"General Robert E. Lee - Patriot or traitor?" Topic

Don, I can understand not wanting to make war on your family, a good point. But did this have to mean betraying your country and making war against it? He had another option to sit it out, IMO, under the circumstances.

True. And he went very quickly from asking Scott if he could sit out the war to accepting command of Virginia's forces, and then to a Confederate commission.

Don, you state a fact but then follow it up with an opinion. I agree with your fact but I an skeptical of your explanation of for why Lee did what he did.

Not sure which part you think is opinion. The final phrase, about accepting pro-slavery propaganda could be called opinion, I suppose, but is based on what he said in the letter to Custis about the North being the aggressors. (I'm pretty sure the letter is quoted in Freeman's biography.)

I did a search on Oath of US Army Officers -

"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

I believe there have been a few minor changes since the early 1800's, but nothing radical.

What good is this oath if any officer can resign on any given day and take up arms against the United States?

Stephen

I'd be willing to bet the George Washington made many declarations and oaths of loyalty to King George II and III. If Lee is traitor then surely George Washington and the whole Continental Congress are traitors. The Declaration of Independence is then simply a rationalization for mutiny and sedition against the constituted authorities.

Just My take… as a Brit.
I have never been able to comprehend US attitudes.

The War of Independence was mainly an objection to Taxes imposed by British Government… largely to pay for Defence against French or Native actions.
Those 'In Charge' were mainly the relatively wealthy.
Others took up the cause. Many had been forced out of Britain / Scotland / Ireland… so had cause to sign up.
They were traitors to the Crown.. but won. They got independence.

Then, the ACW. Put Slavery aside… it became an issue for Abolitionalists… but Union did not want Southern States Breaking away… due to Tax legislation. Union did not want competition in the growing expansion towards West. So 'Engineered' it. Due to 'Value' of Slavery.. no way.

Southern States… and SEPARATE nations within the Union wanted to Seccede from Union.. for whatever reason.. but were not allowed to do so.
Think Scottish / Irish Independence… I am against!
But some regard the Southern States as Traitors?
It confuses me!

I am not US…We are friendly… but 'when ' The Land Of The Free' can instantly set up Guantanamo'… Fine by me! But after historical opposition to UK 'Internment Without Trial' in NI ?

I do not consider Lee, a traitor… he resigned his commission… to defend His Country… as He felt.

Only way to win… was by attack.
US attitudes, very confusing!

I dont see an inconsistency here. If George Washington and the Founders were caught, then they might very well have been tried as traitors. You said yourselves that the victors decide this. Thus the Founders won and are not traitors and Lee lost and is one.

That's your standard, right?

Also, the Confederacy and it's neo-confederate posterity considers Lee a hero and everyone else consider him a traitor just like the British might consider the Founders traitors and the Americans consider them heroes.

The Declaration of Independence is then simply a rationalization for mutiny and sedition against the constituted authorities.

I do not consider Lee, a traitor… he resigned his commission… to defend His Country… as He felt.

You two need to figure this one out. For your own sakes, do you consider these moves to be the same or different?

I am just pointing out the inconsistency of using the breaking of oaths as a test for determining whether someone is a traitor. And just to remind everyone, WWII German general officers were eviscerated after the war for not breaking their oaths to Hitler. So the test in my mind doesn't work.

The idea that there are only two camps, Neo-Confederates and everyone else is absurd. In fact, it is that binary way of thinking that I find, historically speaking, most repugnant. Surely there is a whole world of possibilities between them.

"Then, the ACW. Put Slavery aside… it became an issue for Abolitionalists… but Union did not want Southern States Breaking away… due to Tax legislation. Union did not want competition in the growing expansion towards West. So 'Engineered' it. Due to 'Value' of Slavery.. no way."
Due to tax legislation? Do you have some evidence that tax legislation was the cause of the Unionists? This is the first I've heard of it.

Marcus, not to the "true believers". It all must be black and white, no grays. But I did try and warn you about trying to have a legitimate discussion. 😉

The History of the world is replete with examples of traitors who won and were no longer viewed as traitors and those who lost and remained so. The US Civil War and the decisions made by each individual, are complicated in all their aspects, but for some it is just a black or white.

