Stupid Things People Say About the Civil War: Part 4

This week’s gem comes from the new blogger in town.  Jerry Dunford is without a doubt one of the more interesting Confederate defenders I’ve encountered on the web. Take a look at what he said:

Have you noticed, that the SAME LIBERALS, the one’s who oppose Christian events, who oppose Christmas, who support abortion, who support sexual perversion and same sex marriages, who support liberalized drug laws, are the people destroying the American family unit, the supporters of the Liar in Chief, Barrack Hussien Obama, and are also the same people who lie and distort the events of the War for Southern Independence.

Well….that’s something. Jerry is incredibly blunt and crudely honest; but at least he is honest. A great many of the Confederate Heritage advocates project their political ideologies onto the past. It somewhat explains their slighted view of heritage over history. In the end, is is pseudo history and this is the sort of thing you end up with. One such heritage defender asked why historians pay notice to such statements as these. Well, it’s because statements like the one above, when not corrected, can lead to issues like this and this.

If you want more entertainment, check out the comments section of his post. 

133 thoughts on “Stupid Things People Say About the Civil War: Part 4

  1. I have found Dunford and his toadie Carmichael to be the typical neo-confederate libertarian types who merely parrot the Lost Cause garbage in order to justify their uneasy relationship with the real world and their place in it. History is meaningless to them unless they can control its message in order to place themselves in a superior position. There is no discussion with them because they don’t want any discussion that involves facts.

    Furthermore, as we have seen from both of them in Dunford’s new blog there is nothing to learn from them. Both are saying nothing. They have no facts so everything they post is merely their opinion. Why even have a blog and say you’re going to educate people when you fail to do so? You can’t explain anything to them because they don’t want to hear anything that goes against their beliefs even when you show them the facts. It is an incredible amount of willful ignorance built upon the denial of anything they don’t want to hear.

    I will not be returning to that blog as it is a waste of time. Jerry has threatened one poster with rape while Carmichael threatens violence to everyone he disagrees with while hiding behind a fake name. In that aspect they’re just your typical Tea Party type in that they have to resort to force to get their way when their views are rejected by the majority. Then they want to use the law to force people to do what Jerry and Carmichael want when they of course don’t want the government to make them do anything they don’t want. They fail to see the paradox.

    What can you expect of people with limited intelligence?

    1. Well talking about profiling. Isn’t that the same thing Dunford does? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Would talk about how smart another person or facts for that matter, remember you still have proved there was a law against secession and you do klike to twist facts to fit your version of history.

      George Purvis

      1. Mr. Purvis,

        Sorry for not having replied earlier, but I was hoping you would get better informed and I could avoid doing so.

        Please tell me what law existed that prohibited secession.

        Also, just for grins, if such a law existed, do you think it appropriate and just to INVADE
        the Southern states, to burn civilians house, farms, barns, to destroy their food supplies, tear up the fences, steal the livestock, rape the women, shell the civilians homes and towns and cities, kill civilian men women and children, if you do, then you too must be a liberal, and a Yankee who wants to hide the truth about your Northern ancestors, because this is what occurred in the War to Stop Southern Independence, so if you are a truthful man, please reply with only facts, and give me and the readers an answer to my question.

        1. Jerry,

          This will be the first and last time a comment of yours is allowed through. George is not allowed to comment on my blog due to the rampant, unapologetic racism he exhibited toward one commenter on this blog. Sadly, after viewing a couple of the posts on your blog, you are much worse. I’d rather not have that vile spew all over my website. With that, I bid you adieu. Have a Dixie Day.

  2. Rob ,

    Posted to Brook’s blog.

