The Daily Show Fizzle

Jon Stewart’s interview with Andrew Napolitano got a lot of attention. I’m not sure it was worth the wait.

First, there was the one-on-one interview, here and here. Note that Napolitano deplores slavery; he’s so badly wrong about the Fugitive Slave Act that I’m astonished (and it appears the judge overlooked that the act was to implement a provision of the Constitution). The equating of the transAtlantic slave trade with the Civil War’s death toll makes no sense; Lincoln offered to buy the slaves (and then provide for their voluntary relocation elsewhere), but white southerners were not interested in selling. The tariff business is “silly,” but you know that. In fact, the conversation became incoherent at several points. Stewart’s done some reading, but he doesn’t have command of his material, and it shows.

And then there was a lame attempt at a game show, called “The Weakest Lincoln,” here (short version) and here (long version), in which historians James Oakes, Eric Foner, and Manisha Sinha act as judges while Napolitano spars with a faux Lincoln. Once more Napolitano raises tariffs as a cause for the war; once more we hear the flawed discussion about emancipation through purchase (Foner reminds us that slavery was a prosperous institution in 1860); once more someone thinks that the comparison between the human cost of the war and the slave trade, where the linkage continues to escape me.

I’m not sure that the game show exhibited professional historians to best advantage, but it may say something about how people might have to rethink conveying historical understanding to an audience that’s used to short videos, snappy comments, finger-thrusting, and letting the loudest voice win. To me it looked like a bad night in the comments section.

If you found this informative, well, I wonder why. If you found it compelling, well, to each his own. If you found it somewhere between slightly amusing and sad (and yet, ultimately, a little bit boring, to continue the theme of the week), well, I’ll make room for you right here.

68 thoughts on “The Daily Show Fizzle

  1. Charlie March 12, 2014 / 3:00 pm

    Seems to me that no matter what evidence is presented, Napolitano will still hold his current beliefs about Lincoln and the Civil War. His type of libertarianism is more worried about purity than the evidence. So no matter what happened on the Daily Show, the Napolitano’s and Ron Paul’s of the world will remain steadfast in their misguided beliefs.

    • gpthelastrebel March 15, 2014 / 12:35 pm

      Would the same be true for you in spite of historical fact presented??? Would you change your position if you were proven wrong?

        • gpthelastrebel March 19, 2014 / 7:34 am

          More than likely not since I have yet to be proven wrong

          • Brooks D. Simpson March 19, 2014 / 1:15 pm

            No … you simply won’t admit that you’ve been proven wrong. We understand that. So send me a link to your chat room, and I’ll advise my readers that they can find your reflections there. Thanks much.

          • gpthelastrebel March 20, 2014 / 6:19 am

            What Have I been proven wrong about?

          • Brooks D. Simpson March 22, 2014 / 1:06 am

            I’d run out of space. Let’s just suggest that if you didn’t know that the Constitution established a mandate to recover fugitives from labor (and apparently you don’t know this), then you can’t understand why there was a Fugitive Slave Act in the first place.

            But then that’s why you now have your own blog: so you can express your own ideas without fear of censorship and without readers.

  2. tmheaney March 12, 2014 / 4:15 pm

    I was excited by the Daily Show’s ideas, but ultimately disappointed. It reminded me of when David Barton came on the show and out maneuvered Stewart who just didn’t have the historical knowledge to deal with Barton’s slight of hand. Napolitano’s a slower opponent, so Stewart definitely scored some hits on Napolitano, but the quiz show was just perplexing.

    As you note, the worst part was the attempted comparison of the “costs” of Atlantic slave trade with that of the Civil War which was completely perplexing. But Foner’s response to the question about U.S. Marshals and the Fugitive Slave Act enforcement during the war was really puzzling. Foner points out in his The Fiery Trial that Ward Hill Lamon, a friend of Lincoln who had appointed him U.S. Marshal, was indeed capturing Fugitive Slaves in 1861 which created some issues for Lincoln (see page 191). So, did Foner’s gameshow response mean that Lincoln just didn’t SPECIFICALLY order Marshals to capture suspected fugitive slaves and therefore the answer was “no” or did Foner answer incorrectly?

