:I am familiar with the arguments presented in Texas v. White but MRDA "Well, they would say that wouldn't they?". The decision was not decided in a court room it was decided on the battle field. I am not sure if you really believe the POV you are espousing is the truth or if you realise that it is only one interpretation. For example there are two legal arguments that are presented for legal basis or lack of it for the treason trial of Charles I. One is presented by  
 :*The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG The trial of King Charles I – defining moment for our constitutional liberties, to the Anglo-Australasian Lawyers' association, on 22 January 1999. 
 :The other by 
 :*Geoffrey Robertson (2005). The Tyrannicide Brief: The Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold. Chatto & Windus. pp. 16–17. ISBN 0-7011-7602-4. 
 :Neither man is a negationist, they are both respected Australian barristers, but they have radically different views on the legality of the trial, indeed both men know each other and Robertson was spurred on to write his book in response to Kirby's lecture. Like all good barristers they are experts of presenting a coherent and clear argument to support different interpretations of the same facts in court. The point is that to date you have espoused a point of view, but you have not presented any papers from reliable academic sources that argue that there is any nagationism involved in the different interpretations of state rights etc, or is it that you do you think that the minority views expressed in Texas v. White  are nagationist views if so you have failed to understand the difference between legitimate and illegitimate revisionism. I think a good place to start is for you to present articles that state that the people you think of a negationists are not objective historians.