Wow. Its interesting to the detail someone goes to point out questionable reliability of sources on this one subject. The words are telling and bring up the question why does this one subject in American Civil War deserve the following criticism and dismissals?

"does not guarantee good scholarship"
"questionable credentials"
"have not gone through any kind of peer review"
"nonsensical questions"
"wild claims"
"a confident dismissal of anything that smacks of scholarship"

Whereas, other points and very questionable subjects used in telling the history of the Civil War are taken as unquestionable truths.

Like the very simple question on who started the war? Or the truth about the character of the honest, Christian, non-racist, democracy loving Abraham Lincoln? (Voted recently the number one President by American scholars, without any substitive debate on why other Presidents deserve such an honor.) Even my pet-peave the history of "The Free State of Jones" County, Mississippi is now given scholary attention and creditibility without a whisper of "peer review" or any body of historians questioning the current claims of this "lost" history.

I would rather like to see a little more "parity" one the treatment on this subject and other Civil War histories from both sides, that way politics and political correctness is removed from telling the facts.

___________________________
David Upton