Saturday, August 24, 2013

Powerful and Obnoxious Odor of Mendacity...

...wafting forth from Arizona.


Have a look at the latest sewage spewing forth from that otherwise lovely state...

Connie Chastain Is Right
Posted on August 24, 2013 by Brooks D. Simpson
 
I bet you never thought you would see that post heading.
 
Over at her little blog, which Connie has rendered as “Backsass” and “Backass” (the second rendering coming in her frequent visits to the comments section of various articles last week), (which Simpson knows about because he has poured over the same comments sections) she has a practice of writing lengthy, long-winded posts about people she does not like, (actually, I write about the critics of Southern heritage and their attacks, hypocrisy, motives, lies, etc.) and, as you might imagine, I’m a special target. (Because of his attacks, hypocrisy, motives, lies, etc.) 

Some people who have discovered her blog have circulated it widely to those people who want a better understanding of the person who manages the blog of the Virginia Flaggers, and, to channel Kevin Levin, I couldn’t be more pleased at the response. Sometimes you have to see something to believe it. (I'm fine with people visiting my blogs so they can see the truth, and not the distortions of the floggers.)
 
Most recently Connie has taken exception to how some people in the comments section in an online article at Richmond’s Style Weekly have characterized southerners. Not satisfied with that, she rants: “A Challenge for Brooks Simpson.  Defend these vacuous, history-deficient, hate-filled comments from Flagger opponents posted to Style Weekly.”
 
I won’t. I think they are wrong-headed, and for a very good reason: a good number of them mistake the Virginia Flaggers and their supporters for representative southerners. Nothing could be further from the truth … and many southerners will second that observation. (You won't defend them because you agree with them, as you have repeatedly demonstrated on your blog, particularly with attacks on people's intelligence that means the same thing as "numbskull, idiocy, half-wit," etc.
 
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/06/fun-with-comments.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/06/more-fun-with-comments.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/02/more-lies-and-insults-flogger-style.html
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/02/because-i-posted-about-al-mackeys.html)
 
The present burden of southern history and heritage happens to be the Virginia Flaggers and their supporters. Most southerners know that flying the very flag embraced not only by the KKK in recent memory but also by forces of white supremacy, racism, segregation, and massive resistance in the 1950s and 1960s sends a message of hate as well as heritage, and in some cases that heritage is one of hate. (And one of the clearly discernable effects of the Virginia Flaggers is the very visual, visible distinction between them and the uses/people Simpson is attempting to smear them with. Since he doesn't want that positive aspect of Southern heritage to receive any attention at all, he is furious at the distinction, and is doing what he can to blur and obliterate it. And he's smearing good, decent folks in order to do it -- but what does he care about that/them?)
 
The South I know today is much more tolerant than the South I entered in 1975 in my first year at the University of Virginia, when the university president defended his membership in a whites-only private club and the house of the Afro-American dean came under attack. I know that the South is a diverse region (Virginia, Tennessee, and South Carolina are very different), and, as someone who has family that is southern (including Texas and Louisiana), that education continues. (All of which has nothing to do with the VaFlaggers or decent and sincere Confederate heritage advocates, whom Simpson is doing his best to smear.)
 
It is one of the sad aspects of the Virginia Flaggers’ project to fly a Confederate navy jack along 1-95 south of Richmond that it attempts to define the South (and Richmond in particular) by an event that lasted four years out of the centuries of the rich history of the region and the Old Dominion. (Ah, no. That is NOT true.  It is not an attempt to define the South at all. Try to find that in ANY of their literature, Facebook groups, emails, blog posts. The entire point is to preserve and protect one aspect of Southern heritage that is under attack by forces determined to purge every aspect of  it from the South.** What Simpson is doing is what one HAS to do to successfully smear people -- lie about not only what they say but their motives. But don't take my word for it. Check out what the Flaggers themselves say -- but first, learn to tell the difference between genuine heritage people and plants/infiltrators.)  

