Posted on 06/12/2003 5:58:28 AM PDT by Aurelius
Over the years I've heard many rail at the South for seceding from the 'glorious Union.' They claim that Jeff Davis and all Southerners were really nothing but traitors - and some of these people were born and raised in the South and should know better, but don't, thanks to their government school 'education.'
Frank Conner, in his excellent book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 deals in some detail with the question of Davis' alleged 'treason.' In referring to the Northern leaders he noted: "They believed the most logical means of justifying the North's war would be to have the federal government convict Davis of treason against the United States. Such a conviction must presuppose that the Confederate States could not have seceded from the Union; so convicting Davis would validate the war and make it morally legitimate."
Although this was the way the federal government planned to proceed, that prolific South-hater, Thaddeus Stevens, couldn't keep his mouth shut and he let the cat out of the bag. Stevens said: "The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy...This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern states were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war...No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union..." And, although he did not plainly say it, what Stevens really desired was that the Christian culture of the Old South be 'reformed' into something more compatible with his beliefs. No matter how you look at it, the feds tried to have it both ways - they claimed the South was in rebellion and had never been out of the Union, but then it had to do certain things to 'get back' into the Union it had never been out of. Strange, is it not, that the 'history' books never seem to pick up on this?
At any rate, the Northern government prepared to try President Davis for treason while it had him in prison. Mr. Conner has observed that: "The War Department presented its evidence for a treason trial against Davis to a famed jurist, Francis Lieber, for his analysis. Lieber pronounced 'Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten'." According to Mr. Conner, U.S. Attorney General James Speed appointed a renowned attorney, John J. Clifford, as his chief prosecutor. Clifford, after studying the government's evidence against Davis, withdrew from the case. He said he had 'grave doubts' about it. Not to be undone, Speed then appointed Richard Henry Dana, a prominent maritime lawyer, to the case. Mr. Dana also withdrew. He said basically, that as long as the North had won a military victory over the South, they should just be satisfied with that. In other words - "you won the war, boys, so don't push your luck beyond that."
Mr. Conner tells us that: "In 1866 President Johnson appointed a new U.S. attorney general, Henry Stanburg. But Stanburg wouldn't touch the case either. Thus had spoken the North's best and brightest jurists re the legitimacy of the War of Northern Aggression - even though the Jefferson Davis case offered blinding fame to the prosecutor who could prove that the South had seceded unconstitutionally." None of these bright lights from the North would touch this case with a ten-foot pole. It's not that they were dumb, in fact the reverse is true. These men knew a dead horse when they saw it and were not about to climb aboard and attempt to ride it across the treacherous stream of illegal secession. They knew better. In fact, a Northerner from New York, Charles O'Connor, became the legal counsel for Jeff Davis - without charge. That, plus the celebrity jurists from the North that refused to touch the case, told the federal government that they really had no case against Davis or secession and that Davis was merely being held as a political prisoner.
Author Richard Street, writing in The Civil War back in the 1950s said exactly the same thing. Referring to Jeff Davis, Street wrote: "He was imprisoned after the war, was never brought to trial. The North didn't dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no 'rebellion' and that the South had got a raw deal." At one point the government intimated that it would be willing to offer Davis a pardon, should he ask for one. Davis refused that and he demanded that the government either give him a pardon or give him a trial, or admit that they had dealt unjustly with him. Mr. Street said: "He died 'unpardoned' by a government that was leery of giving him a public hearing." If Davis was as guilty as they claimed, why no trial???
Had the federal government had any possible chance to convict Davis and therefore declare secession unconstitutional they would have done so in a New York minute. The fact that they diddled around and finally released him without benefit of the trial he wanted proves that the North had no real case against secession. Over 600,000 boys, both North and South, were killed or maimed so the North could fight a war of conquest over something that the South did that was neither illegal or wrong. Yet they claim the moral high ground because the 'freed' the slaves, a farce at best.
ROTF.
Not really. I'm simply making the point that your exception of Edgar Lee Masters is laughably minor in comparison to the marxist Lincolnites, which BTW included Marx himself.
then I guess that I can't win this one.
Seeing as the facts are against you, no. You can't.
But if you had been more specific to begin with then this tu quoque boy wouldn't have questioned you in the first place.