    It always appeared to me that Lincoln did enforce the Fugitive Slave Act at least in the early part of thew war because he had to as President (at least as so far as it was necessary vis-a-vis the border states). Am I wrong?

    • Brooks D. Simpson March 12, 2014 / 4:27 pm

      Well, the bizarre claim was that Lincoln was enforcing it with the Confederacy. That was wacky … and would complicate the story of confiscation legislation. But yes, the law was enforced in the loyal states and DC (even as Lincoln first pressed for a modification of the law, followed by Congress simply repealing it in 1864).

      • tmheaney March 12, 2014 / 4:40 pm

        Got it. I went back and watched it once more — yes, “wacky” is the word for it. And for the judge too. Thanks.

      • Al Mackey March 13, 2014 / 11:17 am

        Not only that, but the administration turned a blind eye to the law in many cases. If a fugitive said his master was disloyal, they weren’t returned. Congress, in 1862, passed a law, signed by Lincoln, that forbade the Army from returning fugitive slaves. When the Federal government began recruiting black soldiers following the Final EP, the FSL was a law in name only. If a slave enlisted, they were freed no matter who their owner was. Then the FSL was repealed completely in 1864, so even if Napolitano was asserting that it was followed in the loyal states and the “North” all the way through the war, he’s still wrong. Neither Napolitano nor Stewart were aware of the full story.

        • gpthelastrebel March 15, 2014 / 12:31 pm

          So no slaves were returned to loyal slaveowners?

          • Brooks D. Simpson March 15, 2014 / 12:43 pm

            I believe we’ve pointed out that there are examples where the law remained in effect and was enforced. Wouldn’t you blame Lincoln for violating the law?

            The fact remains that the judge was wrong. Lincoln did not use the Fugitive Slave Law to return slaves to Confederates. Indeed, confiscation legislation and congressional mandates addressed that issue. You might want to explore how Ward Hill Lamon’s desire to enforce the law affected him … and how in this case, Lincoln did not step in to protect a man who was his dear friend.

          • gpthelastrebel March 17, 2014 / 7:57 am

            May question was — Did Lincoln return slaves to loyal slaveowners.?? I said nothing about returning slaves to Confederates.

          • Al Mackey March 15, 2014 / 5:50 pm

            Learn how to read the English language, Georgie. Do you need someone to define “in many cases” to you? No fugitive slaves were returned at all after Congress repealed the FSL. Male fugitives who enlisted in the Union Army after January 1, 1863 were not returned. Slaves who claimed their owners were disloyal were not returned after the Confiscation Acts were passed. Fugitives from areas covered by the Emancipation Proclamation were not returned after January 1, 1863.

          • gpthelastrebel March 17, 2014 / 8:00 am

            It appears to me I am the only one here who can actualy read English. I ask a simple question and the answer is yes, Lincoln did return slaves to loyal slaveowners. Thank you. Lincoln did not free all the slaves, only those belonging to Confederates.

          • Brooks D. Simpson March 18, 2014 / 3:07 pm

            It’s a typical mistake to equate all of the Lincoln administration’s actions promoting emancipation with the Emancipation Proclamation. It’s also a mistake to claim that it was the executive branch alone that pushed for emancipation, as confiscation legislation and the Thirteenth Amendment suggest.

            If you are asking whether Lincoln personally returned slaves to loyal slaveowners, the answer is no. If you are asking whether the Fugitive Slave Law remained on the books (and was enforced in several circumstance), the answer is yes. But we’ve said that before. So let’s move on.

          • gpthelastrebel March 19, 2014 / 7:36 am

            I know Lincoln did not return slaves himself.

  3. Ira Berkowitz March 13, 2014 / 6:39 am

    I think we need to keep this in context. Stewart’s show is a 22 minute fake news / comedy show on basic cable. He has an audience (an audience that probably doesn’t have a nuanced understanding of the topics covered) to keep tuned in and he took on a fairly serious issue, in a relatively serious way. He deserves credit for that.