It’s a banner that explicitly excludes the enslaved African Americans who welcomed the entry of Old Glory into Richmond on April 3, 1865, and cheered as the national colors were placed atop the state capital. As a native Richmonder recently told me, the Flagger proposal is nothing more than a middle finger thrust at the rest of the world. (Well, it doesn't explicitly exclude anybody. That's an interpretation not everyone shares. It certainly isn't universal truth. Besides, Old Glory, which ubiquitous in Richmond and across the South, is claimed to explicitly include everyone, so what's the problem? The oh,-so-inclusive Stars and Stripes won't miraculously dissolve on their poles when one [count it, one, (1), o-n-e] battle flag goes up. Although the battle flag is not exclusive as Simpson wants to claim, it is nevertheless true that not every symbol can or does include everybody. Next thing you know, he will be complaining that the Cross of Languedoc excludes Catholics....)
 
Many Richmonders oppose the Flaggers’ project, even as they concede the right of the Flaggers to do as they wish. The opponents clearly outnumber the supporters. Flaggers claim that this is a move of people from out of state, but then Flaggers welcome support from non-Virginians such as Florida’s Chastain and the pride of Chester, South Carolina, Carl Roden (the romance writer wing of the movement). (The difference is that the out-of-staters supporting the flag aren't signing petitions to be given to the government with the hope that it will ignore private property rights and force the flaggers to abandon the project. I'm certain a man of Simpson's intelligence and education can see the difference. Acknowledging it, though... different story. Besides, better to have a romance writer wing, which involves love, than to BE the hate-smear wing that the floggers are.)

Some Flaggers and their supporters say that if people in Richmond don’t like the flag, they should move, which suggests that they really aren’t anxious to welcome people to Virginia, and that they aren’t tolerant of free speech for anyone but themselves.
(But the vast majority of them DON'T say that, so look at what Simpson chooses to focus, and what he's ignoring. Besides, we don't know it is Flaggers saying that; or their supporters, really, since the comments are anonymous. In any case, it's tit for tat, which Simpson will also voluntarily blind himself to. It's the response to outlanders coming in and trying to tell Richmonders what they may and may not do. It just seems logical, if you don't like the place you move to, leave it. However, as noted, there's a problem with his "Some Flaggers" term in this claim. Read on...)

Much like their intellectual ancestors, the proponents of the Gag Rule barring the reception of antislavery petitions by Congress in the 1830s and 1840s, Flaggers want to silence discussion and bar dissent, signs of their own uncertain commitment to democratic values.
(Egregiously misleading to attribute anonymous statements on a news report comment thread to the Flaggers, who are specific people with specific identities, without identifying them. If you know which one made posts advocating silence and dissent, name them, Simpson. Otherwise, acknowledge that anybody could have said it, including Flagger opponents wishing to smear them, much the way you wish to. And finally, acknowledge that people already living in a place, and particularly those whose ancestors also lived there, have as much reason to tell newcomers who don't like how it is to leave, as the newcomers have to tell existing residents what they can and cannot do. )
 
Folks, the Flaggers and their supporters aren’t representative of southerners or southern values. They represent a thread of thought and sentiment that was once the fabric of a slaveowning society grounded upon white supremacy that subdued opposition through terrorism and violence. TOTAL, UTTER UNTRUTH. COMPLETE LIE. THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY REPRESENT.  YOUR PERCEPTION, SIMPSON, NOT THEIR INTENTION. STOP LYING about it.
 
That fabric is no more, and flying a piece of that fabric won’t change that fact. Don’t blame southerners, white and black, native and recent arrivals, for the actions of the Flaggers and their supporters. Don’t mistake their views for the views of all southerners. After all, Virginia is for lovers … not haters.
FOLKS, UNDERSTAND THAT SIMPSON'S DELIBERATE MIS-STATEMENT OF THE FLAGGERS' INTENTIONS -- MADE TO CHARACTERIZE THEM AS HATERS -- IS ITSELF A SHOW OF FAR MORE HATRED THAN ANYTHING THEY HAVE DONE.
 
