Posted on 01/20/2012 3:28:33 PM PST by BigReb555
Dr. Edward C. Smith, respected African-American Professor of History at American University in Washington, D.C., told the audience in Atlanta, Georgia during a 1995 Robert E. Lee birthday event, ‘Dr. Martin Luther King and Robert E. Lee were individuals worthy of emulation because they understood history.’
(Excerpt) Read more at cumminghome.com ...
So, is Eisenhower one of the “good” Republicans or one of the “bad” Republicans? LOL
“To learn very little about the case (and nothing about the cuplability of the primary War Criminal, Pickett) other then a weak diatribe against the honor of North Carolinians who fought for the USA, please see the cut-and-paste weak substitute for an argument in post 110 above.”
The “cut and paste” is from an article:
(Courtesy of Dr. Donald E. Collins; from a paper presented at the First Annual East Carolina University Civil War Symposium: “Eastern North Carolina in the Civil War”; October 11, 1996.)
[ Dr. Collins is currently working on two book-length histories of the First and Second North Carolina Union Regiments. ]
Makes me wonder what your credentials are.
“That difference between secession and rebellion is not of my invention, but rather is well documented.”
Then it should be easy for you to produce a source making the distinction that you say is “well documented”. So far you haven’t produced anything.
Unlike you, donny, I don’t find it difficult to produce documentation showing that secession and rebellion are but two words for the same thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion
“Throughout history, many different groups that opposed their governments have been called rebels. Over 450 peasant revolts erupted in southwestern France between 1590 and 1715. In the United States, the term was used for the Continentals by the British in the Revolutionary War, and for the Confederacy by the Union in the American Civil War. Most armed rebellions have not been against authority in general, but rather have sought to establish a new government in their place.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession
“Secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity. Threats of secession also can be a strategy for achieving more limited goals.”
“Types of secession
“Secession theorists have described a number of ways in which a political entity (city, county, canton, state) can secede from the larger or original state.”
“Secession from federation or confederation (political entities with substantial reserved powers which have agreed to join together) versus secession from a unitary state (a state governed as a single unit with few powers reserved to sub-units) Colonial aka “wars of independence” from a “mother country” or imperial state”
A distinction you could have argued that would have been valid is that secession, unlike rebellion, isn’t necessarily accompanied by violence. So you see, donny, it isn’t that tough to produce evidence. At least when the point being argued is valid. When your point is make-believe, well then you are reduced to just insisting that you are right because it’s convenient to your argument to pretend that there is a difference. Good luck with that one, donny.
“Your inadequate education or tedious misrepresentation is no reflection on me.”
The only “reflection on you” is your own writing, which reveals that you think ad hominem is a compelling argument in your favor. Bears a distinct similarity to the monkey cage whose residents regard poo throwing as a sign of cleverness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
"Beyond improving their existing association, the records of the Second Continental Congress show that the need for a declaration of independence was intimately linked with the demands of international relations. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee tabled a resolution before the Continental Congress declaring the colonies independent; at the same time he also urged Congress to resolve “to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances” and to prepare a plan of confederation for the newly-independent states. Congress then created three overlapping committees to draft the Declaration, a Model Treaty, and the Articles of Confederation. The Declaration announced the states' entry into the international system; the model treaty was designed to establish amity and commerce with other states; and the Articles of Confederation, which established “a firm league” among the thirteen free and independent states, constituted an international agreement to set up central institutions for the conduct of vital domestic and foreign affairs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
The committee appointed to draft the Articles in June 1776 met repeatedly and sent their draft to the individual states in November 1777, for their ratification. There were long debates on such issues as sovereignty, the exact powers to be given the confederal government, whether to have a judiciary, and voting procedures. In practice, the Articles were in use beginning in 1777. The ratification process was completed in March 1781. Under the Articles, the states retained sovereignty over all governmental functions not specifically relinquished to the national government.
The Articles were created by delegates from the states in the Second Continental Congress out of a need to have "a plan of confederacy for securing the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the United States." After the war, nationalists, especially those who had been active in the Continental Army, complained that the Articles were too weak for an effective government. There were no president, no executive agencies, no judiciary and no tax base. The absence of a tax base meant that there was no way to pay off state and national debts from the war years except by requesting money from the states, which seldom arrived. In 1788, with the approval of Congress, the Articles were replaced by the United States Constitution and the new government began operations in 1789.
Congress began to move for ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1777:
"Permit us, then, earnestly to recommend these articles to the immediate and dispassionate attention of the legislatures of the respective states. Let them be candidly reviewed under a sense of the difficulty of combining in one general system the various sentiments and interests of a continent divided into so many sovereign and independent communities, under a conviction of the absolute necessity of uniting all our councils and all our strength, to maintain and defend our common liberties... The document could not become officially effective until it was ratified by all 13 colonies. The first state to ratify was Virginia on December 16, 1777.
Even though the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were established by many of the same people, the two documents are very different. The original five-page Articles contained a preamble, 13 articles, a conclusion, and a signatory section. The preamble states that the signatory states "agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union" between the 13 states. The following list contains short summaries of each of the 13 articles. Establishes the name of the confederation with these words:
"The Style of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Asserts the sovereignty of each state, except for the specific powers delegated to the confederation government, i.e. "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated."
Not being sovereign, it does not call the United States of America a "nation" or "government," but instead says, "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."
Good find, c_va.
...and then you provide "documentation" which supports donmeaker's contention, not yours. Nicely done!
The only “reflection on you” is your own writing, which reveals that you think ad hominem is a compelling argument in your favor. Bears a distinct similarity to the monkey cage whose residents regard poo throwing as a sign of cleverness.
Now, what is the term for accusing someone of the actions you yourself are guilty of? Oh yea....Liberal Projection. LOL
Yes. That is the nature of 'cut-and paste', demonstrating no attempt by the 'cut-and-paster' to describe any analysis of the event and no even half-hearted attempt to somehow tie it to the fact of the issue, i.e., Picket's deliberate decision to murder POWs whom he knew had never worn the uniform of the CSA.
Makes me wonder what your credentials are.
In order to describe both Picket's crime and the inane character of Post 110, no credentials are required other than the ability to read, write, and comment with a sober mind.
It is not possible to imagine Lee committing an atrocity such as this.
Evidently you find reading comprehension an unnecessary skill.
The author presented his paper to a Civil War symposium and is writing books on the two NC Union regiments. Those are his credentials.
So far your sole ‘refutation’ is to accuse him of cutting and pasting his information. Logic says that you know the source he cut from, unless your accusation against him is baseless.
So what is the source you are accusing him of copying?
The only “reflection on you” is your own writing, which reveals that you think ad hominem is a compelling argument in your favor.
So you think that responding to an insult is no different than initiating an insult. Congratulations.
No, of course not. I was merely pointing out the rich irony of your words. Obviously your own words go over your own head.
“No, of course not.”
Of course you are, you are using a moral equivalency argument where a response in kind is no different than a provocation.
Fortunately you’re above all that.
< snicker >
It’s not a case of being “above” anything. I don’t find moral equivalence to have any merit. You’re welcome to continue using it if you do.
I didn't accuse the author of anything.
The author didn't post anything on this forum.
Did Pickett deliberately order the execution of men whom he knew never wore the uniform of the CSA?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.