Comparison to Lee doesn’t hold up
January 28, 2010
Vanzetta McPherson self-inflicted denigration in her recent article in which she attempted to elevate the character of Martin Luther King Jr. to that of Robert E. Lee.
A woman of her erudition and experience as a federal judge knows when she is writing to convince the uneducated reader and should be embarrassed to present an epistle loaded with fallacious rhetoric and supposition to the educated.
"Yeah, what she said!" remark the ignorant racist agitators who continue the trek for monetary mileage on the bedraggled slavery issue. She states that "America loves winners" and for her, she is just glad that Lee did not win.
As a former federal judge with full knowledge of the Constitution, she knows that the Constitution does not prohibit secession and the war was illegally waged by the federal government against the South. She knows that the South’s desire to separate, not slavery, was Lincoln’s catalyst to stoop to the heinous depths of total war on a civilization.
She also knows that if the South had seceded that Christianity and/or International Harvester would have brought an end to slavery. She also knows that the Confederate leaders were never brought to trial because the U.S. Supreme Court warned that the Constitution would not support any allegations brought against them.
King’s sordid FBI files were sealed by a federal judge for 50 years until 2027. Lee’s life is an open book and all praiseworthy. With all these things being self-evident, where in the world did McPherson get her version?