Note: Chastain declares: “If you want to know the truth about a person, do you really think you’ll get it from someone at enmity with them? Nobody with common sense would do that. Only those wishing to have their prejudices confirmed.” Read her postings at Back[s]ass with that in mind.
Yes, do. READ ME. THEN READ HIS BLOG, SEE WHAT HE HAS SAID  ME, ABOUT OTHER SOUTHERN HERITAGE ADVOCATES, AND THE MOVEMENT IN GENERAL. GO OVER CROSSROADS, THEN ALL MY BLOGS, WEBSITES, FACEBOOK PAGES, NOVELS -- ANY AND ALL OF MY WRITINGS -- WITH A FINE-TOOTHED COMB. THEN ASK YOURSELF WHY A PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AT A MAJOR STATE UNIVERSITY WOULD BOTHER HIMSELF ABOUT THE LITTLE NICHE BLOGS OF A RETIRED INSURANCE SECRETARY. ASK YOURSELF WHY HE WOULD CHARACTERIZE AS 'HATE' WHAT ISN'T AND AS 'RACISM' WHAT ISN'T. WHAT STAKE HAS HE GOT IN ALL THIS?

Yes, do. Read me. Then read his blog. See what he has said about me, about other Southern heritage advocates, and the movement in general. Go over Crossroads, and then my blogs, websites, Facebook posts, novels, short stories -- any and all my writings -- with a fine-toothed comb. And when you're finished, ask yourself why a professor of history at a major state university would bother himself about the little niche blogs of a retired insurance secretary half a continent away. Ask yourself why he would characterize as "hate" that which is not. What stake has he got in all this?

___________________
**Remembering and honoring Confederate soldiers and their bravery, endurance and sacrifice.


45 comments :

  1. Wow my little parody of him awhile back must have really crawled up his behind if he persists in going on and on about my old fanfiction work...stories that I am proud of and which I have received a great deal of praise from people I hold in much higher esteem than a sad little hater like Brooks Simpleton.


    ReplyDelete
  2. Brooks like many other floggers refuses to leave the comfort zone of his blog, it reminds me of a Simon and Garfunkel song

    " I've built walls, a fortress deep and mighty that none may penetrate
    I have no need of friendship, friendship causes pain
    It's laughter and it's loving I disdain
    I am a rock, I am an island"

    ---------------
    "I have my books and my poetry to protect me
    I am shielded in my armor, hiding in my room, safe within my womb
    I touch no one and no one touches me
    I am a rock, I am an island

    And a rock can feel no pain
    And an island never cries"


    Dave Tatum.



    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting accusation coming from Dav, who personally sees to the "banishment" of anyone he disagrees with.

    When exactly has he come out of his "comfort zone?" At least Connie ventures out from time to time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another great blog. Too bad that a certain few have no idea what Our banner represents.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey, I STAY ventured out. And when has Simpson come out of his "comfort zone?" Never, to my knowledge.

    So what did you think of the content of the post?

    And what is "hate" about a white person preferring to associate with white people?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Should we honor Confederate Soldiers for beginning the KKK?

    ReplyDelete
  7. He doesn't really have to when so many come to him.

    More of the same.

    I'm still waiting on you to answer my questions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. After this one Connie, the title of your blog should just be...

    ASS!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Corey, there were hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers. Six of them started the KKK. If you want to look so foolish, try it.

    Should we honor federal troops for warring with Indians, killing many of them off, rounding up the rest into concentra-- I mean, reservations? That involved a lot more than six soldiers....

    ReplyDelete
  10. Corey sez, "After this one Connie, the title of your blog should just be...ASS!"

    Ah, that means I done good.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rob, what do you care what Dave does? Or what I do, for that matter?