    Let me say this, I have a great disliking for most of your buddies because of their twisted views of history, their insults (you know who you are, their forwardness and their lies i.e., Levin, Mackey, Hall, and Meyer. The others I didn’t mention I can tolerate to some degree. That being said, and in the case of Dunford I have use of his language at all. I was going to make a halfhearted stand against some the comments you fellows made on his post, but after reading some of his comments to other people, I really don’t want my name associated with him.
    I do agree with one statement he made, if you insult me or my heritage expect the same in return

    George Purvis
    Website: Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education
    Blog: Cold Southern Steel

      1. Like I said just an opinion of yours. True history is on the side of the South. Not my fault you haven’t a clue. Man I love this, glad you decided to go back to exchanging insults, I can do this forever. I sure missed you when you were down.

        1. This post isn’t about the “true story” {which is


          on the side of the South}. And you won’t be exchanging insults. Comments about someone’s statements are fine, direct personal insults are blocked. You know the rules George.

          1. Really??/Then you should go to the very first reply posted on this page. That is where the insults start. You see Dick this is the way to present an argument WITH documantation

            “I have found Dunford and his toadie Carmichael to be the typical neo-confederate libertarian types who merely parrot the Lost Cause garbage in order to justify their uneasy relationship with the real world and their place in it. History is meaningless to them unless they can control its message in order to place themselves in a superior position. There is no discussion with them because they don’t want any discussion that involves facts.”

            “In that aspect they’re just your typical Tea Party type in that they have to resort to force to get their way when their views are rejected by the majority.”

            “How can something completely incoherent be over anyone’s head? It does not make any sense whatsoever, but then I expect that out of you.”

            The issue with that statement George, is that the “insult” against your heritage, are not insults. They are simple facts that prove your heritage wrong

            “Note the usual pattern of a lot of hot air and absolutely no facts to support his position from George which is typical of the Lost Cause crowd.”


          2. Point out where those are insults George; and not vociferous disagreements with content. So far, you are the only one that went off topic with an insult only rant. Something you are prone to do.

          3. All of these are insults, if they are not then my comment wasn’t You have no idea where I was talking about Dick smelling up the place, his arm pits, his behind or his mouth. You just assumed as usual.

          4. Place is irrelevant, you provided an unconnected insult directed firmly towards him. The prior comments are insults in your eyes only. For the most part, they are vociferous disagreements to the comments already made. The one about heritage and facts, isn’t even an insult. Get over yourself.

    1. Heritage? We are not heritage supporters. We are historians. There is a huge difference.

      “History is about the past exclusively and the modalities are inquire and understanding. Heritage is how we use the past and see it in the present. It is more about cultured identity and affirmation. The past doesn’t change.” Ray Raphael

        1. I’d say he is, since he is published, has a degree and teaches at the college level. You run an internet site dedicated to cherry picked quotes void of context and analysis.

          Regardless, stay on topic.

          1. Really. You never know do you? Wonder how many opf your readers are sitting back right now thinking to theirselves ” man I sure wish Dick would post those documents and shut Purvis up”

            See I know I never will change your mind or get you up to do any research but if I can reach just one person who has anopen mind about the conflict I win.

            Now where is the documents?

            I note you posted about uncategorized, exactly what is that related to these blogs and how do I can it?

          2. Good i have an audience. I win at spreading the truth.

            BTW I am having trouble with posting the portion that should be at bottom of the page is over the comment box. Think the problem is on my end?

          3. You are right, my apologies. Perhaps I should have said something negative about the Tea Party, Fox news or maybe the Bushes. Those comments seem to be order of the day here.

            [Edit: Off topic]

          4. I did not say anything about the Tea Party, Fox News, or the Bushes. Perhaps you care to elaborate?

            I hope you don’t mind the edits, I’d prefer to stay on topic rather than chase you down rabbit holes.

          5. nNo you did not. However this is your page and Dick came right out the starting gate with neo-confederate — typical Tea party and you let that insult stand. And you let him insult me through out this page and you join in. Call a fair game ump, call a fair game.

          6. I did not realize that calling someone a “Neo-Confederate” and a “Typical Tea Partier,” was an insult. Especially true given that it was in reference to Jerry…who is a Tea Partier…and a Neo-Confederate. When did I insult you personally George?

