The Truth about the Battle of Liberty Place

It never ceases to amaze me how some “historians” or those who want to post blog articles about the South always leave about half the facts out of their articles. Such is the case with Nick Sacco in his article Reflections on the Battle of Liberty Place Monument and the Political Nature of Public Iconography at

Letts’ take a look shall we?

Mr. Sacco’s first paragraph he states the White league is made up of “ex-Confederates and white supremacist.” My question to Mr. Sacco is how do you know they were white supremacist ? By the inscription on the monument as you posted??? We will get to that later.

Anyway this battle was a uprising against the RECONSTRUTIONIST government of William P. Kellogg. You can read more here at Wili. to get a good background on the vent.

As Sacco goes on with his narrative he tells us that the crowd was made up of ex-Confederates. he does not tell us that that the Municipal Police is lead by no other that Confederate General James Longstreet and some 4,000 armed soldiers. That fact is glaring omitted.

Another fact that seems to be missing is P.G.T. Beauregard was an active member of the Reform party that believed Blacks should have voting rights. Oh well these are just they sort of facts that you come to expect the “other” side will deliberately overlook as that tap out their propaganda.

In his third paragraph Mr. Sacco wants to lecture us about race relations in the South— Jim Crow and such. Where races relations any better in the North??/ I seriously doubt it. In fact was the Jim Crow laws started in the Northern states??? I am certain they did. Of course being of superior intellect Mr. Sacco is gonna tell us what his interruption of the statue is.

Moving along, I am getting tired of typing, so I am gonna make a couple of comments and then give you a link to read. These are points I want you to pay attention to—

Sacco’s Italian comment– wrong.

The Inscription on the monument note what the links says about it

You can read the truth at

And my last comment think about this–

What is the difference between a white supremist and say a black civil rights activist??? none. But that is a post for another day.

Baker’s Fake News

Well folks I have finally got everything moved in the direction I need. Seems like Al mackey has been quite, at least he has been spreading as many lies as he had been in the past. Not to fear Rob Baker seems to have taken his place. However Baker is mostly whining because of the results of the presidential election.

I suppose that it comes as no surprise that, according to Baker, everyone who voted for Trump is a Confederate Flag waving racist. I assume this includes the blacks and Hispanics who voted for Trump????

Anyway Baker has a photo shopped image of Trump and the Confederate Battle flag posted. So what Baker, you are just promoting what has become a well used term today— FAKE NEWS See the image at’

Folks be sure to read Kevin Levins ignorant quote that Baker posted. Oh boy he shows his true colors.

Now let me say the photo below is just one of many that can be found online. I used it for no particular reason except it shows Clinton with the US flag.


Now let’s look at some more photos of the US flag shall we???

Photos from


Now let me say this, unlike Baker, it is not my intention to talk bad or disparage any flag in US history. I simply point out the TRUTH

Baker I say this to you, anythime you want to discuss the baggage carried by the US Flag and that baggage carried by the Confederate Battle Flag, I will be here. You are welcome to post a opposing view in a civil manner. Something you seldom allow on your pages.

Not Much has been happening

Folks I haven’t dropped off the face of the earth and no I haven’t give up the good fight to correct some of the lies spread by some people (you know who they are). In fact I have been quite busy with the SHAPE websites, adding info and updating some pages. Running three websites is quite a chore, add defending Southern Heritage to the mix and it amounts for a busy time.

It does seem that Mackey has slacked up on his hateful posts some, so that is good. less time to spend inside not fishing!!!!

Doing these updates and such is getting harder. It seems I can see good at a distance, but to sit at a computer and type out a short article has become quite a chore. I never was a really good typist, but now without spell check, I can’t type my name. Anyway enough of my whining, I just wanted to sort of update everyone and let you know what is happening.


Confessions of a former neo-Confederate

Het Mackey if those of us who defend our Confederate Heritage are as ignorant and dumb as you say we are at

Why is it your fat butt won’t come out of hiding and debate us morons? You already know for a fact I will tear you a new one.Bring that neo-confederate fool with you, since you know you will need the help.

You are an idiot and a coward.

Why Did North Carolina Secede?

Why Did North Carolina Secede? Al Mackey asks this question in his blog post at

Of course anyone who knows Mackey, knows what the answer will be — SLAVERY What else????

I do admit Mackey lays out his case well using facts and figures to support his argument, but these are just cherry picked figures. In Reality North Carolina did not even mention slavery in their secession document. They do mention maintaining their sovereignty

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of North Carolina and the other States united with her, under the compact of government entitled “The Constitution of the United States.”

We, the people of the State of North Carolina in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina in the convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated.

We do further declare and ordain, That the union now subsisting between the State of North Carolina and the other States, under the title of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of North Carolina is in full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.

Done in convention at the city of Raleigh, this the 20th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1861, and in the eighty-fifth year of the independence of said State.