    ReplyDelete
  12. If the Confederate Flag is a symbol of slavery, white supremacy, and racism, then, as I have said repeatedly, so is the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, and Jefferson Memorial. And if it is possible to look past the imperfections of those three figures and discover a more poignant meaning in their legacy, then it is also possible to look past the imperfections of the Confederacy and discover a deeper meaning in its legacy. There will be one set of rules, not two.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; Titus 3:10

    ReplyDelete
  14. You know what I find amazing?
    Six Billion people in the world,
    That's 6.000.000.000, and there are only 2 that I totally ignore.
    One of em is a known liar, who has more identity's than Mel Blanc, can't spell (even with spell check)and is seldom able to put two coherent sentences together.
    The other is a cyber bully wannabe, who argues for the sake of arguing.
    Who, by the way has been to my blog 178 times!
    Both of them are teachers!
    Before I give either of em a soapbox to expand their nonsense on,I would first do something more important, like rotate the cinder blocks under my pick up truck.
    I don't care if they support or oppose what I say their opinion means ZERO to me. So that leaves
    5.999.999.998 people who can post at my blog. I don't think that's all that bad.

    ReplyDelete
  15. OH! I came out of my "comfort zone" at http://deadconfederates.com/2013/08/18/welcome-to-crackertown-formerly-richmond-virginia/

    ReplyDelete
  16. All citizens should have the right to express their view and opinion on any given subject. Freedom of speech and expression is one of the cornerstones of freedom. Here is my opinion of those who wish to eliminate Confederate symbols from public view. For simplicity, I call those misguided individuals who desecrate Confederate symbols "race baiters."

    Seems the race baiters will stop at nothing to desecrate or destroy a Confederate symbol. The Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of the Confederate Army. A relatively small number of American citizens have misused the Confederate Battle flag from time to time. It must be noted here that those same individuals misused the American flag in the same way, but the misuse of the American flag is ignored. Where is the outrage in displaying the American flag by the KKK?

    The relatively few Americans, both black and white, that oppose flying the Confederate Battle flag are known as race baiters. Displaying the Confederate Battle Flag is not the primary issue that causes the uproar. The Race baiters are on a mission to destroy ALL symbols of the South. The race baiters, as their primary goal, are practicing a form of genocide against ALL Confederate soldiers and their ancestors and all things Confederate.

    For example, why do the race baiters attack Confederate monuments, military forts named in honor of Confederate heroes, city streets named after Confederate heroes, and city park names, some that contain the graves of Confederate soldiers? General Robert E. Lee's birthday celebration has been replaced with Martin Luther King's birthday on most calendars printed today. How did the KKK misuse all those Confederate symbols to further their cause, and is the KKK's misuse of Confederate symbols the real issue?

    Any symbol or artifact that, in the slightest way, depicts Confederate history is open for annihilation and destruction. The race baiters will stop at NOTHING to destroy a Confederate symbol, including gerrymandering the awesome power and control of government rules, regulations and laws, boycotts, marches, thief, robbery, burglary, trespass and desecration of Confederate graves to name a few.

    Thank you Virginia Flaggers for standing up to those who wish genocide on ALL Confederate heritage and history. The race baiters and haters of ALL things Confederate must be stopped before they destroy all southern history - both black and white.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dog Gone Old Age, I also ventured out of Dixie, here - http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/letters/confederate-flag-wavers-here-proudly-display-their-ignorance-700238/

    ReplyDelete
  18. Right, Connie, only six created the KKK, but how many joined?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Corey, you didn't ask, "Should we honor Confederate Soldiers for joining the KKK?" You asked, "Should we honor Confederate Soldiers for beginning the KKK?" If you meant "joining" you should have said "joining."

    As a matter of fact, I don't know how many joined. Do you?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I noticed how Brooks, in all his moral superiority, sneers at the President of UVA, circa 1975, and his membership in an all-white social club. Given this observation, it seems perfectly appropriate to call Brooks on his phony holier-than-thou pretensions. It is not 1975 anymore, it is 2013. So go ahead and take visit to the Arizona State Law School (Sandra Day O'Connor School of Law)web page. Look at the faculty profiles and count the number of African-Americans on staff. One, exactly one African-American out of a staff of 51! In fairness to the Law Scool, this seems to be fairly common at ASU, as numerous departments have absolutely no African-Americans as faculty. This issue, I think, is crucially important, very much overlooked, and very much worth examining

    So if Brooks is so pure, why does he work for such a racist institution? Why is he not up in arms protesting the racist hiring practices at Arizona State?