    He called BS on each of Napolitano’s non-sense points. I acknowledge that the game show bit was awkward, but that was largely due to the lopsided nature of the discussion. Napolitano looked silly and out of his depth. He didn’t have a deep knowledge of the facts or the historical context that provides understanding. He was bloviating and looked silly.

    The academics cleared up a lot of Napolitano’s factual inaccuracies and kept the conversation honest. They were strong and clear and I think brought an important context and information to the discussion.

    I am not sure its fair to expect the Daily Show to be incredibly informative on these topics. But they ought to get credit for trying and doing a credible job at it. They offered a discussion of serious topic in a manner that was accessible in the popular culture.

    I enjoyed it.

    • Brooks D. Simpson March 13, 2014 / 11:50 am

      However, a somewhat different format would have had more educational value without necessarily becoming boring. Three scholars was, frankly, overkill. And the shouting back and forth might have been entertaining, but it was foolish, as was the faux Lincoln. And to say that Lincoln killed all those people to destroy slavery overlooks the fact that many of those who perished were fighting to preserve what the judge termed a dying institution. In short, Andrew Napolitano thinks white southerners are stupid, but he dare not say that on Fox networks lest they lose viewership.

      • Ira Berkowitz March 13, 2014 / 7:04 pm

        I am not sure I agree. I think the overkill on the scholars is fair. My theory is that this may be a reaction to the Barton interview that tmheaney mentions earlier in the thread above. I keep coming back to the fact that the show is a satire. The whole concept is parody in a relatively short form. And best of all . . . it has given all of us something to talk . . . and think . . . about.

      • gpthelastrebel March 15, 2014 / 12:32 pm

        So who was fighting to preserve slavery??/ Were there no slaveowners fighting for the Union?

        • Brooks D. Simpson March 15, 2014 / 12:47 pm

          Secessionists made it very clear that they were fighting to protect, preserve, and promote slavery. Why don’t you take them at their word? Are you saying that the Confederates were liars, and you know their mind better than they did?

          Of course some slaveholders remained loyal to the Union. Some of them remained loyal in the hope that the Union would not act against slavery. Some of them remained loyal because they thought Lincoln would not strike against slavery (and they proved less willing to support him when he did so).

          • gpthelastrebel March 17, 2014 / 8:16 am

            The Confederates were not fighting to preserve slavery. That is just one of those myths that gets passed around to give the Union the moral high ground. Your statement that the loyal slave-owners fought for the Union in hopes that nothing would be done about slavery is in itself proof the war was not about slavery. The fact is regardless of the reasons they fought, slave-owners served both the Blue and Gray

            If anyone fought for the institution of African slavery it was the North, since the Constitution did not outlaw African slavery.
            If you or anyone you know can provide documents proving the Confederates fought for the institution of slavery, I would love to see them. If you will give me the names then I will be more than happy to look them up.

          • Jimmy Dick March 17, 2014 / 9:15 pm

            Gee, you might want to go get in that time machine and go back to tell the people who wrote down that they were fighting to preserve slavery that they weren’t. I just presented a paper today and quoted the statement right out of the Four County History of Clark, Knox, Lewis, and Scotland County where the secessionists repeatedly stated they wanted to secede to preserve slavery because the North was trying to eliminate it.
            Also, please look at the secession documents which you have been directed to time and time again. Please learn to read and understand what you read. The vice president of the Confederacy said slavery was the foundation of the Confederacy. It is all there in the public record and you just keep ignoring it.

          • gpthelastrebel March 18, 2014 / 7:34 am

            Ok fair enough. Now just post here the exact passage which says we are going to war. Pretty simple isn’t it? No comments, nothing, just post the passage.

          • Brooks D. Simpson March 18, 2014 / 7:54 am

            George, would you please post the passage in which Confederates declare why they are going to war? Will you please post the passage that shows that they said they went to war because of protective tariffs? Thanks.

          • gpthelastrebel March 19, 2014 / 7:48 am

            tYou will find the response to your question in the chat room. If you cannot find it, please let me know.

