Monday, March 4, 2013

It's Corey's Turn to Lie

Flogger Corey Meyer has big, fat lyin' headline at his blog which reads, "Susan Hathaway Despises USCT History." As "proof" he posts a screenshot of a Facebook post where Susan informs members that the taxpayer supported Virginia Sesquicentennial Commission is promoting a book about USCT Troops from Virginia.

I know Corey has been paying attention, so he can't use ignorance as an excuse; but the primary complaint about the commission is that it has from the beginning insulted Confederates who fought for Virginia by ignoring their service and sacrifice, and promoting everything else under the sun, including those who warred on and subjugated Virginia and her people.

If the Sesquicentennial Commission had not chosen to spit on Virginia's Confederate defenders and their history and heritage, it likely wouldn't be such a big deal that Virginians who traitorously supported the Union be recognized.  But that is not the case. 

Corey knows this.  He chooses to lie about it. Par for the course for floggers ... much of what they write about Southern Heritage advocates and activists is lies.  But just how superior is moral superiority based on fraud and falsehood (and just how moral)?



  1. Thank you, Connie! Mr. Meyer must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel for blog material. Once again, you nailed it with this one. It is a sad thing to watch these floggers resort to such tactics as this, slinging mud and casting aspersions, when they have no fact or truth on which to stand.

    ONE DAY, perhaps, we will learn the truth behind why he has such an unhealthy obsession with the Flaggers and feels the need to stalk and harrass us at every turn.

    Until then, he joins the ranks of the irrelevant and we will simply smile and wave as we march on. :)

  2. He's a one-trick pony, Susan. One of those one-hit wonders from back in the heyday of rock and roll. Some of the other floggers at least try to give the impression they're serious about history by actually posting about the war or something. But Corey rarely post about the war. Most of his posts are gratuitous insults of the South and Southerners. Pathetic.

  3. Seems more like a matter of perspective. USCT troops are hardly "traitors." Besides, the commission has only "spit" on the "heritage" of Confederates in a limited number of peoples' eyes. This is more of the same from Susan Hathaway.

  4. Is USCT history not southern history if those men came from Virginia...why not highlight them?

    Is it because they are black soldiers who fought for the Union and not for the confederacy?

  5. One thing I find remarkable (able to be remarked upon) is that on the one(left) hand, there are the so-called ""Buffalo soldier"" celebrated in American history and lore, waging war on "his people" as the White owners were sometymes referred to amongst some f not most Blacks then.
    Then on the other(right) hand, they are celebrated in American history and lore as taking part in the genocide and subjugation of the Plains Indians. You would think that they should have been able to sympathise and, possibly, resign or quit the army.

    I aint sayin anything, Im just sayin.

  6. Rob, the USCT *FROM VIRGINIA* were traitors *TO VIRGINIA* for making war on the state. The commission has certainly -- and purposely -- insulted Confederate service and sacrifice in the cause of defending Virginia from an invading army. It doesn't matter how many people do or don't see it that way. That IS what's happening. And Corey is lying.

  7. Corey, this comment appeared at Virginia Sesquicentennial Facebook Group in a discussion of your blog post:

    "Thank you, Connie. If you will read the description of this group, you will find that it was started out of our frustration with the Virginia Civil War Sesquicentennial Commission and their refusal to honor Virginia's Confederate history.

    The poblem is NOT that stories like this are told...but that UNION/Emancipation stories are ALL that is being told.

    Don't take my word for it. Check out their FB page. Check the posts on Lee/Jackson Day...a STATE holiday and not a mention of two of the finest, most honorable, celebrated figures in the War Between the States...who also happen to be VIRGINIANS.

    Our problem is not with the INCLUSION of stories like this, but with the blatant EXCLUSION of anything Confederate."

    Is it starting to sink in yet, Corey?

  8. At Connie,

    Wouldn't an act of treason require a sense of belonging? Some of the soldiers in the 23rd USCT, who fought in Virginia, had in it's ranks former slaves of Virginia. Are these treasonous actions? I'm sure in an argument of semantics we can talk about the right and wrong types of treason but to mark the USCT of Virginia as traitors seems like a huge case of irony. They weren't fighting against "their state.' They were fighting, literally, against slavery.


    Seems pretty evenly split...telling the story of the War of the Rebellion in is not all Confederate...but then again...Virginia in the War as not just about the confederacy.

    I saw stuff on Picket and Fredericksburg etc. Just because every post or event is not about you beloved leaders or you damn flag does not mean it isn't fair.

    Time to grow up! Stop the tantrums!

  10. Rob, an act of treason doesn't have anything to do with what one "senses" or with "semantics." It is a deed, an action, clearly defined by the Confederate Constitution: "Treason against the Confederate States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Did the USCT from Virginia do that? Then they were traitors.

    The USCT from Virginia were part of the yankee army, which made war on the Confederate states, not slavery. That may have been a personal motivation for some of the USCT from Virginia (and elsewhere) but that was not the purpose of the army that they were part of.

  11. Corey, it's not just the Facebook page. It's about that the commission's activities in Virginia, as well. People have been complaining about this from the beginning. How come you're just now noticing? Because you're so race-obsessed, it took this reference to the USCT to get your attention?