    ReplyDelete
  21. And then ran away back home Dav.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yeah, this from a guy like Baker, who, when he gets his nose badly bloodied on his own blog, pusillanimously takes a parting cheap shot, then shuts the thread down.

    PS- Sorry Robbie, this ain't your blog, and this will be posted. 😃

    ReplyDelete
  23. Typical sniveling !
    First he insinuates I don't come out of my comfort zone,
    "When exactly has he come out of his "comfort zone?" At least Connie ventures out from time to time."
    Then when I show him 2 recent ventures, he snivels,and makes a crude comment.
    Is it any wonder why I reject all the comments he sends to my blog?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm sorry if you can't read what you write Austin. It would seem you have a very liberal definition of "nose bloodied," since you gave the same rehashed comments seen time and time again.

    The thread is still open by the way. And make sure you check out part 3! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dav,

    I've been more than fair with you over the years. I've agreed when I felt you right, gave credit where credit is due (to other people not just you) and disagreed when necessary. Despite this, you decide to make obscene posts about me, then block any retort, and send me private emails, while blocking all retorts. I noticed your comments on those blogs were one shot statements, then nothing else. You don't come out of your comfort zone Dav, you come out to say a few choice words and then run away. You don't engage in the context of the post, or question evidence. I have more respect for Connie Chastain in that regard than I do for you, and God knows that's saying a lot. (Connie will most likely agree with that sentiment)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oh Rob gimme a break, huh? You explicitly said that I was done in the thread, go read it yourself. As to your credibility, you're the same guy who titles a thread "Stupid things people say..." and then has the audacity to accuse someone else of "trolling". Too rich. And as for your lame, predictable "arguments", wailing slavery 448 times and foolishly asserting that the American Colonies were not part of the British Empire won't cut it. Unless, of course, it is your blog and you can distort and falsify the discussion.

    Can't silence me here buddy boy.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Uh, no.

    You were done with the thread for several reasons: you blatantly ignored various facts in order to push your own agenda; you began to develop a straw man argument; and your argument was circular. So yea, you are done on that thread. The conversation was remaining circular as long as you stood by the same rehashed stances seen time and time again. So what is the point of continuing rather than for the point of being argumentative? Hence, the troll categorization.

    I'm not silencing you, it's too much fun watching you post erroneous statements. The reason my arguments are "predictable" is because they are documented,backed by historical evidence, and run linear to modern scholarship. Where is your evidence to back up your arguments? My favorite argument of yours is featured in part 3.

    As far as the colonies, your points are another exhaustive attempt to create a straw man argument. Good luck finding where I have ever said, "the American Colonies were not part of the British Empire.." Though I do invite you to try.





    ReplyDelete
  28. Rob, as is your style you have changed horse's in the middle of the stream so that you can attempt a long drawn out debate.
    You started out by saying I never come out of my comfort zone, I proved you wrong!
    So you changed direction and say now my comments were too short.
    Long drawn out debates are your thing not mine, I say what I think needs to be said, and move on.

    Connie and I also have different styles, she will write "Gone with the wind" in full text, I will write it in "Readers Digest" format.

    That being said, I wish you a Good Day ! And you are now returned to my "ZERO LIST"

    ReplyDelete
  29. No you didn't Dav. One look at your posts shows that you run out and run back in the hole. If you want to come out of your comfort zone, then actually engage in discourse on someone else's blog than one of your pals. Until then, all puppy with no bite.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Robbie, defeating your empty assertions, worthless scholarship, and useless arguments is done with so little effort, it's lmost criminal So let's begin, shally we?
    Now then, you emphatically and truculently maintain that the American colonies did not "secede" from the British Empire. And in defense of this groundless and fatuous absurdity, you rely on an obscure, snarky, mean-spirited, irrelevant little academician from Arizona. And to contradict you both, I have, well I guess I will just have to rely on Thomas Jefferson. Here is what Jefferson said after the Declaration of Independence was issued:


    "...such a SECESSION would weaken us..."


    Boo ya!


