No.I think he is wrong and justified. I think, IMHO he is wrong in the fact that this is just one more glorified " History Month" along with the rest that are not anything other than public agendas.I think, however, being that every other Tom Dick and Harry get's to have a month to tout their agendas he has every right to tout something that is related to Virginia's heritage.

Interesting article  😉

Here are some quotes that ar sure to be unpopular:For the answer to the question ?How Christian were the founding fathers?? one can turn either to Christian activists or to the founders themselves. James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, spoke of ?almost 15 centuries? during which Christianity had been on trial: ?What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.? The Constitution has no mention of Christianity, and the presidential oath of office mandated by the Constitution has no mention of God. Thomas Jefferson compared the story of the virgin birth of Jesus to a Roman fable and prohibited the teaching of religion to undergraduates at the University of Virginia. Finally, in 1797, the Senate unanimously ratified the Treaty of Tripoli, which contained the words ?As the government of the United States of America . . . is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.? The founders werethere at the time. The Christian activists were not.  I know this is a sensitive subject, but it is grist for the discussion mill.

And conversely, a viewpoint from the other side:George Washington"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian." --The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343Thomas Jefferson"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event." --Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237. Benjamin Franklin"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."  --Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790. Three great statements... but... is this topic about religion or the founding fathers? Cannot history and facts be discussed without consistently pushing ones belief system on another in their viewpoint? There are always viewpoints from both stances... stick to the topic at hand.. makes for a more enjoable and educational experience IMHO.

I think the problem is that by the time they altered tactics, their forces were already dwindled to the point where even Stonewall Jackson couldn't have help if had still been living. You had many deserting to go back home to take care of their families, some of which were victims of Sherman's march, some were fed up up with the war (obviously this was on both sides but the fact that the south had a significantly smaller resource pool magnified this), and the guerilla tactics of Mogan, Mosby and Forrest, while effective, where too little too late. Lee was in charge and had a more chivalrous view towards combat. Had he taken a position more that of Stonewall Jackson (take the bayonet to them) and Forrest (show no quarter) I believe events would have changed. You would have more than likely seen Europe get involved and THAT would have changed everything, especially since the leadership of the Union up until Grant was incompetent. With Grant in charge, and having let loose the likes of Sherman and Sheridan, and Lee without Jackson and still clinging to his chivalrous belief, the South had no chance.Thanks for the welcome BTW.  ;D

Keep in mind America was BARELY imperialists during the turn of the century. Europe and Asia had LONG been in the business of imperialistic conquest.You also HAVE to put yourself in the mindset of the people of this time period. Don't look at through the lens of the modern era, try and look at it through THEIR eyes. The US, by subjugating Indian tribes, with the the supposed ?closing of the frontier? and fears that naturals resources would dwindle, Social Darwinism and imperialistic fever in Europe leading to a fear that America would be left out of world markets fueled the burst of imperialism in 1890?s America. Social Darwinism was in my opinion the most important factor, in that Americans believed in Manifest Destiny and Social Darwinism justified this belief that they would need to compete with imperial powers in Europe and Asia in order that American culture would not succumb as a result of being a ?weak? nation.After the PI was ceded by Spain, the US was in a bind. McKinnley couldn't just leave them to their own, because this would allow European and Asian countries to further their dominion, again, leaving the US behind and potentially in a weak position. Was his option of pushing American culture on them correct? In todays eyes no, but back then, there was really no other alternative.Vietnam is a whole other can of worms. I don't think you can compare the two because the the social climate that existed was so radically different during both periods.