I know Don Gilmore is a fire starter. There are two reasons. One is the way Don posts. He is not overly diplomatic or tactful. The other is the subject matter. He commits the "heresy" of attempting to rehabilitate Southern irregulars. I personally don't have a problem with Don's research or his assertions. I hope I'm a mature amateur historian and I don't take anything on face value or accept it because it has been placed "in print".

I wish Don did measure his words more carefully; however, if you disagree with his positions, then I'd ask that you counter them with sourced material, rather than invective.

I'm going to allow this thread to continue, for awhile, but if it spins completely out of control, I will have to delete or archive it. Please take some deep breaths and write concise and clear responses to individual points. I believe this dance will end up where it always does, with an inability to cast either side as absolute hero or villain. But perhaps, others new to this topic might learn something, if our "better angels" can persevere in this discussion.

Jim