            It can also be said that the Confederacy was not fighting because of the issue of taxes, rather the Confederacy was fighting because of the Federal invasion at Pensacola and Charleston.

          • Brooks D. Simpson March 19, 2014 / 1:13 pm

            Well, George, if that’s the way you want to play this, then I’ll tell you that from now on people should go to your chat room to read your responses to the blog. This will save a lot of space here. Thanks.

          • Jimmy Dick March 18, 2014 / 8:04 am

            Oh look, the old smoking gun trick. Let’s see, how about the order that Jefferson Davis sent to Charleston which said to attack Fort Sumter. That started the war. The process itself began with the secession of South Carolina although that is only an official moment. The actual process that led to the war was started far earlier. Thomas Jefferson saw it with the Missouri Compromise.

            What you want is a smoking gun and history doesn’t work like that. It works on its own level, not yours. This is where historians come into play. They research the past and develop interpretations from multiple sources and use CONTEXT in making those interpretations. You have to use the sum of the whole in making decisions about the past, not one single document. That being said, the documents show the conflict was over slavery.

          • gpthelastrebel March 19, 2014 / 8:13 am

            No trick. You made a statement show proof to support that statement. Secession had many causes, but none of them led to the war. Your proof positive is the Secession documents, which are nothing more than a list of grievances. So that being case, show proof using these documents that the war was fought over slavery. When you have done this I will show proof the issue was not slavery
            The only event that leads to the war was Anderson moving from Moultrie to Sumter. Without that event there would have been no war.
            I sure hope you didn’t hurt your arm patting yourself on the back and giving yourself a bunch of undeserved credit. And speaking of one document most “historians” that I encounter on he couple of blogs I visit use two documents the Declarations of Immediate Causes or the Cornerstone Speech. Therefore your whole section regarding historians and what they are supposed to do is nothing more than a bunch of hooey.
            Secession and the war are two separate events. Secession was for various reasons. If one is to use the DOS as a cause of the war, then it could be said Mississippi was fighting because the Federal government wanted to free the slaves without providing them with a better standard of living. Texas was fighting because of Indian raids, Georgia because of bailouts, and South Carolina because of abuses of the Constitution. The war as I have stated above was for one reason and one reason only.
            Have you ever read the Ordinances of Secession? If so what is the reason for secession?

          • John Foskett March 19, 2014 / 2:20 pm

            “The reason for secession.” Let’s try these:

            1. “Georgia because of bailouts”?

            Somebody should have informed Georgia’s commissioner Mr. Benning when he told the folks in Virginia “What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause.

            2. “South Carolina because of abuses of the Constitution”?

            Like Mr. Benning, Mr. Preston apparently didn’t get the message when speaking to the boys in Virginia: “This, gentlemen, brings me directly to the causes which I desire to lay before you. For fully thirty years or more, the people of the Northern States have assailed the institution of African slavery. They have assailed African slavery in every form in which, by our contiguity of territory and our political alliance with them, they have been permitted to approach it. During that period of thirty years, large masses of their people have associated themselves together for the purpose of abolishing the institution of African slavery, and means, the most fearful were suggested to the subject race-rising and murdering their masters being the charities of those means. In pursuance of this idea, their representatives in the federal government have endeavored by all the means that they could bring to bear, so to shape the legislation as almost to limit, to restrict, to restrain the slaveholding States from any political interest in the accretion of the government. So that as my distinguished colleague [judge Benning], stated to you on yesterday, the decree goes forth that there are to be no more slave States admitted into the Union.

            3. “Mississippi was fighting because the Federal government wanted to free the slaves without providing them with a better standard of living”?