Heedless, I live in Scotland for a third of the year. I am against independence, but I am a mere taxpayer, not a citizen. Nobody can beat the British for a long history of confusing attitudes. Surely a Stuart should be sitting on the throne and not a German! Somewhere in the Australian Outback is a guy running a ramshackle pub who is the King of England and Scotland.😜

But the US comes close in our contradictions.

The Declaration of Independence injected a higher calling into the revolt against Britain, but much of what you say rings true. John Hancock was a businessman and a smuggler who owed the Crown a fortune in taxes. His first words after reading the Declaration might have been "Where do I sign?"

The difference with the ACW IMO was slavery. It underlay everything about the war. Both sides had benefited, but one side opposed expansion. Politics before the war was at times dominated by this issue. Slavery was repulsive at its core and most in the North, while racist in some ways, were not in favor of owning other human beings. But the businessmen were happy enough with the cotton and looked the other way.

We have disagreed about slavery as the cause of the ACW, but I think it gave rise to rationalizations in the South, while the North did not want to rock the boat so much that we lost the United States, and the fruits of slave labor feeding their factories. Slavery and its expansion was perceived as threatened directly or indirectly, by Lincoln's election. So the South opened fire, thinking they must preserve their way of life.

I think founders knew from the start that slavery could not be reconciled with the aspirational words in the Declaration. They were torn by this to an extent, kicked the can down the road. It has been a long messy battle to fulfill the "self-evident" truths, but they form the core of the American experience. No kings, no nobles by birth, no owning other people, Catholic/Protestant no problem, a wider democracy ultimately. Never perfect, but still trying today.

And thanks for raising the SNP, Mel Gibson, ya git! 😵‍💫There is enough trouble dealing with Auld Firm matches, never mind independence!!

Tortorella, just to be clear. I am willing to agree that slavery was a cause of the ACW. Just not "the cause" as if there was a single cause.

It is quite clear to me that the North did not go to war in 1861 to end slavery. Had the North won a quick victory in 1862 does anyone think that slavery would have been abolished? Personally, I am highly doubtful. Lincoln said that that preservation of the Union was his one and only goal and it is hard to imagine a movement in Congress gaining sufficient traction to force through the necessary constitutional amendments to end slavery.

Marcus, not to the "true believers". It all must be black and white, no grays. But I did try and warn you about trying to have a legitimate discussion. 😉

Yup, you did. +111111 :)

I get the viewpoints Marcus. My opinion…I think it took a while for people to understand what they thought they were fighting for and what lay beneath the surface. States rights leads back to slavery for example. Economics. Culture. Land use. Politics. Slavery attaches itself to every viewpoint in some way like no other factor. What if slavery had been abolished much earlier?

From MB …

GP, the question is motivation. What motivates a person's point of view. I simply stating the FACT that I have no association with Southern supremacy or Neo Confederate aspirations. I don't even really understand what you or others mean when you make such comments. My understanding comes from an extensive reading for primary and secondary material.

The idea that Lee was a "traitor" has become fashionable in certain circles of contemporary Civil War scholarship. But if we look at the whole swath of ACW scholarship over the past 150 years the idea that Lee was a traitor, in pure simple terms, makes up a tiny, tiny portion of the scholarship.

MB … there might not be an affiliation with terms like "Southern supremacy" or "Neo-Confederate", which by the way are not terms I've used to describe your perspective. Although if the conclusions are the similar, then I'm not sure how much motivation matters. However, "extensive reading" could imply that there's at least an understanding of the "lost cause" mentality that started up shortly after the ACW ended, has carried itself forward into the present, and part of this includes the mythology of Lee being some sort of justifiable hero.

When I was a youngster, and first encountering such views through my readings, I wasn't far enough along in the evolution of my thoughts to realize it for what it was, even though I was already seeing his leadership less than ideal, especially on the battlefield. It took me awhile to slip away from the rest of his mythology to see it for what it was, and I certainly wouldn't call it "fashionable" for me, because I doubt it's going to suddenly reverse itself. Especially not, when encountering the ongoing "lost cause" talk, and other nonsense that has been known to show up in current times.

The North in a large way forgave the Southern leaders even to the extent of allowing them to preach what they wanted, and this seems to have included a continuance of many of their cultural and political desires and viewpoints, even attempting and succeeding to turn them into local laws. Yet in so doing, the North also permitted them to rationalize their actions, and in such a way indirectly help them propagate such items into successive generations. If your own conclusions from what has been read are coming from sources associated with the development of the "lost cause" mentality, then there is also some propagating of such items, even if it isn't intended by yourself.

