Restricted Largest Confederate Monument In The South Is Coming Down

Zack

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Location
Los Angeles, California
September 15, 2021

Gray Lives Matter by Ann Coulter:

My ancestors were Presbyterian abolitionists who fought on the Union side, but I get really ticked off when imbeciles take a sledgehammer to my country’s history.

Last week, with self-satisfied glee, savages tore down the 14-foot statue of Robert E. Lee designed by the French sculptor Antonin Mercie and installed in 1890 on land deeded to the state — in return for a promise that the Commonwealth of Virginia “will hold said Statue and pedestal and Circle of ground perpetually sacred to the Monumental purpose to which they have been devoted and that she will faithfully guard it and affectionately protect it.”

Continued in the link below:

https://anncoulter.com/2021/09/15/gray-lives-matter/

A number of factual inaccuracies in her post.

- As has been discussed on this forum, Lee was asked to command an army, not, as Ann implies, all armies

- If you're going to quote Grant on Lee, might as well quote this too: "I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

- Her definition of treason is truly bizarre. Here's the actual definition from the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." If you want to have a debate about the legality of secession and whether that renders Southern leaders traitors or not, fine, go ahead, but you can't just make up a definition of treason.

- Saying that Lee saved the country is an overstatement at best. He could have saved it even more by - y'know - not waging a war against it.

- Here's the part that's really an issue though: "Never has a civil war ended with such love between the former enemies. That’s our history, our country, our war — North and South, black and white."

Between 1867 and 1877, more than 3,000 African Americans and white allies were killed in terrorist violence. I will simply suggest that Ann pick up some books about the tremendous violence that followed the end of the Civil War. Literally any book on Reconstruction would do if we're being honest. "The Bloody Shirt: Terror After the Civil War" is all about the violence that followed the Civil War.

Ann is clearly not an historian and this article really shows that. She's parlaying in tired myths about the Civil War and Reconstruction and brotherly love during the Civil War that simply do not square with reality.
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
Please to correct me but did not Lee state to Scott that the reason for his not taking command and resigning was to return to Virginia was to fight in defense of his country of Virginia? I have found no where that he stated that he was resigning to returning home to fight or defend the institute of slavery . Then did not Virginia not secede only after Lincoln called for enlistments and then were marched towards Virginia ? This was the fear of Northern aggression which would lead to military suppression that the people of the South feared and encouraged to believe by the political -social leaders We read of the events that lead to the war but not of the fears of the South towards the treats of their way of life of individual rights. Lee was devoted to his state more than to his country and would not take his sword against his "people". That was his sin and not that he fought in defense of slavery system. Yes he had slaves but then did not certain Northern generals maintain slaves which may be referred to as "servants in bondage ". If for nothing else is that he was willing to realize that the ANV must surrender and not carry on a war that if continued would result in only mean further destruction and death . I have not read of Scott's response to Lee's action. If one knows of it I would like to have this information. Lastly, what Lee did was what possibly most of the common soldier did. They did not go to war for the slave but for his own sense of country and his way of life. To the regular Southern people there was the fear of free blacks and what they would do and the hostility of those in the North who desired to free the black and their own hostility towards the Southern people even those who did not own slaves, This was lectured to them by those who they trust to tell them the truth and this is told over and over even from generation to generation when this leaders really desired for a separate nation or just for the power it gave to them for their political position. Has there been any writings on this decision affected Lee ,a man who since his early years from West Point had served.? If Johnson had not be killed what are the chances that Lee would have given command or would have gone thought the war as a Jefferson aid?
"When I find the word Virginia in my commission I will join the Confederacy.” Rear Admiral Samual Philips Lee cousin of Robert E. Lee
(Adolph A. Hoehling (1993). Thunder at Hampton Roads. Da Capo Press. p. 6.)

The problem with your view is that both Lee’s were Americans. They swore an oath to defend America. One of them then took up arms against America and killed loyal Americans. That makes him a traitor.
 

Jantzen64

Corporal
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Yes, it should have been "returned to the heirs of those who gave it."

It needs to be remembered that there were two separate cases considered by the Virginia Supreme Court regarding the R E Lee Monument (See [my] Post #5 on page 1 of this thread).
The lesser known case, Gregory v Northam et al, was a claim by William C Gregory. Essentially, his claim was:
"Gregory asserts that, as an heir of Bettie and Roger Gregory, he has a legal right, based upon the language in this provision of the 1890 Deed, to compel the Commonwealth to keep the Lee Monument where it currently sits. He also claims that removal of the Lee Monument from its current location would result in irreparable harm to him. As evidence of his claim of irreparable harm, he describes his familial pride in the Lee Monument, which sits on property previously owned by his ancestors."

