blow your theory right out of the waterSome more of your take no prisoners attitude...
You think you got me. You don't. I deeply admire Robert E. Lee. That won't change because you blew my theory out of the water. The reason I asked you not to post to me anymore is I am tired of your hate toward anything Southern.
So, if you need to post one more time to me please have at... it will ust be more of the same.
Then we can stop posting to each other.
Actually, I do not think your assertion was blown out of the water by non-sequitur.
First, the article by Kobrich, who was simply a student at Villanova, does not show any peer review, nor claim that it is a part of any research that has been read for accuracy. He claimed to be eventually attending Maryland to work on his Ph.d, but this document in question is not a part of any scholarly reviewed research.
His entire assertion of the limitation of Rawle's influence is built on an anecdote from a cadet Morris Schaff, and "research" 70 years later that had Edgar Dudley saying that the book was "probably" only used in 1826.
Dudley's source is not given. However, this source says something quite different:
"William Rawle's
Views on the Constitution, a textbook which was considered the last word on the Constitution, was taught at the U S Military Academy at West Point from 1827 until well into the 1860's. Attributed to John Mills Bigham Curator, South Carolina Confederate Relic Room and Museum.
At this point, it is known that Rawle's book was popular among the instructors at West Point in the mid to late 1820's. Whether or not Lee read it, or was influenced by its reputation is unknown, although he is quoted as having read it.
Therefore, any claim from non-sequitur is nothing more than another of his non-sequiturs.