"Life's too damn short to try to educate someone who has decided beforehand that they will not be educated. Those more concerned with having the last word and riding a personal hobbyhorse than historical accuracy will embrace their ignorance all the more strongly.... Anyone can decide ahead of time to make a claim, however preposterous, that they want to 'prove' and then cherry-pick extracts sources, one-liners, quotes taken out of context & etc. that appear to support their thesis. However, that's not how accurate history is produced- but is an example of the 'junk science' method so beloved of propagandists, charlatans, demagogues, and bigots."

Right back at ya, Greg. It's like you're talking to a mirror. Your description of your hated "Neo-Confederates" is actually an accurate description of your own propagandist behavior on this thread. Your demagoguery has led you to set yourself up as some sort of authority on the subject of "Neo-Confederates" while refusing to answer the simplest question about your credentials for making your claims (so are you a charlatan?). Your bigotry has led you to hurl insults at me when I'm not even a "Neo-Confederate" -- I'm just interested in looking at more than one side of the Black Confederate soldier controversy.

And the more I look at the side you don't want me to see, the more you show me about the true lack of refutation that the "anti-Neo-Confederates" have for the historical evidence about Black Confederate soldiers. All that your unreasonable insults do is to negate your claims of "reasoned conclusions" as so much smoke.

Smoke and mirrors.

Ah, but what's the use of saying so? Greg has left the thread.......... yeah, right. :-D