The Virginia Supreme Court:
"concluded that the parties to the 1887 Deed and the 1890 Deed intended to create an easement appurtenant, not an easement in gross" and "dismissed Gregory's claims, with prejudice" [i. e. Gregory is prevented from filing a future lawsuit on the same grounds].

The essential meaning of easement appurtenant is that is any benefit that can be gained from the land passed to the new owners once the land had been gifted. Consequently, Virginia has no duty to:
"hold said Statue and pedestal and Circle of ground perpetually sacred to the Monumental purpose to which they have been devoted and that she will faithfully guard it and affectionately protect it"; because
now that Virginia owns the land they may generally do as they please with it.

I think William C Gregory was 'out-lawyered' on this one and he may also have been facing an hostile Court on this issue. It defies commonsense that the original owners would have bothered to introduce terms into the 1890 Deed that extracted a guarantee requiring the new owner,Viriginia, to hold the "ground perpetually sacred" and to "faithfully guard it and affectionately protect it" unless they intended for that very thing to occur.
Gregory didn't ask for a return of the property either; like the Taylors, he sought to prevent removal of the statue on the grounds that the deed language amounted to an enforceable covenant or easement. A court is generally not going to award relief that isn't requested and is even less likely to "unwind" a transaction.

I don't see it as Gregory being "out-lawyered"; the Virginia Supreme Court simply applied established precedent to conclude that the 1890 deed did not use the correct language to create the type of easement ("easement in gross") that Gregory sought to enforce. Consequently, Gregory had no property interest on which to sue . As many, many plaintiffs have found in numerous types of cases in courts throughout the US, failure to follow the right form and use the right language often can lead to an unintended result (the VaSCT also referred to the companion Taylor decision as an additional basis for denying relief).
 

Jantzen64

Corporal
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
"When I find the word Virginia in my commission I will join the Confederacy.” Rear Admiral Samual Philips Lee cousin of Robert E. Lee
(Adolph A. Hoehling (1993). Thunder at Hampton Roads. Da Capo Press. p. 6.)

The problem with your view is that both Lee’s were Americans. They swore an oath to defend America. One of them then took up arms against America and killed loyal Americans. That makes him a traitor.
I THINK this is the oath applicable at the time, and so am providing it for reference. Other members, please check me on this:

"I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States."
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
Ann tells it
September 15, 2021

Gray Lives Matter by Ann Coulter:

My ancestors were Presbyterian abolitionists who fought on the Union side, but I get really ticked off when imbeciles take a sledgehammer to my country’s history.

Last week, with self-satisfied glee, savages tore down the 14-foot statue of Robert E. Lee designed by the French sculptor Antonin Mercie and installed in 1890 on land deeded to the state — in return for a promise that the Commonwealth of Virginia “will hold said Statue and pedestal and Circle of ground perpetually sacred to the Monumental purpose to which they have been devoted and that she will faithfully guard it and affectionately protect it.”

Continued in the link below:

https://anncoulter.com/2021/09/15/gray-lives-matter/
Those “savages” did tear it down, with glee. That dog whistle Ann couldn’t help but use such terminology is telling about both her and her audience.

In my book, if Ann is upset, something good happened.
 
Last edited:

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
I THINK this is the oath applicable at the time, and so am providing it for reference. Other members, please check me on this:

"I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States."
There's that "them" again...
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
"When I find the word Virginia in my commission I will join the Confederacy.” Rear Admiral Samual Philips Lee cousin of Robert E. Lee
(Adolph A. Hoehling (1993). Thunder at Hampton Roads. Da Capo Press. p. 6.)

The problem with your view is that both Lee’s were Americans. They swore an oath to defend America. One of them then took up arms against America and killed loyal Americans. That makes him a traitor.
It was either be a "traitor" to Ohio, New York, Indiana, etc, or be a traitor to the home state, family and friends.
 

Zack

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Location
Los Angeles, California
Lee's decision is often presented as a dichotomy - stay with the Union and make war on his home or stay with Virginia and make war against the Union.

But I think it is worth considering, for a moment, that he had a wider range of options available to him. Of course he would consider it unconscionable, but there was nothing forcing him to participate in the war. He could have resigned his commission and sat it out. And it is worth remembering again that he didn't just make the decision to leave the Union; he made the decision to leave the Union, join the Confederacy, join their military, and become a top general in the Confederate army. Every step of that process was a decision. At any step of the process he could have said no or made a different choice. I'm not saying sitting the war out would be a wise decision, or one he would have personally seen as viable, but it was an option.