  12. Treason. As defined in Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution it seems to me (using the logic applied above) that the Confederate invasion of Pennsylvania was therefore treason, since that state was part of the United States.

  13. Well, technically Connie those members of the USCT of Virginia were not "persons" as laid out by the Confederate Constitution, they were property. Also, the Confederate Constitution did not have total authority, nor binding authority, with the subjects under it's "domain"

    It was a started war aim when the 23rd was in action Connie.

  14. It is fun watching Connie slay the dragons..

  15. Eric, don't be disingenuous; it isn't becoming to somebody with reasonable intelligence.

    Treason is defined as: 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.

    Once the South seceded, the US government was not Southerners' government, capsice?

    Pennsylvania was invaded by an ENEMY, not by traitors -- just as the Southern states were invaded by an ENEMY ARMY.

  16. Well Connie you are entitled to your opinion. Plenty of Federal soldiers would have disagreed with you, capisce?? Plus there is that little episode in SC involving a piece of property said state had SOLD to the US government and then demanded the US sell back to SC. When refused, armed Rebels fired on US troops stationed on US property. I'm sure you will also deny that some in 1861 might have construed that as treason (which of course many did).

    But anyhoo, your answer was completely expected. I'll now let you go back to your other debate. And thanks for admitting I have, at the very least, reasonable intelligence. :)

  17. Rob, the Confederate Constitution defines treason by action, not by status of the treasonable person. Of course, treason is understood to be act against one's government or sovereign, so there is a distinction between traitor and enemy.

    The Confederate Constitution implies that slaves are persons: Article IV, Section 1, Paragraph (3) "No slave or other person held to service or labor...."

    The Yankee Army wasn't fighting to free slaves, even after that "reason" was tacked on politically, well into the war.

    The real reason for the war was because the north knew it couldn't make it as a nation, on its own, without the South.

  18. Yes Connie is good a slaying dragons...if you mean things that just don't exist...she is very good at that.

  19. I'm pretty sure the North would have made it on it's own. It had thriving urban centers, shipping, and growing industry. It, like Great Britain, would have had to import raw materials.

    For one to commit treason Connie, they must first be citizens implying the relationship between person and government.

    Many Northern soldiers, and political proponents would disagree with you Connie.

    But I'll leave it at that, back to your rant about Corey. Enjoy the hate.

  20. Eric, federal soldiers were the willing instrument of death, destruction, pestilence and oppression of the Southern people. With all due respect (smirk), screw their "disagreement."

    Because Ft. Sumter was located within the territorial waters of South Carolina, the feds should have taken the money offered for it and vacated the premises. South Carolina was no longer part of the USA after secession, and not subject to the US Constitution. Federal troops stayed in the fort to start a war, so the US would have an excuse for bullying the Southern states back into the Union -- because the north knew it couldn't make it as a country on its own, without the South.

  21. Rob, even the USA doesn't require a traitor to be a citizen. It just says whoever "owes allegiance" to the country and makes war, etc., on it commits treason. Non-citizens and foreign nationals serve in the US military. If they decide to fight against the US while serving in the US military, are they traitors? Yes, because they owe allegiance to the country in whose army they serve.

  22. Like I said, Rob -- screw the "disagreement" of northern soldiers.

  23. Corey, "slaying dragons" is figurative language. Yankees are sooooo literal; y'all's literary life must be awfully dull and gray without the ability to appreciate figures of speech....

  24. Connie...I got the figure of speech and I was playing off that comment.

    You know Dragons don't exist...truth does not exist in you world...

    Don't assume...Connie...just because you are an ass does not mean you should make one of me!

    As for taking the money for Ft. Sumter...your kidding me right... give in to secessionists? That is why Lincoln resupplied the fort. The southern politicians once tried to tell the North how to vote with a threat of secession...the North still voted for Lincoln. Just and North could not dictate to the south...the south could not dictate to the North.

  25. Liberals tend to lie as they do not have facts on their side. The North did dictate to the South, which is why the South seceded. The Lincoln regime was dependent on Southern tariffs, which were spent in the North. Lincoln said there would be no bloodshed, so long as tariffs were collected. Then the Confederacy passed a very low tariff, which would have hurt Northern ports. Lincoln had to attack, as his backers demanded that he protect them.
    Lincoln had assured Confederate commissioners that Ft.Sumter would not be resupplied, while issuing orders for it to be resupplied, and for this fact to be made known. By lying, he had put the South in a position where it had to fire the first shot, or be invaded.
    He also went to great lengths, bypassing his Navy Sec., to issue conflicting orders to 2 other navy officers, insuring confusion off Charleston. He had to have war, in short.
    By the way, Maj. Anderson, who had sympathy for the Southern position, was on U.S. property at Ft. Moultrie, buy when he moved to Ft. Sumter, he invaded South Carolinian property, as the fort did not yet belong to the federal government.

  26. Brett,

    I would do you and the people who read your post a great service to read some on the start of the war. Just about everything you wrote is wrong.

    Try McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom for starters...then get back to us.

  27. first word of last comment should be "IT"


Comments are welcome, but monitored.