40,312 research outputs found

    A Bid for Brotherhood: The Civil War and the Emergence of the Lexington Triad

    Full text link
    There is little controversy in claiming that the Civil War casts a long shadow. Whether you’re a history enthusiast, a reenactor, or even someone who doesn’t study history, it’s hard to completely get away from it. Shifts in political discourse and race relations are the most commonly discussed results of the conflict, but the war also brought about a considerable change in dominant moral philosophies that led to the establishment of several organizations, which continue to enjoy prominence to this day at different institutions of higher learning across the United States. [excerpt

    Fredericksburg’s Gray Angel: Truth or Utility?

    Full text link
    As with other battles, the Battle of Fredericksburg in 1862 yielded shocking results. Homes were destroyed, thousands died, and military doctrine was challenged and changed. One particular story, however, has emerged from Fredericksburg to represent a different narrative, one of compassion. The actions of a 20-year-old Confederate sergeant named Richard Rowland Kirkland are enshrined in stone at the end of Fredericksburg’s infamous “Sunken Road.

    Slavery and the Civil War: The Reflections of a Yankee Intern in Appomattox

    Full text link
    An overview of the Lost Cause and the resultant challenges faced by interpreters in Civil War parks

    The \u27Angel of Marye\u27s Heights\u27 and Civil War Memory

    Full text link
    In 1862, the small Virginian town of Fredericksburg found itself between two opposing armies. The Federal Army of the Potomac sat restlessly, eagerly awaiting means with which to cross the Rappahannock River, while elements of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia were called to take defensive positions in and behind Fredericksburg. What ensued was a bloody spectacle that claimed thousands of lives, and tempered the fighting spirit of the armies for the remainder of the Civil War. [excerpt

    Executive Power, Drone Executions, and the Due Process Rights of American Citizens

    Get PDF
    Few conflicts have tested the mettle of procedural due process more than the War on Terror. Although fiery military responses have insulated the United States from another 9/11, the Obama administration’s 2011 drone execution of a U.S. citizen allegedly associated with al-Qaeda without formal charges or prosecution sparked public outrage. Judicial recognition that this nonbattlefield execution presented a plausible procedural due process claim ignited questions which continue to smolder today: What are the limits of executive war power? What constitutional privileges do American citizens truly retain in the War on Terror? What if the executive erred in its judgment and mistakenly executed an innocent citizen? Currently, no legal regime provides answers or guards against the infringement of procedural due process the next time the executive determines that an American citizen must be executed to protect the borders of the United States. The executive remains free to unilaterally target and execute an American citizen via drone strike without the formal process that typically accompanies a death sentence under U.S. law. Protected under the aegis of national security, executive discretion has trumped the procedural due process rights of American citizens. To contextualize these issues of presidential power and procedural due process, this Note first surveys the modern War on Terror by examining the statutory authority enabling drone strikes and the scope of executive warmaking powers. Next, this Note employs the balancing test devised by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge to assess the due process afforded a citizen targeted for extrajudicial drone execution under the executive’s unilateral methodology. Two potential safeguards—ex post and ex ante judicial review of drone strikes—are examined as possible defenses against the unjustified execution of an American citizen. After comparing these two systems of judicial review, this Note details and advocates for the congressional implementation of a narrowly tailored ex ante schema to provide an additional layer of process and reduce the risk of an unfounded drone execution. By lowering the likelihood of an erroneous execution, this precise ex ante legal regime strives to fulfill the procedural due process requirements delineated in Mathews v. Eldridge. This finely tailored ex ante regime mitigates executive discretion while still bending to meet the onerous demands of national security imposed in the modern age of terror
    • …
    corecore