The Jones County accounts that we discussed some months ago would not stand up to peer review. All that means is that someone with the proper credentials like Art Bergeron or Ed Bearss or Larry J. Daniel has reviewed the book. IMHO none of these gentleman would have much positive comment on the new Jones County book.

Occasionally an amateur historian (like myself) writes something good. As often as not, they are usually disappointing. Again, every Black Confederate account I've ever seen have been patched together by folks who may be well-meaning but don't seem to understand rules of evidence. To these people, it's more like religion: somebody said it, I believe it and that settles it. Peer review isn't perfect - you can find bad reviews of good books -- but it beat the heck out of nothing.

The gentleman who wrote the article I cited gives everyone an opportunity to read or locate many sources on both sides of an issue. Wish his language was slightly more restrained, but like Bill O'Reilly, he lets you know where he stands. You can read sources pro and con cited in his article.

On the other hand, Black Confederate sources are frequently unsourced. When sources are cited, the source may not say what the author wrote, or it's an account by a former slave who served with his master, or some other reference that fails to support the point made in the text. They never consider evidence to the contrary.

Nearly all of them use the same words, which always start with claim of a conspiracy to "cover up" Black Confederate service. It's never explained who orchestrated this conspiracy, or how they went about it, or what sources they surpressed. It's another claim you're supposed to believe because - well, just because.

You compared this issue to causes of the war. We can debate causes of the war until the Lord returns and never reach a conclusion. That's because it has so much to do with how different people felt about certain things. That's what you reminded me earlier today about the way Southerners felt during the summer of 1860. You and I may agree about how Southerners felt, but someone else may read the same material and *feel* differently about it.

It's opinion based on feelings based on circumstances.

In the Black Confederate issue, people want to make it about *feelings*. During the past ten years, after raising questions such as the ones posed on this board, I've been called all kinds of things. It's a *fact* issue, and since they can't work with facts, they respond by repeating themselves, posting in all caps, lots of anger and name-calling. You'd think I had been saying disrespectful things about their ancestors.