    Now what pathetic little retort do you have. If you are going to try and argue that "secession" had a different meaning in the 18th century, don't bother; Simpson tried that and I immediately provided him with a link to an 18th century dictionary which had the same definition then as now ( then, like you, he suppressed any further commentary). By the way, in an earlier thread, you waxed sentimental about how you were in "awe" of Jefferson's language in the DoI, so this is especially satisfying. Good grief, this like shooting fish in a barrel

    ReplyDelete
  31. Austin I am going to ignore everything you have said to concentrate on one thing. I am also wondering if you are friends with Caldwell since you two are making the same arguments at roughly the same time.

    "...such a SECESSION would weaken us... (your emphasis)

    This is what Historians call, "taking a quote out of context" or simply "cherry picking." The full quote, not in the David Barton style is this:

    That the resolution entered into by this house on the 15th of May for suppressing the exercise of all powers derived from the crown, had shown, by the ferment into which it had thrown these middle colonies, that they had not yet accommodated their minds to a separation from the mother country:

    That some of them had expressly forbidden their delegates to consent to such a declaration, and others had given no instructions, & consequently no powers to give such consent:

    That if the delegates of any particular colony had no power to declare such colony independent, certain they were the others could not declare it for them; the colonies being as yet perfectly independent of each other:

    That the assembly of Pennsylvania was now sitting above stairs, their convention would sit within a few days, the convention of New York was now sitting, & those of the Jerseys & Delaware counties would meet on the Monday following, & it was probable these bodies would take up the question of Independence & would declare to their delegates the voice of their state:

    That if such a declaration should now be agreed to, these delegates(of the middle colonies) must retire(from the Congress) & possibly their colonies might secede from the Union (Union of Colonies: (My notes, my emphasis)

    That such a secession would weaken us more than could be compensated by any foreign alliance:

    That in the event of such a division,(those colonies leaving the 'union') foreign powers would either refuse to join themselves to our fortunes, or, having us so much in their power as that desperate declaration would place us, they would insist on terms proportionably[sic] more hard and prejudicial:
    (my emphasis)(Jefferson's account of the Declaration)

    Jefferson was not talking about "secession" from Great Britain, Jefferson was talking about the possible secession of the middle colonies from the 'Union,' as he termed it. The 'Union' simply being the union of the colonies. But hey don't take my word for it, you can find the exact same thing on page 82 of Revolutionary Negotiations: Indians, Empires and Diplomats in the Founding of America. (it's on Google books)

    I do admire Jefferson's words, but unlike you, I can actually read them past a random line out of context.

    ReplyDelete
  32. To add a couple of things,

    1.) Jefferson said these things BEFORE the Declaration of Independence.

    2.) Your statements, under the name "Cladwell" on Brooks's page, are confusing and circular. You were checked at every point but kept thrusting headlong into the falsehood.

    3.) After checking my IP address, I now see you are the same person. So you are making the same arguments twice on two different pages, under two different names? Wrongly I might add. I also explained to you (twice now on my page and once on here) that your "evidence" as you call it, is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dear Abby:
    It seems I have a cyber stalker, for Identification we shall call the stalker Roberta.
    A while back we chatted on line,( mostly argued), I grew weary of the endless banter and decided to move on. Neither one of us is going to change our views so I could see no point in further communications.
    I thought Roberta would take the hint when I blocked the incoming E-Mails. Nope!
    Then I blocked Roberta from my Face Book page. No dice!
    I have a blog that deals with history, Roberta has been to it close to 180 times. Apparently Roberta is much more interested in what I have to say than I am in what Roberta has to say.
    I have gone as far as rejecting all comments that Roberta sends me.
    Now Roberta follows me to other blog sites and tries to get me to argue.
    My oh my, what can I do? I’m weary of the unwanted attention, and feel that Roberta has an unhealthy fixation on me. How can I rid myself of this cyber stalker, who craves my attention?
    Dav Tatum

    ReplyDelete
  34. Robbie,
    Still trying to square the circle? Here are a few more:

    "... This country was born through SECESSION"
    - U.S.Congressman, and U. S. Pressidential Candidate Ron Paul

    "...our country itself began as a SECESSION..."
    -CATO Research Fellow Jason Kuznicki

    "..when we were colonists, and fought a war against the king and Parliament,so that we could SECEDE from the British Empire..."
    - Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano


    How many more ya want?