Being opposed to Lincoln did not automatically mean you had to command the Army of Northern Virginia. Perhaps it did in Lee's eyes as a "Southern gentlemen soldier whose home was threatened," but in the strictest sense there was no given here.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
A number of factual inaccuracies in her post.

- As has been discussed on this forum, Lee was asked to command an army, not, as Ann implies, all armies

- If you're going to quote Grant on Lee, might as well quote this too: "I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

- Her definition of treason is truly bizarre. Here's the actual definition from the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." If you want to have a debate about the legality of secession and whether that renders Southern leaders traitors or not, fine, go ahead, but you can't just make up a definition of treason.

- Saying that Lee saved the country is an overstatement at best. He could have saved it even more by - y'know - not waging a war against it.

- Here's the part that's really an issue though: "Never has a civil war ended with such love between the former enemies. That’s our history, our country, our war — North and South, black and white."

Between 1867 and 1877, more than 3,000 African Americans and white allies were killed in terrorist violence. I will simply suggest that Ann pick up some books about the tremendous violence that followed the end of the Civil War. Literally any book on Reconstruction would do if we're being honest. "The Bloody Shirt: Terror After the Civil War" is all about the violence that followed the Civil War.

Ann is clearly not an historian and this article really shows that. She's parlaying in tired myths about the Civil War and Reconstruction and brotherly love during the Civil War that simply do not square with reality.
And the saddest part is that otherwise intelligent and thoughtful folk will lap it up because Ann’s modern political agenda aligned with their own.
 

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
Gregory didn't ask for a return of the property either; like the Taylors, he sought to prevent removal of the statue on the grounds that the deed language amounted to an enforceable covenant or easement. A court is generally not going to award relief that isn't requested and is even less likely to "unwind" a transaction.

I don't see it as Gregory being "out-lawyered"; the Virginia Supreme Court simply applied established precedent to conclude that the 1890 deed did not use the correct language to create the type of easement ("easement in gross") that Gregory sought to enforce. Consequently, Gregory had no property interest on which to sue . As many, many plaintiffs have found in numerous types of cases in courts throughout the US, failure to follow the right form and use the right language often can lead to an unintended result (the VaSCT also referred to the companion Taylor decision as an additional basis for denying relief).

I quoted what Gregory's claim was from the Court's judgement.

What you see or don't see is obviously at odds with my observation. That "the 1890 deed did not use the correct language" is specifically what I meant when I said the judgement "defied commonsense" as it is clear to anyone who reads the words of Gregory's ancestors who gifted the land that they did so in anticipation that Virginia would "guarantee that she will hold said Statue and pedestal and Circle of ground perpetually sacred to the Monumental purpose to which they have been devoted and that she will faithfully guard it and affectionately protect it."

As it has turned out that guarantee was worthless as legal argument enabled today's Virginia to wriggle its way out of what clearly were her obligations in receiving the gift. I can not see anything that would indicate the Gregory's ancestors would have ever considered giving away their valuable land unless they were sure at the time that it was to be used for the purpose for which it had been gifted to Virginia. That's commonsense. I appreciate that legal interpretation need have no regard to commonsense but that does not make the recent action any less despicable.
 

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
In fact, Emancipation Day in DC was established in 2005 in part because the history of the event was not as well known/remembered/celebrated as it should have been. Kudos to the people in DC who stepped up and made it happen.

Emancipation Day in MD has not been celebrated, and I find this unfortunate. MD Gov Larry Hogan did observe Juneteenth National Independence Day in 2021, and state government agencies and offices were closed on Friday, June 18, 2021. I've actually tried to organize some things myself, never had any success. But I live in DC, not MD. Baltimore actually had 4 Confederate monuments until they were removed in 2017, several days after the Charlottesville incident.

The history of Emancipation Day celebrations in black communities has been documented in books such as O Freedom! Afro-American Emancipation Celebrations by William H. Wiggins, and Festivals of Freedom: Memory and Meaning in African American Emancipation Celebrations, 1808-1915 by Mitch Kachun. Such celebrations were widespread after the Civil War. As I recall, one scholar said that African Americans engaged in these celebrations in part because they were not free /or/ economically able to create monuments for installation in the public square or private places. These local celebrations have waned since WWI/WWII for various reasons.

