So What Else in Your Online Biography Isn’t True, Mr. Scott?

Posted in Memory by Andy Hall on March 20, 2016

Click to embiggen:

Blank

Well?

______

GeneralStarsGray

Tagged with: douchebaggery

25 comments

25 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

Shoshana Bee said, on March 20, 2016 at 4:03 pm

Do you host guest bloggers, Andy? I must have missed that. Anyhow, it was fun to go in a complete circle by clicking your link on the biography 😉

Reply
OhioGuy said, on March 20, 2016 at 5:37 pm

I think he just means he harasses bloggers at the listed blogs. It is ambiguously worded, though.

Reply
- Andy Hall said, on March 20, 2016 at 5:41 pm
  
  He’s never posted here, at least under that name.
  
  Reply
  - OhioGuy said, on March 20, 2016 at 5:53 pm
    
    Well, that’s interesting. Maybe he uses a different name on each blog as part of a Confedrate misinformation campaign. They are good at it. Been doing it since 1861, and stepped up their game after defeat in 1865.
    
    Reply
    - Andy Hall said, on March 20, 2016 at 5:59 pm
      
      What’s passing strange — if you’ve seen his comment today over at Simpson’s — is why someone like that would want to take credit for this blog.
      
      Reply
bob carey said, on March 20, 2016 at 5:42 pm

Andy;
It seems this Zane Grey wannabe took a shot in the dark and missed. Pardon the pun.

Reply
Jimmy Dick said, on March 20, 2016 at 8:50 pm

So he self-publishes fiction. Perfect occupation for a member of the sons of confederate veterans.

Reply
Muhhamad E. Lee said, on March 20, 2016 at 10:51 pm

Looks like Word Slinger Boutique might have a little competition? Go west, you Sweet Southern Boys!

Reply
Cotton Boll Conspiracy said, on March 21, 2016 at 10:35 am

More likely, Mr. Scott has confused commenting for blogging. He’s likely thrown out a misguided comment or two on your blog, Andy, though perhaps not under his real name.

Reply
- Andy Hall said, on March 21, 2016 at 11:18 am
  
  Mr. Scott needs to clarify exactly what he meant.
  
  Reply
Leo said, on March 21, 2016 at 11:18 am

It seems there’s a lot of dishonesty in confederate heritage circles.

http://www.oxfordeagle.com/2016/03/17/plaque-violates-the-law/

Reply
- Andy Hall said, on March 21, 2016 at 11:28 am
  
  Interesting that Stewart cites Faulkner’s mother in defending the monument. Faulkner himself didn’t buy into that Lost Cause foolishness.
  
  Reply
  - Leo said, on March 21, 2016 at 12:39 pm
    
    I know.
    
    The fuss over this monument and plaque from both sides is getting pathetic, but probably not as pathetic as having someone take credit for your blog.
    
    Reply
Terry Johnston said, on March 21, 2016 at 6:48 pm

Andy … needed a laugh here today, and your use of “embiggen” and “douchebaggery” in this post did it for me. Perfect. Thanks, man…

Reply
RANDALL SCOTT - Author and Texas Storyteller said, on March 24, 2016 at 6:16 pm

I heard that Andy Hall was accused of stealing Confederate flags, and that Mr. Brooks D. Simpson was so fraudulent as to spray paint Confederate statues. This is a good example of, – ‘When your argument has no validity, then as a last resort, launch personal attacks.’ And, NO, Mr. Simpson and Mr. Hall did NOT commit these things. Again, they are NOT guilty of these things. Yet, it’s written to exemplify this schoolyard practice, (which holds merit with some who are ignorant and unprofessional,) so that the reader understands this gimmickry.

Andy’s accusation that I’m a Blog thief, and from that, Brooks fabricates, “evidence of your integrity and your ability to deal with…,” are attacks on my personal integrity, which is the same schoolyard tactic. Those historic William F Buckley debates with Gore Vidal are examples of honorable men with integrity who thoughtfully shared their minds having never, never, attacked each other personally.

Now, if we can keep the conversation on topic, Andy, I’d like to look and find records where I corresponded on your Blog on several occasions. I enjoyed yours particularly with honest answers from several people. However, I’m connected to dozens of Blogs and can never remember them all, so I put a convenient link on my website. Sorry, I didn’t know that required your permission. And, Brooks, if you would like, I will offer copies of the muster rolls you wanted. Andy, how is a photo shared on your Blog? Is a link embedded in the code or directly uploaded?

Bottom line: – I’m searching for the truth about my four Confederate Grandpas as to why they fought in the American Civil War. I have first hand accounts of their answers from my grandparents who spoke to them personally. And, in turn, my grandparents spoke verbatim, to me, those same day-for-day accounts in their service to the Confederacy. These accounts match exactly with archived troop movements, battlefield records, and officer’s correspondence.

I’m also in possession of my Grandpas’ hand-written letters that tells us exactly why they fought. I have their muster roles. I have letters of their fellow soldiers in the same Company and Regiment and not one wrote home asking their wives about their slaves (because they had none.) They were NOT dependent on a slave trade or a cotton industry, (like my 4 Grandpas and 800,000 Confederate soldiers,) these were pioneers scratching out an existence in the wilderness and went to war to protect their families from Union invasion forces. “Neither the Union or the Confederate soldier gave a damn about slaves,” – Shelby Foote, which dove-tails exactly with what my Grandpas told us and in the letters they wrote home.

