- Joined
- May 12, 2019
- Messages
- 7,144
- Reaction score
- 4,164
Could wait for the ex library copy.Or in my case, checking it out of the library and reading it for free.
Could wait for the ex library copy.Or in my case, checking it out of the library and reading it for free.
Here's the full Preston Roberts article, which lists him as a "sometimes camp servant and cook in the command of the confederate cavalry leader, Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest..."Levin book: "The Cross of Honor, introduced in 1900 by the UDC, was intended for Confederate soldiers who performed acts of valor on the battlefield."
If I may interject, some of the longest threads "over there" were filled w/ a great deal of opinion. Those that took the time and effort to find source(s) were--mostly --awarded w/ approbation, along w/ popcorn.Thanks for your opinions.
That is where most of the books that fill my 4 side by side book-shelves--5 ft. high each--come from. Fill your bag day for $5 was my favorite.Could wait for the ex library copy.
He doesn't. He was giving his opinion.How do you know this?
Evidence is the arbiter between opinions.He doesn't. He was giving his opinion.
Oh, so you have been watching the impeachment hearings too.Evidence is the arbiter between opinions.
Of which you provided none, for the specific claim that was questioned by Tom.Evidence is the arbiter between opinions.
Thus, assumption. By both "so-called" sides.lack of evidence is not evidence
I understand the UDC gave out the crosses as door prizes and cake decorations. Prove me wrong.Thus, assumption. By both "so-called" sides.
It just means that there is no evidence."Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Levin is correct, the CSA Cross of Honor was for soldiers of the CSA army. The UDC Cross was a non-military commemorative medal.So Levin either has his fact wrong when he states that the Cross of Honor is for soldiers who performed acts of valor on the battlefield,
Thus, we will have to leave it to the "jury."It just means that there is no evidence.
I understand the UDC gave out the crosses as door prizes and cake decorations. Prove me wrong.
In one case at least the medal was not awarded to a veteran.
We are in agreement with the proposition that the UDC cross did not necessarily go to CSA veterans. I see no conflict.
A practice that continues to this day. Military awards, & recognition often go to family members. Especially in the cases of the ultimate sacrifice.
Surely you have better examples than, a UDC cross going to a descendant of General Paxton for his service/sacrifice..???
Mere rhetoric/sarcasm entails no burden of proof.I think you've got the burden of proof wrong as well. As long as I've been around period forums, the burden of proof has always been on the one making the claims. So..... Show us where, "the UDC gave out the crosses as door prizes and cake decorations"
I once "earned" an American Legion "certificate" for an essay upon patriotism. Though I do not consider it to have been a "door prize", I now do see it as highly subjectively selected.The medal is described as a souvenir, much like a unique cake decoration as well as a free gift much like a door prize.
You seem to have missed the part where they equate it with the French Legion of Honor and British Victoria Cross.The medal is described as a souvenir, much like a unique cake decoration as well as a free gift much like a door prize.