This is a somewhat famous photo of an Emancipation Day celebration in Richmond, VA, 4/3/1905. Emancipation came to African Americans living in Richmond on April 3, 1865 when Union troops came to the city.
View attachment 414263

View attachment 414264

Celebration of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia by the colored people, in Washington, April 19, 1866 / Harper’s Weekly, v. 10, no. 489 (1866 May 12), p. 300 / sketched by F. Dielman.

View attachment 414265

This is from a celebration of Maryland Emancipation Day, 1914.

- Alan
I do commend all your efforts in Maryland. But as I said recent addition, D.C. 16 years (yes they had celebrated it way before this). It had faded out into small gatherings in all but a few places like Texas. Nothing like in your early 1900's pictures, because younger generations were less aware of it.The first many people had ever heard of it was this year when it became a National Holiday.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
I do commend all your efforts in Maryland. But as I said recent addition, D.C. 16 years (yes they had celebrated it way before this). It had faded out into small gatherings in all but a few places like Texas. Nothing like in your early 1900's pictures, because younger generations were less aware of it.The first many people had ever heard of it was this year when it became a National Holiday.
I’m sure we all applaud that it is now a national holiday, yes? Unless Emancipation isn’t worth celebrating. I can understand why many Americans don’t want to celebrate Lee. I cannot understand why any Americans wouldn’t want to celebrate Emancipation.
 

jcaesar

Private
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
Lee's decision is often presented as a dichotomy - stay with the Union and make war on his home or stay with Virginia and make war against the Union.

But I think it is worth considering, for a moment, that he had a wider range of options available to him. Of course he would consider it unconscionable, but there was nothing forcing him to participate in the war. He could have resigned his commission and sat it out. And it is worth remembering again that he didn't just make the decision to leave the Union; he made the decision to leave the Union, join the Confederacy, join their military, and become a top general in the Confederate army. Every step of that process was a decision. At any step of the process he could have said no or made a different choice. I'm not saying sitting the war out would be a wise decision, or one he would have personally seen as viable, but it was an option.

Being opposed to Lincoln did not automatically mean you had to command the Army of Northern Virginia. Perhaps it did in Lee's eyes as a "Southern gentlemen soldier whose home was threatened," but in the strictest sense there was no given here.

His words on that matter.

NY Times 1861

MY DEAR LITTLE H -----: I am very grateful for your kind letter, and the cordial expressions it contained. You are not only welcome to that severe representation of me, but anything else you may fancy. I pray you will not exhibit it however, as it will only serve to bring down denunciations on my head. You, I hope, will make allowances for my position and failings, and think as kindly of me as you can.

I shall never forget you, and require no work of art to keep you vividly before me. It is painful to think how many friends will be separated and estranged by our unhappy disunion. May God reunite our severed bonds of friendship, and turn our hearts to peace. I can say in sincerity that I hear animosity against no one. Wherever the blame may be, the fact is, that we are in the midst of a fratricidal war. I must side either with or against my section of country. I cannot raise my hand against my birth-place, my home, my children.

I should like, above all things, that our difficulties might be peaceably arranged, and still trust that a merciful God, whom I know will not unnecessarily afflict us, may yet allay the fury for war.

Whatever may be the result of the contest, I foresee that the country will have to pass through a terrible ordeal, a necessary expiation, perhaps, of our national sins.

May God direct all for our good, and shield and preserve you and yours.

Very truly and sincerely, R.E. LEE.
 
Last edited:

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
I do commend all your efforts in Maryland. But as I said recent addition, D.C. 16 years (yes they had celebrated it way before this). It had faded out into small gatherings in all but a few places like Texas. Nothing like in your early 1900's pictures, because younger generations were less aware of it.The first many people had ever heard of it was this year when it became a National Holiday.
This is getting off-topic , but...

I don't know how scholars have explained the waning popularity of the emancipation celebrations. One theory I've heard is that, to use my own words, the celebrations became too ironic.

That is: when the enslaved were freed after the Civil War, it was an overwhelmingly wonderful feeling. But over time, freedom no longer meant being free of bondage; it meant being free of Jim Crow. Under this change in the meaning of freedom, people didn't feel free at all. Basically, segregation made a mockery of freedom and freedom celebrations... the irony was that people who were supposedly free were still bound, this time by Jim Crow. The freedom celebrations became a cruel reminder that the promise of emancipation was never fulfilled.

Or at least, it's an interesting thought to explain why these celebrations became less popular.

Notably, some of the language and rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement revolved around the idea of freedom. Famously, Dr Martin Luther King invoked the expression "free at last" to describe what the end of Jim Crow what feel like.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

Zack

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Location
Los Angeles, California
Rod Dreher lost me right here:
"Abraham Lincoln and the victorious powers were wise in that they made it possible for the South to bear its defeat with relative dignity. The victors realized that the war they fought to preserve the Union could have been won on the battlefield but lost if Southerners had contempt for the Union."

