The claim has been made that Stephens did say what he has been quoted as saying. In other words, claims he did are untrue.
I have come to regard the Civil War histories written by Northeastern scholars to be akin to "news" provided by CNN. A lot of unconscious bias creeps in and they are oblivious to their own inherent bias.
Oh be honest. You consider anything written by any scholar that you do not agree with or which does not fit your agenda as being biased and fake news. You show that all the time.
I don't care what Stephens may or may not have said. So far as I can tell, he was the Joe Biden of the CSA. My focus was on how you behaved when the shoe was on the other foot, and I have to say I was somewhat entertained. :)
Oh be honest. You consider anything written by any scholar that you do not agree with or which does not fit your agenda as being biased and fake news.
There might even be a grain of truth in that statement. Yes, I tend to regard something as biased and fake news when it conflicts with information that I have found to be accurate and correct.
I got to my current position by following facts (like the Corwin Amendment) which did not make any sense in the context of what I had been told all my life.
I had never even heard of the Corwin Amendment till about three years ago, and I had never heard of the war fleet sent to attack Charleston until a few years ago.
So why was *THIS* stuff not in the history books? Why didn't all these vaunted historians bother to mention these bits of information which very solidly contradict what everyone has been saying all these years?