A person doesn't need to be surprised by those who are going to stand against the continued attempts at such crud that comes from the overly discriminatory cultural and political actions and perspectives that continue to exist currently.

From OVI …

Marcus, not to the "true believers". It all must be black and white, no grays. But I did try and warn you about trying to have a legitimate discussion. 😉
The History of the world is replete with examples of traitors who won and were no longer viewed as traitors and those who lost and remained so. The US Civil War and the decisions made by each individual, are complicated in all their aspects, but for some it is just a black or white.

There's so much cruddy talk going on here it's as my ancestors have said, thick as pea soup. Time to take that leg out of the trap again, or is the foot still being eaten, I can't tell through all the crud. It's tough to have a "legitimate" discussion when there's too much talking of illegitimate crud with emotional crud mixed in for thickness.

Are you suggesting GP that my maintaining the view that the the causes of the ACW are complicated and that people's motivations for fighting on both sides are complicated makes me a defacto Neo Confederate and supporter of the Lost Cause? It sure sounds like it to me.

Marcus now you are catching on. 😂 When he starts throwing out the 4 letter word, (crud), you know he is getting upset. You have to understand Marcus, some in the South owned slaves, therefore by default all were evil. It's Black and white man! My God, Can't you see that! 😂

Yes Marcus, it is not black and white and every man, And a few women, who fought in that war had their own reasons for fighting. It was and is still, complicated.

I wish you luck if you want to continue to beat your head against a wall with these two, but I do enjoy it.

Marcus, not to the "true believers". It all must be black and white, no grays. But I did try and warn you about trying to have a legitimate discussion. 😉

If "Legitimate" is code for only discussing views with people who already agree with you and, additionally, that not having weak, fringe arguments immediately adopted by everyone is illegitimate, then this is probably sound advice for Marcus.

The History of the world is replete with examples of traitors who won and were no longer viewed as traitors and those who lost and remained so. The US Civil War and the decisions made by each individual, are complicated in all their aspects, but for some it is just a black or white.

Is it? Can we get some examples of traitors who won and were no longer viewed as traitors?

It is quite clear to me that the North did not go to war in 1861 to end slavery. Had the North won a quick victory in 1862 does anyone think that slavery would have been abolished? Personally, I am highly doubtful. Lincoln said that that preservation of the Union was his one and only goal and it is hard to imagine a movement in Congress gaining sufficient traction to force through the necessary constitutional amendments to end slavery.

This is what runs a guy into Neo-confederate suspicion territory. No one can evolve except for Confederates? Confederates can rationalize whatever, whenever because they're the star of the show. Meanwhile, unless everyone else can display clear, pure motives from day one, they're doing it for some self-dealing purpose?

Are you suggesting GP that my maintaining the view that the the causes of the ACW are complicated and that people's motivations for fighting on both sides are complicated makes me a defacto Neo Confederate and supporter of the Lost Cause? It sure sounds like it to me.

I would submit that chronic rationalizations for Confederates which approach contortionist levels, over concern for every last dirt farmer's motivation for fighting in the CSA as proof that the Confederacy never did nothin' to no one; all while constantly finding dirty, selfish reasons for everyone else's behavior might start to suggest a smidgen of Lost Cause.

Marcus now you are catching on. 😂 When he starts throwing out the 4 letter word, (crud), you know he is getting upset. You have to understand Marcus, some in the South owned slaves, therefore by default all were evil. It's Black and white man! My God, Can't you see that! 😂

Actually, many in the South owned slaves and many among those who did not aspired to owning one as a sign of status and affluence.

link

link

" Is it? Can we get some examples of traitors who won and were no longer viewed as traitors?"

😂🤣 come on man.

"If "Legitimate" is code for only discussing views with people who already agree with you and, additionally, that not having weak, fringe arguments immediately adopted by everyone is illegitimate, then this is probably sound advice for Marcus."

No, just the two 😉

Au Pas, I have no time to sort through your stream of consciousness comments to find your salient points (which you do have.) If you want me to engage with you, you will need to be more efficient with your postings.

Marcus Brutus, you need to stop sharing your wisdom with people who cant appreciate your pursuit of truth, justice and the Confederate way.

