Hayes Lowe
For the record...
Mon Jul 30 10:14:43 2001


"Thanks, Kevin, for a much fairer post than I have been able to obtain by the close minded set that refuse to even entertain the notion that Confederates would ever do such a thing."

If you have understood that to be *my* position, then you have misunderstood. I really think that I have been more than clear on this point.

"I repeat that I have never anywhere stated that the massacre did occur, only that the preponderance of primary (and secondary) source data shows that it did."

Same here, but just the opposite. I have never stated that it definitevely did not occur. In *my* estimation, there is no preponderance of the evidence that it did occur, however. In *my* OPINION the story of the massacre as told by the Union side, is not truthful. But, as I said in the beginning, there may be a kernal of truth to it. I fail to understand why you think that your OPINION is more valid than anyone else's who has studied this event. Yes, there are scholars who share your opinion, but there are also scholars who share mine. This is NOT an example of the revisionism that you so revile...this argument has raged the time of the event.

"Also that it is the only atrocity of the war anywhere on either side in which sworn testimony was entered on the record. Mr. Lowe, of course, can state definatively that it never occured and was "Union propaganda," without being called extreme, etc by virtue of his relationship with Mr. Martin."

Again, my OPINION is that it did not occur. But I cannot say definitively that it did not. I have not stated that OPINION any stronger than you have stated your own OPINION. It sure seems that you judge your own statements much less harshly than you judge the statements of others.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY...I have NO relationship with Mr. Martin that is any different than your own. The only correspondence that I have ever had with Jim is on this board or regarding this board. I assume that you don't know him in any other regard, either. I don't know him personally. You have the same standing here, as I do...i.e. a repeat contributor to this board.

And, Jim has merely stated *his* position, not defended mine. I think that Jim has made it clear that he has researched this event, thoroughly, and made his own judgements.

In the future, Hoyt, I would greatly appreciate it if you would address any comments/complaints/disagreements that you have regarding my statements directly to me, not in the third person to some other contributor. If your position is defensable, there is no reason for you to do otherwise. And, I am a quite reasonable person. If you can prove to me that your position is the correct and truthful position, I stand more than ready to admit that I was wrong. Again, I am only seeking after the TRUTH. And, if it is a topic such as the one at hand, that can never be proven one way or the other, then we can certainly RESPECTFULLY agree to disagree.