Thomas Haughey, assassinated Republican congressman from Alabama

Grand Old Partisan ^ | July 31, 2010 | Michael Zak

[Michael Zak]

On this day in 1869, Rep. Thomas Haughey (R-AL) was shot while giving a campaign speech. He died five days later.

Born in Scotland, Haughey moved to the United States at the age of fifteen and became a doctor. He lived in the hill country of northern Alabama, which became a Unionist stronghold during the Civil War. He served as regimental surgeon of the 3rd U.S. Tennessee Infantry. In 1867, he was a delegate to the Alabama constitutional convention. The following year, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Assasination was too often standard operating procedure for the Democratic/Confederates of the era. Presley Yates, a delegate from Catoosa County Georgia was shot in the head for having the audacity to uphold the will of his constituents by voting against secession at the corrupt Georgia secession convention.

From Confederate intimidation in the 1860s to the New Black Panther Party today, Democrats have had a history of sometimes playing rough with elections and the political process.

[popdonnelly]

Thanks for posting this instance of post-Civil War depredations.

You might also find the Wilmington, North Carolina “race riot” or coup d’etat of 1898 interesting.

[Michael Zak]

Don’t forget the Ku Klux Klan, terrorist wing of the Democratic Party.

[RasterMaster]

"Assasination was too often standard operating procedure for the Democratic/Confederates of the era."

Even to the point of 'silencing' members of their own party up to 100 years later if they didn't toe the party slaveocracy line.

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks Michael Zak. Blast from the Past (July 31, 1869). Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. Obama will be reelected in 2012, regardless of opponent or running mate choice. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · Mirabilis.ca · LiveScience · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Bronze Age Forum · Science Daily · Science News · Eurekalert · PhysOrg · · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · Archaeology · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · · History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword · · Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · ·

[jessduntno]

This shameless blog pimp is annoying in the extreme and is here to advance his career at our expense. He offers no insights of his own, merely redirects to his blog ... which frankly, is amateurish and vulgar. Look at his posting record...the titles are all his constant anti-southern diatribes and his comments are the same...if incessant links and shameless huckstering for his “book” and his “blog” can be considered comments. His relentless attacks on the South, sweeping generalizations and references to the south and to the people of the south are both sickening and anathema to those of us who were born in the south and support our constitution and the hope for a free republic.

[MNJohnnie]

It is a simple statement of facts. What it is is a condemnation of the Democrat party.

Sorry the facts hurt your feelings.

[jessduntno]

My feelings are not hurt. I resent this constant blog pimping. You confuse hurt for anger. A common failing.

[MNJohnnie]

Oh poor baby, the facts hurt your little feelings. Do you need a tissue to dry your tears?

Man up or go home.

[Admin Moderator]

This website is fine. Safety your weapons for real blog pimps.

[jessduntno]

As I said, you confuse hurt for anger. A common failing.

[rockrr]

The thread was posted in Chat where it is appropriate to post redirects to blogs. If it offends you then find something elsewhere to whine about.

[jessduntno]

“The thread was posted in Chat where it is appropriate to post redirects to blogs. If it offends you then find something elsewhere to whine about.”

It’s interesting that you call this whining, particularly because my post is critical of the point of view you happen to espouse here chronically, but your interpretation is wrong, as usual.

It is anger and I am exercising MY right to post MY opinion...a right that you now find not as appealing as the leech’s right to self-promote.

I don’t believe that what you say is is true, but when the thread is constantly seeded with advertisements like this, it crosses the line:

To: ****
I’m on a mission — to show Republican leaders the benefits from appreciating the heritage of our Grand Old Party. See http://www.grandoldpartisan.com for more information.

3 posted on Friday, August 06, 2010 6:49:56 AM by Michael Zak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

I understand you are sympathetic to his cause, but let’s not turn these forums into a free ride for blog pimps and hucksters, whether we agree or not. While it is incendiary and provocative, it is a parasitic attempt to further a career paid for by others.

Not my understanding of the values of most FReepers. Certainly, your suggestion that he is free to offend me, but when I offend you, I am free to go elsewhere does give me pause to wonder.

[rockrr]

If it looks like whining, if it smells pissy like whining, then it likely is whining. The mod confirmed that what the poster did was correct and acceptable. You do have the prerogative to voice your opinion as do I and Michael Zak.

Your outrage would bear more weight if you could point out another instance where you complained about blog pimping (other than Mr. Zak)?

[jessduntno]

“This website is fine. Safety your weapons for real blog pimps.”

I don’t question the “fine” value of his website and I have no quarrel with the expression of his viewpoint. It’s a deeply misguided viewpoint, in my opinion, but I respect his right to have it. However, I think it is wrong to link to the website and IN ADDITION, seed an advertisement on the threads, often, such as this;

To: ****
I’m on a mission — to show Republican leaders the benefits from appreciating the heritage of our Grand Old Party. See http://www.grandoldpartisan.com for more information.

3 posted on Friday, August 06, 2010 6:49:56 AM by Michael Zak [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

This goes beyond pimping; it is free advertising.

[jessduntno]

“Your outrage would bear more weight if you could point out another instance where you complained about blog pimping (other than Mr. Zak)?”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2563218/posts

I await your apology.

To: nmh; shibumi

“...I really try to keep that pimpin to a bare minimum!”

No you don’t. And it is wrong.
This is from another thread, last weekend.

Pimping is just wrongheaded. Here’s why;

You’re pimping your blog. It’s offensive.

If you have something to say, then by all means post it and we’ll all take a look. If you’re writing is interesting, you might get some fans for your site.