Take the advice by some of your team of dedicated intellectuals and stick to places where people want to understand your intricate arguments about the Confederacy.

This is what runs a guy into Neo-confederate suspicion territory. No one can evolve except for Confederates? Confederates can rationalize whatever, whenever because they're the star of the show. Meanwhile, unless everyone else can display clear, pure motives from day one, they're doing it for some self-dealing purpose?

This is pure rant. It offers nothing to the conversation. Doesn't engage with the previous argument. Doesn't point out anything of substance. Why bother?

from MB …

Are you suggesting GP that my maintaining the view that the the causes of the ACW are complicated and that people's motivations for fighting on both sides are complicated makes me a defacto Neo Confederate and supporter of the Lost Cause? It sure sounds like it to me.

Something perhaps has been missed, not sure what, yet with your intellectual skills and all the various complications, add in going slower, and you'll get it. Not convinced OVI has the same skills, too much time spent on conspiracies, non-existent traps, and "banging into a wall".

However, with statements like this, following one of OVI's, and duplicating his excessive hitting of the "1" key …

Marcus, not to the "true believers". It all must be black and white, no grays. But I did try and warn you about trying to have a legitimate discussion. 😉

Yup, you did. +111111 :)

… such might cause others to confuse your own statements with his self described "hardcore"/extremist views, and no one wants that to happen. Such doesn't even include calling into question your possible motives. Meanwhile, OVI calls up more diarrhea of the mouth, showing even further why eating his own leg isn't wise, perhaps a case of hoof and mouth disease where it's moved on to the lameness stage. Pun intended.

It is quite clear to me that the North did not go to war in 1861 to end slavery. Had the North won a quick victory in 1862 does anyone think that slavery would have been abolished? Personally, I am highly doubtful. Lincoln said that that preservation of the Union was his one and only goal and it is hard to imagine a movement in Congress gaining sufficient traction to force through the necessary constitutional amendments to end slavery.

What keeps getting overlooked is that the United States (aka Union or North) went to war because it was attacked! It was the Confederacy that started the war, so look at the Confederate motives! Specifically, Jeff Davis ordered Beauregard to fire on Fort Sumter because he wanted to force the border slave states to commit to secession, thinking that once things came to a shooting war they would choose his side. (He was half right -- 4 did, 4 didn't.)

Technically the North didn't go to war with the South because to go to war would have acknowledged the independence of the Confederacy. What Lincoln did do was call up militia to suppress a insurrection or rebellion by certain states. The instigating event was Fort Sumter. Hindsight shows that attacking Sumter was probably a mistake. One can appreciate the position of both parties. From SC's perspective the United States was now a foreign occupier in holding on to the fort. The US position was that SC's secession was constitutionally invalid. It was a stand off.

Marcus Brutus, you need to stop sharing your wisdom with people who cant appreciate your pursuit of truth, justice and the Confederate way.

Welcome to the latest installment of –
"Sophistry on Parade"

;-)

B

Wow GP, I should be flattered that you enjoyed my "leg in a trap analogy" of APDC's defense of Ney's traitorous behavior, while he attacked Lee for it. You've tried to use it twice now…. not well…. but you try.

I have graduated to a "hardcore extremists" in your eyes too! 🤣😂 But then again, that seems to be the pattern for pseudo intellectual liberals, when someone does not readily agree and swallow their "revisionist and enlightened" viewpoints. We become extremists, racists, pro Confederacy, white supremists and whatever other "ist" they can come up with.

Do you guys see white supremists in every corner, under every bed, in every shadow? What a scary way to live. 😉 Who knows, there might even be one gaming right next to you. 😧 😱

😂🤣

Welcome to the latest installment of –
"Sophistry on Parade"

;-)

B

Thank you. Whenever you disapprove of me, I feel centered.

OVI's denial of the word used to self-describe himself helps call the rest of his distortions and untruths into question as well. Instead of presenting well thought out comments, he continues to spew out emotional baggage as a way to have himself feel good, although this shows a lack of maturity in manner too. At the same time, projecting his insecurities on to others regarding his own conspiratorial tendencies isn't accurate, appropriate, nor healthy. I hope his soul becomes less garbled and more peaceful than he is demonstrating that it is.

Wow GP, I should be flattered that you enjoyed my "leg in a trap analogy" of APDC's defense of Ney's traitorous behavior, while he attacked Lee for it. You've tried to use it twice now…. not well…. but you try.