Not really. I find with you that your arguments are predisposed toward the tu quoque in even the most inapplicable situations. It seems to be your modus operandi.
The premise you put forward is that James McPherson is a communist because...
1) He signed a petition opposing the impeachment of Clinton on constitutional grounds.
2) He gave several interviews that were published on the World Socialist Website, in which he used offensive phrases like "right-wing", and "anti-abortion".
3) He made public statements which indicate he does not support the incorporation of the CBF on state flags.
4) He participated in a lecture series on black reparations.
5) He wrote an article supporting the University of Michigan position on affirmative action.
I'll be happy to rebut these points with you one at a time, but first I want to make sure I haven't missed anything. Have I?
...and offered public statements of support to the Clinton WH. That demonstrates his place strongly on the pro-Clinton political left.
2) He gave several interviews that were published on the World Socialist Website, in which he used offensive phrases like "right-wing", and "anti-abortion".
...not only did he allow them to be published there but specifically conducted those interviews WITH that website's operators thus establishing at least one solid affiliation with a communist political party.
3) He made public statements which indicate he does not support the incorporation of the CBF on state flags.
On an avowedly communist radio station, no doubt.
4) He participated in a lecture series on black reparations.
Actually it was a single seminar and he not only participated in it but he LED the seminar itself.
5) He wrote an article supporting the University of Michigan position on affirmative action.
Yep.
You also forgot:
6) He appeared with three avowed marxists on a communist-affiliated radio station to trash Republicans
7) He was politically active as a member of a far-left group of "academics" advising the Bill Bradley campaign
and 8) He has in many cases taken political positions that are critical of conservatism, the republican party, or both.
I'll be happy to rebut these points with you one at a time
Bring it on. The documentation is all there.
but first I want to make sure I haven't missed anything. Have I?
See the corrections and additions above.
Nope. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, followed by laws "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof."
No reasonable person could ignore the fact that both the majority and dissenting opinons in the Prize Cases cite the Militia Act. A reasonable person would have to conclude that the Militia Act is one of those laws made in pursuance to the Constitution.
Walt
James Madison, in your opinion was an "unreasonable person," but what would he know about the constitution anyway?
[nc] On January 19, 1865, President Lincoln wrote to Grant, asking him to find a safe staff appointment for Robert: "My son, now in his twenty-second year, having graduated at Harvard, wishes to see something of the war before it ends.
[nc] Captain Lincoln's main duty as an army officer was that of escorting visitors to various locations. Additionally, he was present at Appomattox when Robert E. Lee surrendered to Grant.
Gee, I guess I should have added the flag.
If little Lincoln had wanted to get into the war, he could have. Robert entered the service during the last gasp of the war, with a letter from Daddy securing him a safe position on the staff of Gen. Grant. There were another 620,000 who were not so fortunate.
This was in the context of Lincoln having a substitute join in his own place. While he conscripted the kids of others, he stashed his own kid in Massachusetts and had his ticket punched at the end of the war. Even then, it was with instructions to Gen. Grant to keep sonny safe.
Charge 1) He signed a petition opposing the impeachment of Clinton on constitutional grounds.
McPherson was one of over 400 academians who signed the Wilentz petition opposing the Clinton impeachment. The petition signers come from a broad spectrum of institutes of higher education from all across the country. Some of them are even constitutional scholars. Are all these people to be labeled communist because they reasonably concluded that impeachment of the President was a bad idea? I don't think so. So why single McPherson out?
Charge 1 cont: ...and offered public statements of support to the Clinton WH.
This charge is baseless and not supported by any direct evidence you provide. The one opportunity to publicly defend Clinton [in front of Congress] that you do cite, McPherson declined. Here is what McPherson has said about the Clinton impeachment.
“The Constitution is written such that an impeachable offense would be a public offense. The Constitution designates impeachment for treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors,” McPherson said. “They mean public offenses.”
This line of reasoning provides insight into why he concludes that the impeachment was 'personal' in nature.
McPherson continued to publicly defend his position by suggesting that the Clinton impeachment might come back to haunt the nation. One might conclude that McPherson was rightly concerned about the Office of the Presidency, rather than the office holder. Concern over weakening the power of the American presidency is hardly a left-wing, or communist position.