          7. So you believe in lumping a whole group of people together a because of a few? [Edit: George, keep it civil] How about we say all Black preachers are racists like Rev. Wright. You get the picture don’t tyou neo-yankee? I support the Tea Part and I am nothing like those fellows in question. Maybe I am not typical.

          8. Generally I do not believe in lumping, but as the Tea Party has become more than the Ron Paul revolution, it has narrowed its focus. There are easy ways to discern as to what constitutes a Tea Partier, both positive and negative. Why would we say all Black Preachers are racists because of one person? Now if there were a group of people, as there are in the Tea Party, which set precedent for the group, then yes we could.

            Are you George? Are you really? Since this specific post has a modern political relevance, why don’t you explain your disagreements with Jerry’s statements.

          9. Because you say Dunford is a “typical tea party member. I explained all of this to you.
            For the most part I have no disagreement with Jerry’s statements except when he mentions Catholics or any other religion. I know most all races, creeds, colors fought for the South. I have no use for the sort of language that Dunford uses in his comments and I do not want to be associated with that fifth.
            Now to say this man is a typical Tea Party member if a stroke with one BIG brush. Neither you nor Dick can know that for a fact. The fact of the matter is you folks, meaning neo-yankees, and love to lump people or things into groups. Take for instance, not saying you but the generally all Confederate are thought to be slave-owners, while the Yankees are thought not to own slaves. All confederates are thought to be traitors, not so they are still Americans who formed another country. The Confederate Battle-flag is said to be a symbol of racism, while the United States flag actually is the official flag of the KKK and caries more baggage than the CBF.

            All of these things are not more than profiling just like the comments made about the Tea party, Fox news, the Bushes. I for one see no need to profile anyone, Do you?

          10. So you agree with Jerry’s statements, with the exception of religions.

            “I know all races, creeds, colors fought for the South.”

            Laughable statement.

          11. You don’t have the room for all the info to be posted. Notice you didn’t tell the same thing to Dick when he posted links. Now you can either use the links are act like a spoiled brat and pout and dismiss them. Both of your readers will probally use them. it is the best you are getting. 🙂

          12. That’s because he posted things from the (specifically the American Memory Project). Nice redirect though. My readers are educated enough to know the difference between digitized primary sources and random websites.

          13. Well you could have explained what you were talking about for one thing.

            I seem to remember up this page you took offense to my post when i said it was over your head. Dooor swings both ways.

          14. Note the word of the apology. I’m sorry for you, not sorry for what I said. It’s not my fault you cannot comprehend the meaning. Have a Dixie Day

        2. Here you go, George. Start here. There are the records of Congress from 1833-1873. Dwight Pitcaithley mentioned them when he was correcting an individual who wanted to believe in a fantasy version of the reasons behind secession. You can listen and watch Dwight speak on the topic of secession here in this video, If you do not know, Dwight is the former chief historian of the National Park Service. So if you disagree with me, you disagree with him. If you don’t think I’m a historian, then you damn well better start thinking that Dwight is.

          1. I know the reason behind secession. I want proof there was a law against secession as you have stated. Show me in the constitution.Also post some of your reseatch showing the slavery a cause of the war. These two issues you have never cleared up.

          2. In a lot of ways. I like the truth to be told. When a person tells me secession was illegal, I want documentation. The law of the land at that time was the Constitution not the Declaration of Independence or the Articles of Confederation but the Constitution. It is also the document mentioned in the secession documents and therefore I have to believe that is the document the South or the Confederacy wasreferencing to when they decided to leave the Union.

            As for as slavery being an issue to the war, it was not, or at least documentation has not been found to prove otherwise. However plenty of documentation can be found that says it was not.


          3. In order for you to understand the legality, you must first understand the roles of the branches of government, the Constitutional interpretation and Founders intent. You have been pointed to numerous links, in numerous comments, dealing with congressional debates, court cases, ad infinitum. Your failure to read these documents is your own fault.