Hunh?

I have graduated to a "hardcore extremists" in your eyes too! 🤣😂 But then again, that seems to be the pattern for pseudo intellectual liberals, when someone does not readily agree and swallow their "revisionist and enlightened" viewpoints.

Pseudo intellectual Liberals? Are you suggesting that you are the standard for identifying who is and isn't intellectual? And, I dont think you should swallow anything, unless it helps you stop reading things that people aren't writing.

How is defending Lee conservative? You are in error. Promoting Lee as a hero is the revisionism. Once again, the 2 percent viewpoint is trying to establish itself as mainstream.

Here's a quote from someone who claims to have been a teacher:

Lee was a great man and no traitor.

Is this what we should be teaching in American schools?

We become extremists, racists, pro Confederacy, white supremists and whatever other "ist" they can come up with.

I don't know about the "we" part. I don't think Marcus is like this. He's more guilty of poorly developed points of view. But at least he is trying not sniveling, around the edges.

Do you guys see white supremists in every corner, under every bed, in every shadow? What a scary way to live. 😉 Who knows, there might even be one gaming right next to you.

Not in every corner; just on line, struggling with reading and analysis.

APDC, Blutarski has already described you to perfection. Who am I to try and better him? 😉

GP, you are truly full of yourself. 😉

You know being that full of hot air, you may end up like poor violet beauregarde and I don't think there is any juicer for that kind of wind💨

APDC, Blutarski has already described you to perfection.

I would like to note that through retaining beliefs in the face of the historical record, Blutarski has also described himself to perfection.

Who am I to try and better him?

If it helps with your aspiration for self improvement, I don't consider you any better than Blutarski either.

I'm sensing more denial, emotionalism, and projection, yet hope OVI can clean himself up enough to realize that selling his big hat ain't going to buy him any cattle, including selling the lost cause mythology of Lee.

This is pure rant. It offers nothing to the conversation. Doesn't engage with the previous argument. Doesn't point out anything of substance. Why bother?

Are you suggesting I don't have the right to rant on this forum?

Have you read any of 35thOVI's posts?

When you say that I cant add anything of substance, do you mean that I havent given any reasons why Lee isnt a traitor? I suppose his two ill considered Northern invasions, the first resulting in the Emancipation Proclamation and the second resulting in the destruction of the flower of the ANV should be commended as an inside job to end both slavery and the CSA. For that, perhaps we could consider him a real American hero. Had you considered this?

I feel indebted to you. After all, far from ranting, you've made it clear that:

1. The CSA was legal, slavery was legal, everything the CSA and its members ever did was legal. As an entity, the CSA simply wanted to be left in peace to live in freedom and harmony. Lord knows that if it weren't for them, the Union might've maintained slavery for generations.

2. That oaths can be unilaterally terminated and arms taken up against ones former country, then when that party loses, those same oaths can be revived to claim legal protections. At least that's what i think you said. You never addressed whether an oath can be unilaterally dissolved.

3. That sometimes when it is advantageous, treason is a legal definition and at other times it is a public opinion definition. Additionally, you never addressed the example I gave about what the USA would consider 5 million Americans today and a third of its military officers who legally resigned citizenship/commissions and went to fight for a foreign power against it. Would we consider them traitors? Or without a trial and conviction, would we all have to admit that they were good, honorable people?

4. That, rather than for moral reasons, winners determine whether losers are traitors. Does that make Lee a traitor? I think you missed this too; like 5 times. Or does this only apply everywhere else and the Confederates are an exception?

There is more but please don't waste it all on me; do publish your arguments and findings in order that the rest of the country can also examine your groundbreaking reasoning with the same sense of astonishment as myself.

GP: so you are not only a pseudo intellectual, you are also now a pseudo psychiatrist too. Your pseudo talents grow daily. 😂

AP: no, I must acknowledge your superiority, in at least this. You have no master in the art of rant. You are the Leonardo da Vinci of the nonsensical diatribe. We will never see your like again.

35thOVI

I don't think you've actually explained it fully so remind us whether and why Lee shouldn't be considered a traitor?

The US position was that SC's secession was constitutionally invalid. It was a stand off.

Marcus Brutus, are you implying that the cause of the Civil War was not in fact the existence of slavery in the southern states, but rather Lincoln's refusal to accept secession?