Charge 2) He gave several interviews that were published on the World Socialist Website, in which he used offensive phrases like "right-wing", and "anti-abortion".
I've read the three part interview McPherson gave in May 1999 with WSWS editorial board member David Walsh. Mcpherson does not engage in ad-homin attacks on the right as you have suggested, but rather attempts to put the recent impeachment in a historical context by comparing it to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Here is a quote from the interview.
"The major difference is that the impeachment of the 1860s concerned really serious matters of substance, and the 1990s' impeachment was a more personal vendetta, with a context of the cultural wars, issues like abortion, and going all the way back to the Vietnam War, as well as lifestyle questions. The Right in American politics sees Clinton as a nefarious symbol of many of these changes they don't like in American society, but for the most part the recent impeachment did not have much to do with substantive legislative and political and executive policy matters in the same way that the Johnson impeachment did"
Charge 2 cont:) ...not only did he allow them to be published there but specifically conducted those interviews WITH that website's operators thus establishing at least one solid affiliation with a communist political party.
James McPherson is a scholar of American history. His interview with David Walsh is one of literally thousands has has given, not to mention his participation in seminars and lecture series. Talking and writing about American history is what McPherson does for a living, and he seems pretty agnostic about whom he speaks with. Is everyone who communicates with a communist, also a communist? Hardly. Nothing McPherson said in that interview suggests he is a communist. Its guilt by association, again.
Charge 3) He made public statements which indicate he does not support the incorporation of the CBF on state flags.
Your list of nasty left wingers is impressive, but you provide no direct evidence on what you quote McPherson as saying about the CBF, or the context in which it was said. Holding such opinion about the use of the CBF on state symbols is hardly a left-wing position, and you know it.
Charge 4) He participated in a lecture series on black reparations.
Whether it was a lecture series or a single seminar, what you failed to mention is that one of the suggested reading materials for the event was David Horowitz's "10 Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks Are a Bad Idea". If McPherson is the left-wing partisan you claim he is, why would such a resource be listed as suggested reading material? Actually, I think the answer to this question may be found in one of your source documents, McPhersons profile on the WSWS web-site.
"Professor McPherson is not, in the commonly understood sense of the word, a political man. Those who are looking for left-wing pronouncements will be disappointed, legitimately or otherwise. His banner, if one can avoid sounding too pompous saying it, is intellectual integrity. He seems quite determined to remove himself from the immediacy of day-to-day political life, immersing himself in the study of complex, riveting events, but not living in the past or mesmerized by it. He is neither a preserver of trite “Americana” nor a “Civil War buff.” When one speaks with him about the events of the Civil War era they are astonishingly contemporary and alive.
One might wish he were more forthcoming about certain political issues, but one must respect his reticence. One is evaluating him as an historian. Society has a strong need for such people, particularly those who strive to be both authoritative and accessible to a wide audience, as McPherson does, those who “aspire to a general democratic public,” in the words of Allan Nevins, a phrase he cites approvingly."
Your conclusions about McPherson are not supported by the evidence you provide. Instead you've assembled a series of logical fallacies in attempt to impugn the reputation of someone whose position you oppose. Writing, James McPherson Left Wing Extremist, in really big letters doesn't make it true, although it does offer some insight into the weakness of your argument. About the only thing you've proven here is your inability to reason logically about issues you have strong emotions about.
my expertise, such as it is, is in the military history of the Trans-Mississippi Theatre (particuliarly in the American Indians in the WBTS)and in the CSMC & CRS.
currently, i'm also trying to gather enough information on the CSA Marshal's Service to do a monograph. sadly, i don't think there is enough extant data to complete the project. we'll see.
free dixie,sw
have you actually read BLACKS IN BLUE AND GRAY??? (if not, how would you know what the differences are?)
free dixie,sw
I can only go by what you have attributed to Blackerby, versus what I have read from Jordan.
The important thing about the Censuses from 1790 to 1860, is what they showed about the growth of slavery, relative to the white and freeman population.
"The nullifiers it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality are effectually transferred by it, and the dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution and laws of the several States; supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hands of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all."
- James Madison
I think Madison was -very-reasonable.
Walt
Appealing to the appallingly broad scope of professional left wing idiocy in academia will earn you no points here, mac.
Some of them are even constitutional scholars. Are all these people to be labeled communist because they reasonably concluded that impeachment of the President was a bad idea? I don't think so.
Straw man #1. As I noted previously in my corrections of your initial reply, McPherson's signature on that petition does not necessarily demonstrate his communist affiliations. Rather, it simply establishes one of his many links to the far left of the political spectrum, be that communist or the communist lite brand that dominates today's democrat party.
So why single McPherson out?
In left wing idiocy he is among equals with all the signers of that petition. But unlike some of the other signers he also offered public statements in support of Clinton among many other things.
Charge 1 cont: ...and offered public statements of support to the Clinton WH. This charge is baseless and not supported by any direct evidence you provide.
Not so. Read it and weep from the Princeton newspaper:
"History professor James McPherson, who also signed Wilentz’s petition, declined an invitation from the White House to testify because of classroom commitments. He said the Constitution does not suggest that impeachment would be appropriate in the Clinton matter. “The Constitution is written such that an impeachable offense would be a public offense. The Constitution designates impeachment for treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors,” McPherson said. “They mean public offenses.”"
I've read the three part interview McPherson gave in May 1999 with WSWS editorial board member David Walsh. Mcpherson does not engage in ad-homin attacks on the right as you have suggested, but rather attempts to put the recent impeachment in a historical context by comparing it to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.
Wrong quote. He categorizes "the anti-abortion people" as "extremes on the Right," as if to suggest that simply opposing abortion is an extreme right wing position. That is by definition ad hominem.
James McPherson is a scholar of American history. His interview with David Walsh is one of literally thousands has has given, not to mention his participation in seminars and lecture series.
Question: If a marxist trotskyite political party called you up, praised you as a fellow "progressive," then asked you to give them an exclusive mulit-part interview for their website, would you accept it? How about if they asked you to give them articles to publish on their website? And what if this continued over the course of several years (McPherson's first piece on that site is dated 1994 and most recent is dated 1999 with several in between)? What if a marxist radio station did the same thing? Would it not seem that your participation with them was the least bit excessive and outside the realm of ordinary interviews? Would it not be correct to identify you as having an active affiliation with that marxist trotskyite political party? I venture to say that, on all counts, yes. It would.
I also suspect that you are engaging in an intentionally lenient treatment of McPherson's trotskyite affiliations. Would you dismiss it as a run-of-the-mill interview if he was contacted by the Klan and put up interviews on their website? Would you claim that those who cited an incident of that sort as an example of his affiliation with a truly vile and racist organization are all blowing it out of proportion? How about if he did an interview with the Nation of Islam? Or what if he did one with Al Qaeda or Hamas? I venture to suggest that you would not blow off any of these. Yet for some reason you find it in your heart to simply blow off, as part of a normal and daily routine, not one but a total of 8 different articles and interviews conducted over a continuous five year period between McPherson and a marxist political party that is every bit as vile, dangerous, offensive, and repugnant as the KKK, the Nation of Islam, Hamas, or any other similar group of a similar nature trying to undermine and destroy freedom in this and other countries around the world.
Talking and writing about American history is what McPherson does for a living, and he seems pretty agnostic about whom he speaks with.
Has he spoken with the Klan? With Al Qaeda? With Hamas? With the neo-Black Panther Party? Would it be appropriate to dismiss any connection if he were to speak with ANY of these groups? Absolutely not, nor is it appropriate for you to dismiss his active and long term involvement with an equally dangerous and offensive communist political party.
Is everyone who communicates with a communist, also a communist? Hardly. Nothing McPherson said in that interview suggests he is a communist. Its guilt by association, again.
Too bad for you the "association" for which he is guilty entails a lengthy ongoing relationship with that organization's website covering a period of over 5 years. But then again, applying your logic one could correspond regularly with Osama bin Laden or the Klan for a similar length in time and only be partaking in general academic business.
Charge 3) He made public statements which indicate he does not support the incorporation of the CBF on state flags. Your list of nasty left wingers is impressive, but you provide no direct evidence on what you quote McPherson as saying about the CBF, or the context in which it was said.