I’m 61 years old and for the past 50 years I’ve read hundreds of books people offer as their interpretation or opinion, and I refuse to read another ‘agenda-driven’ opinion. I’m looking for the facts that only come from source documents: Letters from soldiers, officer’s correspondence, 1860s newspaper articles, Lincoln-Douglass debates, US Archive records, Jefferson Davis’s cabinet letters/records, Slave-ship manifests, Abe Lincoln’s cabinet letters/records, etc…

Character assassination is easy. Anybody can do it. As such, defamation of the Confederacy is more easily perpetrated when the soldiers are deceased and can no longer defend themselves. However, as my Grandpas lie buried in our family cemetery, they will NOT be falsely accused, they will NOT be ponds of someone’s (not you personally) twisted agenda, and it is my purpose to fulfill my family’s wish that our Confederate Grandpas will be honored for their service and sacrifice.

I don’t care if you attack me personally. If it makes you feel better, continue to do so. I can’t be hurt. And, at the end of the day, it accomplishes nothing. All that I’m asking for is your help. Don’t offer opinions or someone’s book of dreams. I’m looking for the (source-document) evidence “truthfully and fairly” how it so recently came to be that my Grandpas fought for slavery.

Reply
- Andy Hall said, on March 24, 2016 at 7:27 pm
  
  Your claim on your online profile that you blog here is false. And, I should point out, this is the first and only time I have record of you commenting here.
  
  As I replied when you posted the same comment, word-for-word, over on Simpson’s blog, you have a choice — (1) continue to thump and holler and obfuscate, or (2) acknowledge your error, correct it, and move on quietly.
  
  It’s your call, but I will not be hosting any more comments like the one above.
  
  Reply
- Shoshana Bee said, on March 24, 2016 at 7:37 pm
  
  QUOTE:Andy’s accusation that I’m a Blog thief, and from that, Brooks fabricates, “evidence of your integrity and your ability to deal with…,” are attacks on my personal integrity”
  
  What personal integrity? You got caught in a lie, and rather than own it, you offer up some pseudo-libelous nonsense to try to distract us.
  
  Hot Flash: It ain’t workin’, and yer still peddlin’ fraud on yer bio.
  
  Reply
- OhioGuy said, on March 24, 2016 at 10:41 pm
  
  I really don’t want to get involved in this intra-Confedrate brawl, but I will suggest that if you want contemporary evidence of the role of slavery in bringing on the war that you read Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew. This is a short, easy to read book. Get it. Read it. And, tells us what you think.
  
  http://www.amazon.com/dp/081392104X/?tag=mh0b-20&hvadid=3523791773&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=m&ref=pd_sl_92d4z7iaby_e
  
  Reply
- Scott Ledridge said, on March 25, 2016 at 10:05 am
  
  tl;dr – I’ve done something wrong and you have called me out on it. How dare you!
  
  Reply
  - Andy Hall said, on March 25, 2016 at 10:50 am
    
    There’s a guy on Facebook who has repeatedly posted a long excerpt of something I wrote, along with another long passage from the work of CW historian Joseph Glaatthar, and signed his own (Facebook guy’s) name at the bottom. Eventually I called him out publicly for plagiarism. When he responded, it was (like Scott’s response above) a long, turgid, and discursive mess. The one and only thing that came clearly through in his response was that he either didn’t understand what he was being accused of, or refused to acknowledge it.
    
    Reply
    - woodrowfan said, on March 29, 2016 at 8:03 am
      
      well, they honor people who owned slaves, those who stole the products of another’s labor for their own use. So why not steal another person’s words as well.
      
      Reply
woodrowfan said, on March 27, 2016 at 9:25 pm

sounds like one of my students when they get caught red-handed plagiarizing a term paper. lots of excuses, but in the end they’re still making excuses for having been revealed to be liars. But then, the Lost Causers are known to be liars anyway..

Reply
OhioGuy said, on March 28, 2016 at 1:57 pm

Upon looking over Mr. Scott’s post again, I’ve come to the realization that what he’s done is work from conclusion to evidence. This not in the sense of having an hypothesis and looking for pro and con evidence to confirm or refute the hypothesis but simply ignoring any evidence that would be disconfirming. We all have our biases, and they do inform our research. But the key is to try hard to seek contrary evidence. It’ll be interesting to see if he reads the Dew book I mentioned earlier. That would be a sign of a mind open to other evidence. This book won’t refute evidence about his own Civil War kin but will cast serious aspersions on some of his generalizations about the general Confederate rationale for the war. Personally, I’ve had several cherished theories about the war totally undermined by contrary evidence. I’ll be waiting to see if Mr. Scott will make appropriate mid-course corrections after reading the Dew book.

Reply
- Andy Hall said, on March 28, 2016 at 3:21 pm
  
  We’ll see.
  
  Reply
  - OhioGuy said, on March 28, 2016 at 5:38 pm
    
    Perhaps, he’ll never come back to this blog again to see my challenge. That wouldn’t surprise me, but then I’m willing to give him the benefit of doubt — at least for the moment.
    
    And, I said I wasn’t going to get into this intra-Confederate squabble. Sometimes I just can’t help myself. Just proves that not all Yankees are born smart. Now there’s a premise that you and Mr. Scott might agree on! 😉
    
    Reply