Brooks Simpson, prominent author and ASU Professor talks DiLorenzo, Secession, and Missouri Tenth

Brooks D. Simpson is possibly one of the more well known Yankee historians (and I use that term with a grin) who shapes young minds at Arizona State University. The author of six books, Simpson is perhaps best known for his work on Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph over Adversity, 1822-1865, published by Houghton Mifflin in 2000 (the book was a New York Times Notable Book and a Choice Outstanding Academic Title for that year). But perhaps more telling is the fact that in 2009, the U. S. State Department asked him to travel to Turkey for two weeks to lecture on Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama in historical context. (See his wikipedia page here)

Mr. Simpson, recently attacked DiLorenzo’s Jeffersonian worldview through a scholarly smack-down by stating, “I’m sure that those people who deplore the Lincoln movie or anything else about the sixteenth president will cite DiLorenzo as the ultimate authority on such matters. Maybe some of them are signing on to those secession petitions as we speak…” (read more about DiLorenzo’s body of work and anti-Federalist views here)

And then in his November 18 post, Simpson discusses the attention the Secession movement has been getting – and does so through poking a bit of fun. However, he does rightly discuss that, “Not all of these petitions are going to the White House … and, truth be told, they shouldn’t,” Simpson says. “If secession’s an act by residents of a state looking for their state to secede, one would petition the governor or the state legislature. Such is the case in a petition presented by one Missouri secessionist blog.” (Which happens to be Missouri Tenth – but we should point out that we’d actually describe ourselves as a States’ Rights blog).

For more information

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Brooks Simpson, prominent author and ASU Professor talks DiLorenzo, Secession, and Missouri Tenth

  1. Mike Lamb says:

    How do you like the thoughts of having your children learn under Brooks Simpson? I’ve had a few run ins with Simpson and totally destroyed him in two debates and was my way to winning a third when the moderators at the SHPG pulled my posts. I come to find out they are more PC than honest in their intent.

    Brooks Simpson is more than an antagonist, he is a perfect example of what the system is composed of and has become. He gets a nice big fat pay check and the government accolades for defending their usurpation of our Rights. While anyone can call themselves a historian or anything else they desire and they can get government approved papers stating such, that does not mean they are experts in their claimed field. Simpson is one such character that also perfectly shows this. He gets government sponsored trips to spread the government propaganda as well as invited to all sorts of government approved historical events all in order to build his name and character. All of which is done in order to further the governments propaganda in retaining the status quo. What we see is also another good example of how the government spends your tax dollars in order to keep you enslaved to the system by educating the public with their propaganda.

    As I said, anyone can call themselves anything and claim such by any government title. While Simpson is a Marxist in his core beliefs, a revisionist historian, that doesn’t mean he can understand the history he claims to teach. Anyone can memorize names, dates, places, documents and events, but it takes another added dimension in understanding what all that means, putting things into perspective considering context and today’s society. Simpson fails miserably here all because he already has his mind predetermined and disposed to another whole philosophy that is opposed to that of the Classic Western Civilization. Of course his ideas originated from Classic Western Civilization, they are opposed to it. Simpson simply interprets history, revising it to make it fit the Marxist agenda, plain and simple, and he gets paid big money for it as well as gaining much acclaim.

    Simpson blocked me from his own blog after badly losing two debates to me. He claimed I was some big professor in order to cover and justify his defeats. I was extremely civil on his blog, of which he cannot claim otherwise. However I was quiet the contrary on the SHPG FaceBook page, although not vile in name calling. I cannot stand the traits of people like Simpson, arrogant, self-righteous and self-serving tot he extreme. One day I hope to corner this bully in front of a much larger audience and he WILL be mine! He doesn’t know history, but he does know plenty of stats and much about revising history to suit the Marxist agenda, which includes the government. What I do is out of love of my fellow man, doing what is right by them. What Simpson does is for the lust of money and power. One day Truth will once again reign over mite!

    Michael– Deo Vindicabamur


    • Rob Baker says:

      Mike never destroyed anyone in a debate. I read those “debates,” they are quite sad.

      • carknow32 says:

        Well, I’d point out that the Federal Government’s treatment of the Southern people was quite sad – both during the war, and after. So maybe you have a point.

      • Rob Baker says:

        I’d point out that the South’s holding of 4 million people around 1860, plus the jim crow laws and black codes that followed, is even sadder. However, I’m not talking about the Civil War era. I am talking about Mike Lamb’s lies. Stay on topic. ,

      • Michael Lamb says:

        To those who have ridiculed and vilified me on Missouri 10th because of my article against Brooks Simpson. I have written the above article for you. While you will disagree and attack me over my latest article, that is alright. There will be many other people who will understand it perfectly, even guests passing through, curious as to what all the fuss is over.

  2. Pingback: It Takes All Kinds « Crossroads

  3. gloine36 says:

    You didn’t defeat him. If anything you were crushed asunder by factual based history which you ignore willingly in order to perpetuate your fantasies.

    • carknow32 says:

      It’s a matter of worldviews and cultural differences. As for facts, sometimes we can get so wrapped in the sky being blue – that we don’t look at why it’s that color.

  4. Corey Meyer says:

    Mike Lamb thinks he can win a debate by calling Brooks a Marxist. So typical of not having an argument to begin with.

    • Michael Lamb says:

      It’s because he as well as you are Marxists that I have won my debates. It’s your mindset that makes you wrong. Yet you deny the very tendencies that you openly show. You can’t have it both ways. Or better stated, your true self betrays you. That being said, it becomes a matter of whose philosophy and ideology is correct and whose is not? All of which can be shown, the war was a war of philosophy and ideology, and those distinctions between the two different peoples persists unto this day, just as they existed before the war ever occurred. Matter of fact those distinctions existed long before there ever was a united states. It’s a matter of good verses evil, right verses wrong, as I stated in my article, “Collectivism by Force”, specifically the duality of man. That is why the war is not over and you and yours are wrong…

      Michael– Deo Vindicabamur

  5. Michael Lamb says:

    btw- I don’t even have to call him or you a Marxist to win my debates. But it helps to show people what and who Marxists are. Actually Simpson loses by default for several reasons. He pulls posts from people he can’t defend against and then bans them. (Not for rude behavior either.) He accuses people of being people who they are not. And he’s sarcastic to those very people as well as to many others, all in efforts to not only discredit the specific statements they may or may not have correct, but to also discredit them as a person and their whole philosophy and ideology. (Their way of life, faith, heritage and culture.) And you are no different. In short it’s not Marxist that makes or breaks him or you, it’s the whole philosophy and ideology that all of you consist of. Being called a Marxist is simply a term that more easily identifies those traits. I can omit the word but that doesn’t change what’s inside your head and heart.

    Michael– Deo Vindicabamur

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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