Read the interview transcript then! I'll even post it for ya:
"Democracy Now!" Pacifica Radio 11/3/99 title: "George W. Bush and His Support for Confederate Organizations"
Amy Goodman: The 1997-1998 annual report of the Museum of the Confederacy which is based in Richmond, Virginia. In it George W. Bush is listed as a donor to the Lone Star Ball which is a fundraising event of the Museum. In the Bush Campaign when we gave them a call to ask them specifically about this issue said they weren't ready to respond, but the Museum did and said that the Governor had sent a letter a support to the attendees if the event, the Lone Star Ball which was held at the Tredegar Iron Works gun foundry building the place where civil war armaments were produced for the Confederacy. The Museum is known as a place that celebrates achievements of soldiers of the Confederacy. And the Lone Star ball was honoring Texas last year, each year it honors another state. Before that it honored South Carolina. The Lone Star ball flew the Confederate flags of all the states of the Confederacy. People came, hundreds of people, in period clothing.
And today were are going to take a look at the Museum of the Confederacy and George W. Bush's involvement. We are joined by Ed Sebesta, who is a researcher on the neo-Confederate movement. Ed can you tell us what you found about this event and George Bush's involvement?
Ed Sebesta.: Well I found on page 37 in the fiscal report 1997-1998 he is listed as a donor to the fundraising event, the Lone Star ball, it is a short list, and it provides the upfront money for the Ball. He also has written letters of congratulations to the United Daughters of the Confederacy and also wrote a letter of congratulations to the Sons of Confederate Veterans for their 100th anniversary.
Amy Goodman: We got a copy from the Museum of the Confederacy of George Bush's letter that he wrote to the attendees of the Lone Star ball that was the big celebration of the Museum of the Confederacy last year. And in the letter he says, this is George W. Bush, "Understanding the history of our country is important for citizens, the Museum of the Confederacy provides an educational opportunity for visitors to experience the tragedy and triumph of a critical era in the American story. Through letters, books, photographs and other artifacts in the Museum the American Civil War period comes alive."
Juan Gonzalas: Well Ed Sebesta what about this issue of the celebration of the Confederacy itself, clearly this is has been an issue throughout the South the issue of South Carolina and the flying the Confederate flag there and across the nation. There are those in the South who still regard the battle of the Confederacy as just a heroic period of southern history and there are of course there are many in this nation who regard the confederate flag and the Confederate states as the ultimate symbol of white supremacy in American history.
Ed Sebesta: It has always been about white supremacy and they may come down and talk the language of heritage but in their own publications or in different venues it is about white supremacy. I mean the guy who coined the expression, "Heritage Not Hate," Lunsford, Charles Lunsford, and led the defense of the Georgia flag got kicked out of the SCV, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, because unlike the rest of them he was publicly associating with the Council of Conservative Citizens. And now currently he heads the heritage committee of the notorious League of the South and that is just one example. From beginning to end, from alpha to omega, it has been about white supremacy, and the Civil War is about slavery and evidently George Bush hasn't picked that up. It is not Hollywood tragidrama, its about slavery and afterwards it is white supremacy. I will make a point, E.A. Pollard wrote the Lost Cause, and that is where the book gave the name to this whole remembrance, "Lost Cause." People don't know that he also wrote "The Lost Cause Regained," in which he states, and listen carefully, "The Civil War was not about slavery, the Civil War was about white supremacy, and slavery was just a mode of white supremacy." And that's is from 1866 or whenever he published it, to the present.
Amy Goodman: Ed Sebesta we have to break for stations to identify themselves. And when we come back this researcher on the neo-Confederate movement will be joined by James McPherson who is professor of history at Princeton University, who attended the Lone Star ball I think, we will find out in a minute.
Amy Goodman: You're listening to Pacific Radio station Democracy Now. I am Amy Goodman here with Juan Gonzalas. Ed Sebesta, researcher on the neo-Confederate movement is our guest as well as James McPherson, professor of history at Princeton University. Sorry I think I think I got that wrong, did not attended the Lone Star ball but has spoken at the Tredegar Iron works foundry where these balls take place. Can you talk a little Professor McPherson about your thoughts about the Museum of the Confederacy.