    PS- I read the Caldwell thread. You are getting trashed. And I do mean trashed.

    PPS- Can't silence me here pal.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Just a couple more things:

    1. After the American Colonies seceded from the British Empire, the British Constitutional Monarchy happily remained one of the most powerful and sophisticated civil societies in the world. The King remained on the throne, and the Realm continued its existence.All the colonies did was withdraw from the Empire. Nothing else.

    2. "To secede" only means to withdraw from an
    organization. A secession may be legal or illegal, violent or peaceful. A secession be conducted by equals or
    subordinates. The only criteria is that of withdrawing.
    Period.

    3. As evidenced by Jefferson himself, the terms "secede" and "secession" were in use long before the
    Confederates seceded.

    4. A multitude of scholars, historians, lawyers, and politicians have commonly referred to the American Revolution as a secession.


    Typically, that would about do it, but in the upside down jabberwocky world of Lincolnite Unionists, ya just never
    know.


    an act of secession.

    ReplyDelete
  36. You have an odd way of "blocking people" Dav. Usually when one does that, they don't refer to them on their blog, say comments directly to them, or email them from behind a firewall. Thanks for playing.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Austin, you are Caldwell. There is a thing called an IP address. You actually referenced yourself earlier, giving the same answer that you just did below. But when you look on Simpson's page, you are Caldwell.

    Again, your definition does not matter since the founders did not refer to the act as one of secession, nor were they in a position to legally withdraw.

    You are not posting any scholars, but people with a crude interpretation of history.

    Just because the word was around, does not mean it is the correct description of the event.

    Please cite that plethora of American scholars that do (note, scholars does not include the Cato Institute [ a self described political think tank ], politicians or TV personalities.)

    ReplyDelete
  38. 1.) You mean after the declared Independence from Great Britain after armed revolt. Additionally you are wrong. Britain dealt with numerous problems. For starters, people became dissatisfied with parliament, an Association movement began seeking male suffrage. This culminated in the Gordon Riots. In short, Britain had to rebuild, and expand, which they did. This is why the period after the Revolution is known as Britain's "second empire".

    2.) If you are right, then why did the founders not refer to the event as secession? Why was it only after, that some of those same founders, then talked about secession among the North and the South?

    3.) Never said they were not. Irrelevant point.

    4.) Please cite those sources.

    I noticed you abandoned that Jefferson argument....good.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hey Austin/Caldwell...


    I recently learned you also go by Clarissa, Reed, and Jennifer Cotton. Any more aliases we should know about? Why are you so scared to post your real name? Trollers gonna troll I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hey Rob, just a little more salt to the wound. This time I'll start with a couple of editorials from the New York Tribune:

    "...we have repeatedly said and we once more insist, that the great principles embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Indepence...are sound and just...if it justified the SECESSION FROM THE BRITISH EMPIRE..."

    And from a contemporary legal scholar:

    "...SECESSION occurred only a decade later...inducing Rhode Island, Virginia, and other colonies of England in North America to WITHDRAW FROM THE BRITISH EMPIRE..."

    -John Remington Graham


    How many more ya want?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Legally withdraw? Is that your new definition of secession? In other words, what the Confederates did was legal, and accordingly, Lincoln prosecuted a lawless war of conquest and aggression. Your old definition, you may recall, stated that the seceding entity must have entered the organization from which it was withdrawing by agreement. I, of course, was delighted to observe that that is precisely how the colonies entered the British Empire, and reminded you of the Colonial Charters, of which you had never heard. You can't seem to get it right, huh little guy?

    Now then, and this might sting a little, but I'm gonna pour just a little more salt in you wound. This is from a BRITISH Magazine, circa 1860:


    "...with what presence of fairness...can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded ON SECESSION from the British Empire..."

    Sorry if that stung a little, but there's more. You see, little fella, "secession" is not a historical concept, it is a political and legal concept. Therefore, little guy, a Superior Court Judge, a Law Professor, newspaper Editors, magazine Editors, Research Scholars, and United States Congressman have a perfect right to define "secession", and far more so than some silly uninformed student with a mindless agenda to hawk.