I grow increasingly frustrated with this narrative of reconciliation and reunion. Robert E. Lee could become president of a university after the war and Alexander Stephens could become a House member, but, as I mentioned in a previous post, 3,000 Freedpeople and their white allies were murdered and close to a few million more former slaves were trapped in inescapable poverty. Doesn't seem like a fair trade to me.

Former slaves - men, women, and children - who had given their blood and sweat and lives to the Union cause were driven from plantations so that a bunch of ex-Confederates could get their land back. These Freedpeople were then pushed into grossly unequal labor contracts, often with the very same people who used to keep them as slaves, that all but ensured they would never be able to earn enough to advance themselves. Many grew the first crops that were ever truly theirs just after the war and then had to hand over the harvest to returning white Southerners all so that the white South could "bear its defeat with relative dignity."

That was the reality of reconciliation.

A lot of people on this forum blame the modern American school system for doing a bad job teaching the Civil War. If you really want to place the blame somewhere, it should be on the failure of schools to truly account for and grapple with the story and consequences of Reconstruction. You cannot understand the Civil War without Reconstruction. In my opinion, the more you study the ins and outs of Reconstruction, the harder it is to swallow narratives of reconciliation when 4 million people had to have their hard won freedom severely curtailed to achieve it.
 

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
I’m sure we all applaud that it is now a national holiday, yes? Unless Emancipation isn’t worth celebrating. I can understand why many Americans don’t want to celebrate Lee. I cannot understand why any Americans wouldn’t want to celebrate Emancipation.
Whats good for the goose, is good for the gander. Americans should be free to celebrate what they want.
 

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
This is getting off-topic , but...

I don't know how scholars have explained the waning popularity of the emancipation celebrations. One theory I've heard is that, to use my own words, the celebrations became too ironic.

That is: when the enslaved were freed after the Civil War, it was an overwhelmingly wonderful feeling. But over time, freedom no longer meant being free of bondage; it meant being free of Jim Crow. Under this change in the meaning of freedom, people didn't feel free at all. Basically, segregation made a mockery of freedom and freedom celebrations... the irony was that people who were supposedly free were still bound, this time by Jim Crow. The freedom celebrations became a cruel reminder that the promise of emancipation was never fulfilled. Or at least, it's an interesting thought.

Notably, some of the language and rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement revolved around the idea of freedom. Famously, Dr Martin Luther King invoked the expression "free at last" to describe what the end of Jim Crow what feel like.

- Alan
I disagree about getting off topic, as this relates in part to the statues coming down.
Your right, in truth there is more than one definition of freedom.
Thanks for your input.
 

Booklady

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Location
New England
Rod Dreher lost me right here:
"Abraham Lincoln and the victorious powers were wise in that they made it possible for the South to bear its defeat with relative dignity. The victors realized that the war they fought to preserve the Union could have been won on the battlefield but lost if Southerners had contempt for the Union."

I grow increasingly frustrated with this narrative of reconciliation and reunion. Robert E. Lee could become president of a university after the war and Alexander Stephens could become a House member, but, as I mentioned in a previous post, 3,000 Freedpeople and their white allies were murdered and close to a few million more former slaves were trapped in inescapable poverty. Doesn't seem like a fair trade to me.

Former slaves - men, women, and children - who had given their blood and sweat and lives to the Union cause were driven from plantations so that a bunch of ex-Confederates could get their land back. These Freedpeople were then pushed into grossly unequal labor contracts, often with the very same people who used to keep them as slaves, that all but ensured they would never be able to earn enough to advance themselves. Many grew the first crops that were ever truly theirs just after the war and then had to hand over the harvest to returning white Southerners all so that the white South could "bear its defeat with relative dignity."

That was the reality of reconciliation.

A lot of people on this forum blame the modern American school system for doing a bad job teaching the Civil War. If you really want to place the blame somewhere, it should be on the failure of schools to truly account for and grapple with the story and consequences of Reconstruction. You cannot understand the Civil War without Reconstruction. In my opinion, the more you study the ins and outs of Reconstruction, the harder it is to swallow narratives of reconciliation when 4 million people had to have their hard won freedom severely curtailed to achieve it.
I hope you responded to Rod Dreher expressing your opinion. There are many regular (routine) readers who do.

I very much agree with you that the schools have done a terrible job of teaching Reconstruction, or at least they did a thousand years ago when I was in school.
 
Top