James McPherson: Surely, actually I spoke at the Tredegar back in 1992 when it still was under the auspices of the Valentine museum in Richmond, which is a museum mostly for the history of the city of Richmond, subsequently they had financial problems and I am not quite sure what the status of the Tredegar is now, but I know that the Museum of the Confederacy is hoping to acquire it and administer it. I think, I agree a 100% with Ed Sebesta about the motives or the hidden agenda, not too, not too deeply hidden I think of such groups as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. They are dedicated to celebrating the Confederacy and rather thinly veiled support for white supremacy. And I think that also is the again not very deeply hidden agenda of the Confederate flag issue in several southern states. I do think though that the Museum of the Confederacy as it as it exists today in is a different category. It's founding motives back in the 1890s at the same time the United Confederate Veterans, and the Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans were founded, its founding motives were celebatory. But over time, and especially in the last decade or two, it has become a much more professional, research oriented, professional exhibit oriented facility.
Charge 4) He participated in a lecture series on black reparations. Whether it was a lecture series or a single seminar, what you failed to mention is that one of the suggested reading materials for the event was David Horowitz's "10 Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks Are a Bad Idea". If McPherson is the left-wing partisan you claim he is, why would such a resource be listed as suggested reading material?
Simple. It's called PRESENTING EVIDENCE FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT. Academic seminars generally try to make the pretense of doing that even though their subject matter is straight out of left wing wacko land like reparations.
Actually, I think the answer to this question may be found in one of your source documents, McPhersons profile on the WSWS web-site. "Professor McPherson is not, in the commonly understood sense of the word, a political man. Those who are looking for left-wing pronouncements will be disappointed, legitimately or otherwise. His banner, if one can avoid sounding too pompous saying it, is intellectual integrity. He seems quite determined to remove himself from the immediacy of day-to-day political life, immersing himself in the study of complex, riveting events, but not living in the past or mesmerized by it. He is neither a preserver of trite “Americana” nor a “Civil War buff.” When one speaks with him about the events of the Civil War era they are astonishingly contemporary and alive. One might wish he were more forthcoming about certain political issues, but one must respect his reticence. One is evaluating him as an historian. Society has a strong need for such people, particularly those who strive to be both authoritative and accessible to a wide audience, as McPherson does, those who “aspire to a general democratic public,” in the words of Allan Nevins, a phrase he cites approvingly."
Nice selective excerpt. Too bad you forgot to include the rest:
"Nearly 40 years ago Professor McPherson arrived at a conception of the American Civil War, based on the work of the best of his predecessors and his own researches, as a revolutionary struggle for equality and democracy and he has not, I think, ever deviated from that view. This is noteworthy in light of the fact that the last several decades have not been favorable for progressive social thought."
Now tell me, mac. When communists talk about "a revolutionary struggle for equality," what on earth could that be a buzz word for? That's right. It's the same revolutionary struggle they are ALWAYS talking about: the communist one.
What about when they call one of their own a proponent of "progressive social thought"? That's right. "Progressive" is the euphemism they use for "hard core left winger."
That communist party's political website described McPherson as both a progressive and noted that for 40 years he has not deviated from a historical view centered around their revolutionary struggle. You also neglect to account for the misleading nature of their description of McPherson as one who is not politically involved as you completely ignored his role as an advisor to the Bill Bradley campaign, his many political statements on left wing political issues such as affirmative action, and, of course, you attempted to gloss over and excuse away his Clinton advocacy during impeachment.
Your conclusions about McPherson are not supported by the evidence you provide.
The above indicates conclusively otherwise. The ONLY means by which you have been able to escape any of the facts I have provided are to either downplay and excuse away their seriousness or ignore them entirely. Neither of those tactics is legitimate enough to suffice as a rebuttal, thus your attempt fails miserably.
Your expertise in the Amercian Civil War, such as it is, often seems gleaned from the denizens of the monkey house at the zoo.
Walt
This is all well known; it's one of the significant subplots in Gore Vidal's "Lincoln," both novel and mini-series. Robert says to John jay that his father treats him like some small town politician who can deliver a block of votes, that Lincoln in fact hates him.
Mary is clearly noted in many sources as being adamant that Robert not go to the war. She'd already lost two sons.
Walt
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.