<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 5:46 PM, C. G. Estabrook <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</a>></span> wrote:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">Anent some comments of mine about opposing the use of armed force in America in 1775 - and even more in 1861 - it was asked if there were any circumstances under which I would support armed insurrection. Robert Hicks seems to me to provide a noble example:<br>
<br><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25hicks.html?ref=obituaries" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25hicks.html?ref=obituaries</a> </blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yes, "it was asked." :-)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What Robert Hicks and his colleagues did was not armed insurrection; it was self-defense. Or so it seems to me.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What if the KKK was another nation rather than a domestic terrorist organization?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It seems curious to me that you would support the Deacons for Defense and Justice but would NOT support the War Between the States - assuming that the primary purpose of the Civil War was to end the institution of slavery, which I believe it was. That's a point I'm not going to argue.</div>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.