    PS- Can' silence me here buddy boy. Now, are you going to be a good little fella, and concede the obvious, or are you going to continue to troll?




    ReplyDelete
  42. Austin/Caldwell/Ryan/Clarissa/ Jennifer Cotton/ Reed (whoever you are)


    1. You cannot define historical secession in the same way you would today. The correct schema and context has to be applied. Brooks already explained this to you, but you apparently you have trouble reading.

    2. Oh, well I guess that settles it. A pro southern newspaper account in Great Britain during the Civil War is definitely evidence that the American Revolution was a secession event.....not.

    Finally, I'm not going to engage in your ignorance anymore. You have been checked at every obscene point. You've continued to troll and you've done all this under a FAKE USERNAME. When you were given directions in order for your comments to be approved, you did as predicted and lashed out. You came hear and claimed victory, a moral one implied. And, you did just as Andy Hall said you would, you sent me a personal email full of nothing but insults calling me a coward. Interesting words coming from someone on their Ipad in Virginia hiding behind a computer and fake usernames. You can take your blind ignorance and trolling somewhere else.

    But to further show how ignorant you are before I leave, let's look at these posted sources from which you claim a victory.

    You quoted a pro-secession article from the Civil War era...not the Revolutionary era. In this particular article, they are justifying secession in 1860-61, not during the American Revolution. Not very credible in terms of defining the American Revolution as secession.

    John Graham is not considered, by any means, a temporary 'scholar.' His published works come from Pelican Publishing, which is pretty much the laughing stock of academia for their "Lost Cause" agenda and shoddy research.

    You are basically asserting, by using all pro-southern sources,(which outright denies objectivity) that Civil War secession is comparable to the American Revolution. You sir are an epic fail. You are doing all this, without once, quoting a Founder asserting this. You know, the guys that defined the Revolution. Your one attempt ended in such a pathetic failure, that I'm actually excited to see if you'll try again. But then again, I'm exhausted from you utter lack of intelligence.

    Hope you've enjoyed the show Connie. I think I'll unsubscribe from this thread. Though on a personal note Connie, I am curious why you accuse Corey Meyer of alter egos all the time, but let this one slide. Of course, maybe I'm over analyzing; you could just not know, or have just been approving comments without reading them.


    ReplyDelete
  43. Robbie my boy, every vacuous, meaningless, vapid, and anfractuous "argument" you have relied on was crushed, and you, sadly, are now reduced to hysterical, wild-eyed ranting, and outright begging. The idea that a myopic 25 year old student has the unmitigated gall to announce his expertise and judgement is to be preferred over men of infinitely more ability, expertise, and experience is riotously funny. Let's see now, on a question of the law, on whose expertise shall I rely, Judge Napolitano or Rob Baker. Judge Napolitano, of course, was educated at Princeton, and Notre Dame; he was also a Superior Court Judge, and is an accomplished author. Rob Baker is a student at "North Georgia University" ( which I thought was a trade school). Gimme a flipping break. And while Rob is a student hoping someday to earn his Masters, Jason Kuznicki holds a Phd from Johns Hopkins. Is, uh, that a "credentialed historian" Robbie boy? Because Mr. Kuznicki calls the colonial separation from the British Empire a " SECESSION". But you know better. Again, gimme a flipping break. And on and on.

    Lastly, Robbie boy, you seem positively beside yourself that I would dare to answer your insults with insults of my own. Count on it buddy boy. So really, enough of your whining, bed-wetting, and thumb- sucking. What next, you gonna tell the teacher?

    PS- the profile picture you use? Lose it. No kidding, you look like a penis with ears.






    Let's face facts Robbie boy, you angrily lashed out with foolish and meaningless criticisms

    ReplyDelete
  44. And a little more salt to the wound:


    "...in short, the decision TO SECEDE from the British Empire..."

    - Pulitzer Prize Historian Joesph Ellis


    Want more?

    ReplyDelete

Comments are welcome, but monitored.