You do realize, I trust, that such a stance would condemn this discussion to run for at least another five or six pages.

B

APDC, I have never said he was, or was not a traitor in any of this thread. I have only agreed with Marcus that he resigned his commission, thus nulling out his original loyalty oath. I have said the decisions made by each individual were complicated and different for each man, north and south alike. Too complicated to see as black and white with easy answers.

You have only assumed how I feel and my viewpoints. I have said I don't hate the Confederates, nor do I idolize them. One man's traitor, is another's hero. I am sure every Yorkist was a traitor to a Lancastrian and vice versa. Our founders were traitors in the eyes of many. They were fortunate enough to win. We're those who stayed loyal to the King traitors.

APDC, I have never said he was, or was not a traitor in any of this thread.

That's why I literally just asked you to clarify your position.

I have only agreed with Marcus that he resigned his commission, thus nulling out his original loyalty oath.

So he wasnt a traitor?

You have only assumed how I feel and my viewpoints.

No, see above.

I have said I don't hate the Confederates, nor do I idolize them. One man's traitor, is another's hero.

I dont think you're a Confederate fan for their own sake. My impression that you see them as a sort of pawn in your greater belief that there is a war against Western culture which needs to be mindlessly pushed back against.

I am sure every Yorkist was a traitor to a Lancastrian and vice versa.

I don't see a parallel here. Oaths to kings are per se offensive to democratically minded people. Feudalism and democracy are not the same basis for the sanctity of oaths; the one is to an individual, the other is to an ideal.

Our founders were traitors in the eyes of many. They were fortunate enough to win. We're those who stayed loyal to the King traitors.

So now we're back to talking about public opinion?

The DOI wasnt equivalent to a resignation from an oath? Please explain.

Again, just like Marcus mentions, and by your own standard, the Founders won and weren't traitors. Does that mean that Lee's loss condemns him as one?

The Loyalists were not traitors.

More wishy washy jibber jabber to skirt around his belief system that supports sympathy for Lee, the Confederacy, and the "lost cause" mentality that the South back then was at it's core ok in it's cultural and nationalistic attitudes, all as a way of helping to justify his current political philosophy, which as he has said in another thread previously is "hardcore"/extreme. Meanwhile, my hopes for him could be the real lost cause, yet perhaps he is learning, time will tell.

APDC: I know, it's "inconceivable" that I won't adhere to your demands for answers.

As Wesley says in "Princess Bride", "learn to live with disappointment". That should not be hard or new for you.

GP: yet another talent you have added overnight, pseudo Psychologist. 😂 Are there no ends to what talents your pseudo diploma grants you?! 🙂 To think, it all started with pseudo historian.

So far … he's not learning, he has become what he believes, and that is unfortunate, yet I forgive him, may he go in peace, joy and comfort, especially through the holiday season.

…and another reasonably interesting thread reduced to namecalling…

I wonder if anyone here has read Robert E. Lee and Me by Ty Seidule, a retired Army general and West Point professor. He grew up steeped in Lee mythology in VA, until he ran into history and gradually came to a new understanding.

There was this infamous thread here on TMP …

TMP link

"yet I forgive him, may he go in peace, joy and comfort, especially through the holiday season."

Now a pseudo priest. There is truly no end.

Always coming up with labels for people, even if such are of no substance nor relevance to the topic at hand, more of the big hat, no cattle syndrome.

Pot black?

I learned this in TMP from you both. Wow, See I did learn something from you. Be proud! Take your victory! You can now return to the basement and paint. 😂

I wonder if anyone here has read Robert E. Lee and Me by Ty Seidule, a retired Army general and West Point professor. He grew up steeped in Lee mythology in VA, until he ran into history and gradually came to a new understanding.

There was this infamous thread here on TMP …

Yes, I remember that thread. First time (but not the last) I realized 35thOVI neither read nor understand the evidence he submitted for his stances. But then this forum is rightly opened by our host to all sorts of people; both those than can string together good arguments from thoughtful research and analysis and the other sorts as well. He has created a true crossroads of the exchange of ideas.

That's what makes this place so fascinating; it has all sorts of viewpoints. Plus it gives me an opportunity to feel like a CT Yankee from Twain's classic arguing with the same sorts of characters.

Oh sure, I could spend my time having discussions with balanced men of letters but it wouldn't be nearly as fun. It's most invigorating.