Teasing FReepers to click on a blog that is needlessly excerpted, only to have 5 trackers and 54 cookies deposited on their computers, just so you can make a buck is not a great way to make FRiends.

You’re new. Maybe you never looked at it from this perspective. The majority of us here, donate to FreeRepublic, to keep it “on the air.” We do that to maintain our forum, not to provide bloggers with a business platform.

The excerpt function was instituted only because of potential (and actual) copyright lawsuits. It now functions automatically. But just in case you’re interested, you can see the restricted sites here - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts - If you try to post from a restricted site, it lets you know that you must excerpt your text. That’s to keep FR safe from litigation.

If you have no restricted or copyrighted material on your blog (i.e. if it’s just your own composition) then you have no reason to excerpt the text. Unless, of course, you’re just pimping your blog.

Did that clarify my question?

In point of fact, I might not have been so blunt, but your posting history shows a series of “1 of X” without even a modicum of discussion. If you were trying to be a part of the FR community, one would expect to see a little more interaction.

14 posted on Saturday, July 31, 2010 8:19:16 PM by shibumi (Pablo, wily, clever and detractive as all get out!)

7 posted on Monday, August 02, 2010 8:58:22 AM by jessduntno (I wonder...how will third Manassas turn out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

[jessduntno]

“The mod confirmed that what the poster did was correct and acceptable.”

No, the Mod said the site was “fine.”

I am waiting for your apology. Probably not forthcoming, though, huh?

[rockrr]

Apology? In your dreams.

But thanks for illustrating that it isn’t just Mr. Zak and I that are the objects of your pique. If your presumption about redirects to blogs was correct the mod would have affirmed that.

You are not correct and I see that this thread stands.

Boo hoo.

[jessduntno]

“Apology? In your dreams.”

Very adult. As I expected.

“But thanks for illustrating that it isn’t just Mr. Zak and I that are the objects of your pique.”

That you and Zak have the same misguided ideas about one particular subject does not mean I have no respect for you as people. You and Zak are completely uninteresting to me, with no value in one particular area. I made that clear.

You clearly do not return that respect. I understand that, given the nature of your taunts and childish response. But because of your animosity, you missed my point...again.

I find that the open advertising on the site is becoming like PBS ... it is supposed to be privately funded and, it was my understanding, promoted by attraction rather than promotion. There are several more similar posts of mine against blog pimping back there, if you care to look...several more.

[rockrr]

I agree in principle that dumping a link to an external site (blog pimping) without detail or discussion isn’t very useful or complementary to the aims of FreeRepublic. But unlike robinmasters or some of the blog pimps Michael Zak has participated in the conversation. He hasn’t engaged in blog-pimping.

I find your attempts to quash discussion that doesn’t meet your preconceived notions every bit as offensive. Trying to get the thread pulled because the subject matter is uncomfortable to you is contemptible.

You can argue the merits, or state your opinion and then walk away. Anything after that just makes you look churlish.

[jessduntno]

“I find your attempts to quash discussion that doesn’t meet your preconceived notions every bit as offensive. Trying to get the thread pulled because the subject matter is uncomfortable to you is contemptible.”

I find your hollow outrage amusing. I posted an example of someone against whom I made the same argument, even though they actually has a pretty sound blog and one with which I do not disagree.

I know you hate this idea that someone else gets a chance to express an opinion in opposition to yours, but I was not “trying to get the thread pulled” as you so lamely put it.

I was using the same rights as you ... expressing my opinion...and that opinion was about the inappropriate use of threads to seed advertisements within (many) individual posts...not the content. I even supplied you with the proof that I had done this before on a completely unrelated topic. Your inability to cope with that fact is amusing to me. As for getting the threads pulled, I don’t wish that, I welcome them! It gives me a chance to refute you.

It is the riding of the publicly funded train by a huckster that I object to. If this is the best you can do, switching the topic in the face of the evidence, I think you have sufficiently proven you are inadequate to the task of debate. But, please yourself. I expect you are no stranger to excessive self gratification.

[shibumi]

Let me start by saying that I had no knowledge of this thread, but was told through PM by another FReeper that I was being quoted here.

I noted that the Admin had already weighed in with his opinion on this blog and, as always, I defer to Management's judgment of what they want to tolerate on FreeRepublic.

Given the indication that this blog might be of some interest, I read the text up to the point where it said “(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...”

Here's where I have a problem. I clicked, hoping to find out more about a little piece of history of which I was previously unaware. (I'm always eager to learn new things.)

Much to my dismay, I discovered that the piece posted above is not an excerpt. It is the whole article! That's right, those six sentences, broken into two little paragraphs, are the entire text.

The balance of what is to be found on the BlogSite is a mini-bio of Michael Zak, and ads, mostly promoting Michael Zak as a speaker/lecturer.

Now, I make no judgment as to Mr. Zak's abilities as a speaker or writer. For all I know, he may be really great at both, or not.

But I do think that it's pretty tacky to post a two paragraph article, and pretend it's an excerpt, just to get hits on a site that is largely self-promotional.

As I said in the beginning, I defer to the Admin. I will not post anything derogatory or harassing on Mr. Zak's threads, simply because after being teased into giving a hit to his ad campaign, I will never click on one of his threads again, much less his blog.

[humblegunner]

Why do you write about yourself in the third person on your profile page?

[Michael Zak]

I post such short items as excerpts specially to avoid posting what you call “self-promotional” material on Free Republc. Most. Freepers can understand this.

[shibumi]

My final word on any thread of yours.

Thanks!

(For the good laugh.)

[Michael Zak]

BTW, Shibumi was a great book.

[jessduntno]

Thanks for the ping. And for the help in recognizing one when I see one.

[The Comedian]

Few things change...

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.