Now more to the point of secession let’s just take a couple of sources into consideration related to the act of secession–

Unionism and Secession in the South:

One further caveat in thinking about Southern Unionism. Virtually all historians, including this one, are agreed today on the centrality of slavery in explaining the road to secession. Yet if we would understand the nature of Southern Unionism we cannot stop there in accounting for
the abandonment of Unionist by sufficient Southerners to create the Confederacy. Human motivation and loyalties are more complex than that. A concern about the future of slavery was more often in the background than in the forefront of Southerners’ thinking about the Union.

Certainly it is difficult to show a clear causal line between direct involvement with slavery and attitudes toward secession. For one thing, too many unconditional Unionists….were slaveholders. For such persons the ownership of slaves was not sufficient reason for supporting
secession. For another, most of the Southerners who made up the Confederacy were not directly connected with slavery at all. The majority of white Southerners, after all, did not own a single slave. Their concern for the institution of slavery could at best have been
only an indirect motive for supporting secession and later the Confederacy.

It makes much more sense to see slavery as a shaper of Southern civilization and values than as an interest. The anxiety about the future of slavery was there because the future of the South was intimately tied up with the institution. But the role of slavery in moving individual Southerners from Unionism to secession was neither simple nor obvious. Precisely at what point an individual Southerner decided that he or she could no longer support the Union when it came
into conflict with region depended upon many things, not only upon his or her immediate relationship to slavery.”

(The Other South, Southern Dissenters in the Nineteenth Century, Carl N.
Degler, Harper & Row, 1974, page 122)


Self-Preservation Compelled Secession:

“What mighty force lay back of this Southern movement, which by the beginning of February, 1861, had swept seven States out of the Union? An explanation early accepted and long held by the North made it simply the South’s desire to protect slavery. Forty years of wrangling over this subject, fortified by many statements Southerners had made about it….[and] South Carolina in her secession declaration had made the North’s interference with slavery her greatest grievance, and the subject appeared equally large in other seceding States.

Yet simple answers are never very satisfying, and in this case it was too simple to say that Southerners seceded and fought a four-year war for the surface reason of merely protecting their property in slaves. Had not the South spurned the Corwin Amendment, which guaranteed slavery in the States against all interference by Congress? And what happened to the subject of slavery in the territories, which had loomed so big in the 1850’s? Now it was forgotten by both the North and the South.

Slavery was undoubtedly a potent cause; but more powerful than slavery was the Negro himself. It was the fear of what would ultimately happen to the South if the Negro should be freed by the North, as the abolitionists seemed so intent on doing – and Southerners considered Republicans and abolitionists the same. This fear had worried Calhoun when he wrote in 1849 “The Address of Southern Delegates in Congress to their Constituents.” It was not the loss of property in slaves that the South feared so much as the danger of the South becoming another Santo Domingo, should a Republican regime free the slaves. And it is no argument to say that Lincoln would never have tried to do this. The South believed his party would force him to it if he did not do so of his own volition. If he were not himself an abolitionist, he had got his position by abolition votes. A friend of Salmon P. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, told him that the South’s knowledge of what happened in Santo Domingo and “Self-preservation had compelled secession.”

(A History of the South, Volume VII, The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865, E. Merton Coulter, LSU Press, 1950, pp. 8-10)

Last One

A New Yorker on Southern Secession:

“Congressman Daniel Sickles, a Democrat from New York City, delivered a speech in the House of Representatives on December 10, 1860 on the question of secession. He opposed the use of force to retain States in the Union, making it clear that :

“When the call for force comes—let it come whence it may—no man will ever pass the boundaries of the city of New York for the purpose of waging war against any State of this Union…the Union can be made perpetual by justice; but it cannot be maintained an instant by force. (Sickles recognized the right of secession)…as the last dread alternative of a free State when it has to choose between liberty and justice. In our Federal system the recognized right of secession is a conservative safeguard. It is the highest constitutional and moral guarantee against injustice; and therefore if it had been always and universally acknowledged as a rightful remedy, it would have contributed more than all else to perpetuate the Union, by compelling the observance of all their obligations on the part of all the States. The opposite dogma, which is so extensively believed at the North, that no matter what wrongs a State may have to endure, it may and ought to be compelled by force to remain in the Union, even as a conquered dependency, is a most dangerous error in our system of government, and has contributed largely to the existing anarchy.”

(The Secession Movement in the Middle Atlantic States, William C. Wright, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1973, pp. 189-190)

Mackey in his infinite wisdom flat out makes the statement that North Carolina left the Union for no other reason but to protect slavery. Here we see three different reason why North Carolina or the cotton states left the Union. I have recorded way too many reason and sources on secession to post here, and I know long pots get boring, but if you have an interest you may go to Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education and read as many entries and you want on the subject. You will see how slanted Mackey’s version of history really is.