Dear Heyworth,
Welcome to the FR Foxhole. We welcome all opinions and comments for an intellegent debate about our history. However, we do try to keep our conversations polite and civil, understanding that we all have differing views. Name calling and accusations aren't called for or necessary for constructive debate. Not here.
Speaking of opinions, imo, you could have stated your beliefs without the added stabs.
The Foxhole has a large contingent of intellegent readers that can make up their own mind based on information from many sources and persuasions offered by the group and we do so in a kindly manner and would appreciate the same from all who visit here.
Please don't take my reply as an invitation to stop visiting but as a gentle reminder to debate the issue without attacking others personally.
Sincerely,
snippy about it (could you tell?)
Foxhole hostess
The argument that the reporter was there and therefore not to be doubted doesn't hold water either, unless one is also willing to accept every first person account of the period as equally reputable. The same paper, for instance, published first-person accounts of the massacre of innocent victims at Lawrence, Kansas by Quantrill's guerillas, but Watie's oft-repeated position is that every last victim of Lawrence --150 of them--was a murdering Jayhawker who had it coming.
Sorry, Heyworth. I see Snippy already answered you. That's what I get for not reading ahead.
free dixie,sw