the same agreements still in place. So what has changed??? Look up just above Castle Pinckney, what date do you see? 1901!!!! Hardly a resolution authorizing the building of Fort Sumter. Mackey’s resolution is a farce!!!!!

Well it is no matter, regardless of who owned Fort Sumter, the fact of the matter is there was a gentleman’s agreement and orders that Maj. Anderson would not do anything to upset the South Carolina commissioners and add fuel to the hostilities. History shows us that order and agreement was not honored.

It is that simple.