            It appears that Mr. Anderson also was operating in complete ignorance of the reason his state seceded: “As early as the 10th of February, 1860, her Legislature had, with the general approbation of her people, adopted the following resolution: “Resolved, That the election of a President of the United States by the votes of one section of the Union only, on the ground that there exists an irrepressible conflict between the two sections in reference to their respective systems of labor and with an avowed purpose of hostility to the institution of slavery, as it prevails in the Southern States, and as recognized in the compact of Union, would so threaten a destruction of the ends for which the Constitution was formed, as to justify the slaveholding States in taking council together for their separate protection and safety.” This was the ground taken, gentlemen, not only by Mississippi, but by other slaveholding States, in view of the then threatened purpose, of a party founded upon the idea of unrelenting and eternal hostility to the institution of slavery, to take possession of the power of the Government and use it to our destruction.”

            Sometimes it pays to read what people actually wrote and said rather than just making it up.

          • Brooks D. Simpson March 18, 2014 / 3:14 pm

            Sorry, George, but many Confederates admitted that they were fighting to protect slavery. Are you calling them liars? Ask John Singleton Mosby, who said:

            “People must be judged by the standard of their own age. If it was right to own slaves as property it was right to fight for it. The South went to war on account of slavery. South Carolina went to war – as she said in her Secession proclamation – because slavery wd. not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding.”

            You asked for a document, and I’ve produced one. We await your admission that you were wrong. After all, as you asked: Would you change your position if you were proven wrong?

            You’ve been proven wrong.

          • gpthelastrebel March 19, 2014 / 8:22 am

            Let’s see I believe I can match that–
            From W. T. Sherman’s memoirs—
            CHAPTER VII. LOUISIANA 1859-1861.
            I think my general opinions were well known and understood, viz., that “secession was treason, was war;” and that in no event would the North and West permit the Mississippi River to pass out of their control. But some men at the South actually supposed at the time that the Northwestern States, in case of a disruption of the General Government, would be drawn in self-interest to an alliance with the South. What I now write I do not offer as any thing like a history of the important events of that time, but rather as my memory of them, the effect they had on me personally, and to what extent they influenced my personal conduct.

            Now we see the war was over the Mississippi river!!!!!!!!!

          • Brooks D. Simpson March 19, 2014 / 1:11 pm

            So, you admit secession was treason (because Sherman said so); but he didn’t say the war was over the Mississippi River.

            As you have no response to the Mosby quote, you are on record as having conceded the point that Confederates admitted the war had something to do with slavery. That’s progress.

          • Jimmy Dick March 19, 2014 / 3:34 pm

            George isn’t interested in accuracy. He mangles the facts to suit his fantasies as you’ve noted many times. He has been corrected more times than I care to count, yet he continues to make the same idiotic claim while ignoring everything anyone explains to him. I am beginning to think he lacks the learning capacity of a child. Children and adult learners actually learn when you explain things to them. In George’s case, he seems to be incapable of doing so because he chooses not to learn.

          • Al Mackey March 19, 2014 / 6:32 pm

            Georgie can’t answer Mosby because it’s unanswerable for Georgie. Georgie doesn’t have either the ability to understand or the integrity to admit he was wrong, which is the real reason why he doesn’t get to post elsewhere.

  4. Al Mackey March 13, 2014 / 2:21 pm

    Thomas Woods tries to defend Napolitano by misstating what Napolitano claimed.

    • Brooks D. Simpson March 13, 2014 / 2:56 pm

      But this was precisely the problem with the format: the shouting and arguing made for good theater, and so Woods seeks to score points (we’ve already covered this on this blog). So now we have Foner, Oakes, and Sinha dismissed as ignoramuses, because that’s how this goes, and I’m sure certain Confederate types will embrace this as “truth.” So much for educating a public, especially those members of the public that refuse to be educated lest that impair what they so dearly need to believe.

      • Al Mackey March 13, 2014 / 3:13 pm

        A fake debate on a fake news show, all played for the laughs. Jon Stewart is there to make people laugh, not to educate anyone. I find Dr. Woods’ actions more egregious, as he wasn’t appearing on anyone else’s show, and presumably he, a historian with a genuine Ph.D., is there to set the record straight. Yet he misstates what Napolitano said in order to defend Napolitano, and he doesn’t bother to give the fuller context. Instead, he slanders three other historians.

    • Jimmy Dick March 13, 2014 / 4:22 pm

      What do you expect from the Mises Institute? They have a version of the past and they have to stick to it or else they get revealed as the liars they are. This is what happens when you create a past to suit your modern political ideology. That is exactly what the Mises Institute has done.

    • Brooks D. Simpson March 15, 2014 / 1:03 pm

      Because, George, it is. Read the blog.

      As for Representative Jackson Lee … read the blog.

      Silly boy. I can’t take you seriously. Are you a plant placed by people who want to humiliate advocates of Confederate heritage? Maybe you should talk to Jerry Dumford. He’s been endorsed by the Virginia Flaggers … complete with remarks that make him sound like a male version of Connie Chastain.

      Restore the honor, George.

      • Al Mackey March 15, 2014 / 3:21 pm

        You’re expecting Georgie to understand what you wrote, Brooks. I’m afraid that’s beyond him.

        • gpthelastrebel March 17, 2014 / 8:36 am

          Surprise Macjkey I can understand!!! I also know you banned me from your blog because you could not stand me asking you for documents to prove the war was about slavery. Now you can team up with Brooks and Dickey and maybe provide something real.

          Oh and did you ever find the truth about why Sherman did not relaese the POWs from Andersonville??? I posted it toyou blog and then you banned me!!!! LOL LOL LOL

          • Al Mackey March 18, 2014 / 7:43 am

            George has a problem with the truth. I used to think it was just because of low intelligence. Probably includes delusions.

          • gpthelastrebel March 19, 2014 / 8:24 am

            Speaking of the truth — You wouldn’t know the truth if it fell out of the sky and hit you in the hrad.

            So “historian” you have no facts to add to the discussion, just insults.Typical.

          • Brooks D. Simpson March 19, 2014 / 1:09 pm

            George, it seems you give as good as you get when it comes to insults, so to whine about them is unseemly.

      • gpthelastrebel March 17, 2014 / 8:30 am

        Jan. 2011 I wasn’t reading your blog. If I was just think all I had to
        do was take Brooks Simpsons’ word that taxes were not an issue. i did not that 14 Southern representatives had to leave Congress before the tax act could pass. Amazing!!!!!

        On Jackson Lee congrats, good job. I did not get a notice on that page. In fact I get no notices of any your posts. Sorry to admit I got here by way of Mackey.

        • Brooks D. Simpson March 18, 2014 / 3:21 pm

          George, it isn’t my problem if you don’t know how to read or how to use the search function.

          That answers what you said: “It appears to me I am the only one here who can actualy read English.”

          Your reading isn’t what you think it is, and neither is your writing. But thanks for taking my word. If you did that more often, you would save yourself a great deal of trouble.

          • gpthelastrebel March 19, 2014 / 8:27 am

            So that is your best answer. Good job. Just had to resort to insults did you??/ Gee why am I not surprised???

          • Brooks D. Simpson March 19, 2014 / 1:08 pm

            Just reporting the facts. You confessed to your inability to accomplish certain tasks, and I’m simply agreeing with you.

  5. Kenneth Almquist March 16, 2014 / 2:20 pm

    I agree that the show was something of a “fizzle.” The problem I see is that Napolitano never presented any overarching thesis. At first I thought his thesis was that the Civil War wasn’t worth the cost. But then he brought up the fugitive slave act, the point presumably being that Lincoln should have put stopping slavery ahead of his duty to uphold the Constitution. So what is Napolitano’s overall thesis from which these apparently contradictory positions follow? He doesn’t say.

    I do get that a dislike of Lincoln runs through everything Napolitano said, but the question is why. I take Napolitano at his word that he isn’t in favor of slavery. Given Napolitano’s lack of concern (shall we say) for factual accuracy, I doubt that Napolitano actually cares about anything Lincoln did. A wild-ass guess is that Napolitano is trying to promote hatred of Lincoln as a more socially acceptable alternative to hating blacks.

    In the absence of an articulated thesis by Napolitano, we are left with Napolitano making random assertions and Stewart pointing out that they are false. From my perspective, there was no need to invite Napolitano on the show; Stewart could have had an equally productive discussion with a computer programmed to generate random sentences.