            Numerous posters provided you with documentation from both North and South, dealing with slavery and the causes of war. You routinely ignore those as well.

            NOTE: This will be the last time I discuss this on this post. Any more comments off topic with the post, will be trashed.

          4. George, the issue was cleared up a long time ago. You refuse to accept it because saying that secession is in not discussed in the Constitution is your only line of defense. That argument was shot down years ago. Now, show me some documentation proving your views. Go whip out a Confederate Catechism and start reciting it. You know, the ones that have no documentation to back them up.

          5. So then what you are telling me is you cannot provide documentation for a statement you made? You are also telling me that I am supposed someone who makes claims to be a historian, that may have a biased view of the conflict? Now I know nothing about the gentleman whose lecture you want me to watch, but the facts of the matter is he just wasn’t around in 1860.

            Provide the documentation.

            George Purvis
            Southern heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

          6. Rob,

            I can look up and post links that support my argument all day long. Why is so hard for you fellows to admit that no such statement exists in the Constitution prior to 1860? I am not sure such a statement exists at this time and I really don’t care.

            Take this into consideration, these are words the people of the country had heard from Lincoln. Of course he changed his position to suit his needs as time went on. The Constitution, however, did not change

            Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.

          7. Well I guess that is as close to an admission that you failed, to provide proof, as I am going to get. Works for me. i knew right at the get-go you couldn’t find any passage to support your claim.

            Will any of Rob’s massive amount of readers take on this task? How about some of your students?

            Cherry picked? Not hardly. Next time be more careful about the statements you make and support.

            Now do you want to try and prove slavery was the cause of the war? I wouldn’t if I were you.

            ‘attaboy George!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            George Purvis
            Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

          8. George, I am really beginning to think you just won’t look at anything that proves you wrong. You’ve been shown. You’ve had the statement of James Madison himself saying it is not constitutional. You are trying to set up an argument where you make the rules on how the Constitution is interpreted. This has never been the case with how it is done. Where the Constitution is silent we turn to what the Founders said. They were clear on secession. You however don’t want to hear that and stick to a point that is rejected by pretty much everyone else except people that seem to think they can secede.

            Let’s also address secession via the Civil War. The issue was decided then at gun point. If necessary, it will be decided again at gun point. Any time a person wants to leave the US, they are more than welcome to do so. States do not get that choice. Only people do. So if you want to leave, go. If you want to say your state can secede, then you are lying. If you think you can do it, then ask yourself this question. Are you ready to get killed if you take up arms against the United States of America thereby committing treason?

          9. Oh and by the way George. You are trying to shift the burden of proof to me. Not biting. You prove it. Show me where you are right. Saying secession is not in the Constitution does not prove your point to anyone. Now start reading the documentation that I’ve shown you which proves you wrong or keep on whining. Either one is fine. You have failed to prove anything except that you don’t know what you’re talking about and that you cherry pick stuff out of context.

            If you have nothing to prove your point with, then this conversation is over. Show proof. If not, then just whine to yourself.

          10. Jimmy, I’m letting these comments through since you’ve yet to reply. But I’m not approving anymore comments not related to the post. George will try to rabbit hole every thread with the same argument. Usually, I cut him off from the get go, but I let this one get away.

          11. I’m fine with that, Rob. He does the same thing in every blog with the Constitution. It is a colossal waste of time telling him he is wrong, providing him the facts that prove him wrong, and then watching him continue to repeat his mantra. It is all he has. It is part of the Confederate Catechism and they follow it like Pavlov’s dogs. Part of this has to do with the fact that he seems to be following the literal interpretation of the Constitution which hasn’t been the way it has been interpreted for over two centuries. It is impossible to do so and the Louisiana Purchase shows how and why that happened.

