[x]

"Peer review" doesn't seem to be a qualification for any number of neo-confederate screeds that people link to here.

Kobrich's article is pretty good for a college student's. He deals well with the Rawle question, but his article isn't all one-sided.

I'd disagree with his citation of Degler to the effect that US nationalism wasn't a major force in early 19th century America, but his assertion that fostering national feeling in cadets wasn't an important function at West Point is an intriguing one. Maybe the academy promoted an army esprit de corps that outsiders took for strong national feeling.

[PeaRidge]

I see you are pinging non-sequitur while addressing me. You don't need to come to the rescue of your buddy, non-sequitur. It is too late.

Non-sequitur was trying to pass off some smarmy article, and then he pinged you for help. Then you run in and try to misdirect.

You are the one around here that absolutely insists that validity rests in "peer review", and you must now apply your own qualification to non-sequitur's source, who, as you admit, is no more than some undergraduate who published a term paper on line.

Perpetuating your intended misdirection, you state that his article "isn't all one sided". Of course it is. It is totally directed to re-writing the history of West Point's academic instruction in Rawle's analysis of states' rights under the Constitution. That is a gigantic issue.

The point is that non-sequitur tried to make the absolute assertion that Robert E. Lee could not have studied Rawle while at West Point.

Here is his quote to Carton253: "So if Lee ever heard of Rawle, he doesn't appear to have taken the course and could hardly be expected to be influenced by the book".

His conclusions are thinner than Cotton Candy....."so, if", "doesn't appear", "could hardly"...

Are you truly going to support that kind of logic? I think not.