    That said, I think I do understand the viewpoint of many of the people who liked the segment. These are people who had watched Napolitano on Fox News. They weren’t expecting a meaningful debate; they already knew that Napolitano was incapable of that. For these folks, it was worth watching the show just to see Napolitano in an environment where Napolitano was treated with only slightly more respect than he deserved. Any jokes by Jessica Williams were pure gravy.

  6. gpthelastrebel March 19, 2014 / 8:28 am

    I answered ever post and question posed to me yet nothing is showing up. Perhaps later????

      • gpthelastrebel March 20, 2014 / 6:51 am

        Regarding the Mosby quote– You are scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find sources to use. If you thought this was a barnburner source, you would have used it long ago. Also if you thought this was a highly regarded source you won’t have stooped to the insult bucket so soon. Oh well that is typical of you folks.
        Mosby had nothing to do with pre-war policy making neither of Confederacy nor of South Carolina. Sherman had nothing to with US policy making. These are mostly opinions and have nothing to do with the policy of either side. That is exactly why I do not use his quote in any serious discussion. Now if you truly believe that Mosby is telling the truth, suppose you post the document he is referring to about South Carolina fighting for slavery? Sherman absolutely said the war was for control of the Mississippi, but South Carolina did not say the war was top preserve slavery
        Now as to why you think I haven’t replied I have on the 18th I started trying to reply. Most of my replies do not show up. That being the case, if you, Jimmy Dick, and Al Mackey or any of your readers really want to have a factual discussion, with replies posted on time, and not hanging like a plumb bob up and down the page you can join SHAPE at http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4 my website works just fine. I will be waiting. Oh BTW I have invited Mackey and Dick to join before, they are lacking the backbone to do so.
        t

        • Jimmy Dick March 20, 2014 / 10:11 am

          No, I just don’t have time to fool around with someone that refuses to learn. I can’t help the fact that you ignore facts while believing in fiction.

        • Brooks D. Simpson March 20, 2014 / 12:00 pm

          George, believe what you want to believe. In truth, I thought it was wiser to ignore you. Now I understand that you can’t read or understand sources.

          I don’t suffer fools gladly, although at times they amuse me. At some point, however, I owe it to the gallant defenders of Confederate heritage not to burden them with you as a defender of the faith. Rather, since you now have your own blog, I encourage interested readers to follow you there, where you can express yourself without fear of obstruction or opposition.

    • Brooks D. Simpson March 20, 2014 / 11:47 am

      This is the second time you’ve made that accusation. Since you’re never wrong, and I wouldn’t want to make a liar out of you, consider your retort the last one that will appear here. That way you won’t have “to fool with this blog” any more.

      Those who want to follow George Purvis are free to do so at his new blog. We thank him for his participation here.

  7. gpthelastrebel March 22, 2014 / 5:58 am

    Welll well well I knew it was coming, it was just a matter of when!!!!!!!

    • Brooks D. Simpson March 22, 2014 / 8:16 am

      Well, you were right about something. That’s progress.

      Good luck with your blog, George.

      • gpthelastrebel March 23, 2014 / 8:24 am

        And the truth is you banned me because you knew you were gonnabe proven wrong. So much for allowing opposing views.

        BTW I still have trouble reading and posting, maybe a blog problem or a computer problem. A

        • Brooks D. Simpson March 23, 2014 / 10:48 am

          And the truth is you banned me because you knew you were gonnabe proven wrong. So much for allowing opposing views.

          I’m sure you believe this. It’s never the poster whose foolishness makes conversation and debate useless who’s at fault. Indeed, posters never think they are at fault. Sometimes they go elsewhere to pout … just like you did.

          Trust me, George, if I truly hated Confederate heritage as much as some people say I do, I’d let you post all the time and point to you as a prime example of what such folks believe.

          BTW I still have trouble reading and posting, maybe a blog problem or a computer problem.

          Ever think it might be a George Purvis problem?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s