            This also illustrates the impossibility of convincing George and a few others that they’re wrong. They absolutely refuse to accept any facts that prove them wrong. Reality shows us that the general public is rejecting the Lost Cause mentality because it has no factual evidence to back it up. I looked up the Confederate Catechism the other day and went through some of its claims. Most of it appears to have been developed from carefully manipulated information on history such as the Hartford Convention where a real event’s actual details are altered to fit into the Lost Cause myth. A literal interpretation of the Constitution is required to accept some of the claims as well.

            Fortunately, most people want some facts to support claims and the Catechism’s claims fall apart when confronted by the light of truth. You really have to want to believe in it to accept it and that involves a degree of fanaticism which as we’ve seen over history defies education and reality. George falls into that group. So really, even speaking with him becomes a rather pointless exercise as he cannot accept history that doesn’t support his fanatical belief structure.

          12. This is on topic.

            I find, like I stated in the post, that a literal part of the Confederate Catechism is political projection on the past. Neo-Confederates often identify with their historical subjects, because they project political ideology on them. Neo-Cons. do the same thing with other historical figures in the neo-con attempt to substantiate their claims and vindicate the South. Your example of Jefferson’s acquisition of the Louisiana Territory is an excellent example of that. Jefferson is usually an identity trapsed out to substantiate claims of secession. See “Caldwell’s” comment here. My response is directly underneath.

          13. Could be true, may be that it is not. I note that neo-Confederate is used instead of Southern Historians.When insults are used it tends to lead me to believe the article is bigoted and biased.

          14. That’s your opinion George. Neo-Confederate is simply a title for someone in the present day (Neo-New) upholding the Confederate ideals.

            I did not say any such thing. It would be stupid of me to, since I: A, am from the South; and B, am a historian.

          15. You did not say what.

            No this is not my opinion. It is posted to the SLPC website. When you say neo- Confederate, how am I supposed to know what defination you are using?

          16. Really? Man if I had a nicikle for every time I heard something on the order of stupid neocon or Confederate, you and I both would be rich.Don’t you think the proper thing to do is just not use the term? In fact what you take as insults posted by me are really terms of affection I show to you fellows. 🙂

          17. So you have a definition of neo-yankee that involves lumping into socio groups? And if so, exactly which groups am I lumping? And by your standards, aren’t you a neo-yankee since you are lumping me into a social grouping?

            Honestly George.

          18. Your are a neo-yankee. No I am not lumping anyone in with you. You are ibn a class by yourself. I am really being nice, calling you a neo- yankee. If I said anything otherwise I would be banned. Do you understand neo- yankee???

          19. Allow me to mention one thing here about the term “neo-Confederate”: It’s an old term, not something cooked up by modern, politically-correct liberals as an insult. Richmond Times-Dispatch, January 27, 1934, p. 8:

            As a discipline of the neo-Confederate school of thought which centers in the Nashville group, Mr. Fletcher is convinced that Northerners are damyankees, and that they ought to stop “meddling” in Southern affairs.

            Eighty years later, that’s still about as good a definition as you’re going to get, and it still applies.

          20. Andy,


            Neo-Confederacy also incorporates advocacy of traditional gender roles, is hostile towards democracy, strongly opposes homosexuality, and exhibits an understanding of race that favors segregation and suggests white supremacy. In many cases, neo-Confederates are openly secessionist.

            This has been toned down since the last time I read it and it is usually what i think of hen i see the term neo-Confederate The description above is not me at all, nor anyone I know.

          1. I have no problem with you posting the actual insult or various reasons. However as moderater of these pages you should take a neautral oposition. You are a rookie at this aren’t you?

          2. “Get over yourself” Exactly what is that supposed to mean? Look Rob, I know you rely on these other fellows to pull you out of the fire, I am also smart enough to to recognize insults when they are posted and edited especially with moderator commets added. It is nort hard. Like I said call a fair game. This isn’t my first ball game.


Comment Below. All comments are moderated.

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: