Thank you for the exhaustive list of facts. I visited the Library / Research Center at Hill College today. They have a huge Civil War repository of literature.

An aide pulled up the same info as you gave me from the web site "www.footnotes.library"... I do not recall if the final part of the address was org or com. I saw the information on James Spikes. I do not know what to make of that, or what to make of some of the other notes, such as JS being on a wounded furlough to his home in Newton. Josiah lived in Black, Alabama. The records show that he was captured on both the 2nd and the 3rd, at Gettysburg. He could not have been captured, escaped and captured again, in 24 hours, so one of the records is wrong.

My memory failed me when I said that Josiah was imprisoned at Fortress Monroe. You are, of course, right, it was Fort McHenry.

Though the records are in conflict, there is one constant that I now remember, having seen it fresh again today. Josiah's mark was specific and recognizable. The top-left to bottom-right stroke of the X had an upward right-side curl at the bottom. I have seen it on some of his other documents, such as land deeds, and it is always the same. I did not think to look at James' signature or mark. If it was a signature, it belonged to a different man, but if he signed with an x, the curl must be there to identify him as Josiah. You can look again, and determine that.

When I left the Hillsboro Library and Research Center, I went to the Layland Museum in Cleburne. Both the lady at Hillsboro and the one at Cleburne had the same info you did about Cleburne's mother, as they had read it from the same book that you quoted, and which I read there myself today. Apparently, the story about his mother moving to Navasota is unprovable or erroneous, so I cannot imagine why the book stated it and the two ladies in Navasota told it to me. The truth may not be recoverable, but the story is definitely doubtful. And yet.....the book mentioned the saddle, the pistol and the sword...with the saddle going to Strecker...and they did have the saddle that was alleged to have belonged to Cleburne. I wish I knew the truth.

At Layland, I saw the saddle and pistol. The Curator there had worked at Strecker many years ago, and knew of the existence of the saddle for a long time. When she left Strecker and went to Layland, she asked them if she could transfer the "Cleburne" relics to the new museum, and they said "yes". The saddle has been faithfully recreated to its original appearance, as best the artist could manage. It is quite different from what I imagined or remembered it to be. I was not allowed to photograph it for you. She snapped pictures of me standing beside each relic, and said that she would email them to me. When I get them, I will post them here for you.

Alas, the aforementioned provenance and documents that an aide told me about on the phone was not there. When I asked her about this, she said that Strecker had been unable to find records that showed the name of the donor or the date they were given to the museum. They theorize that it was donated by one or more of his men, who lived int he area. The only thing they know for sure is that the Museum has had it for a very long time. There seems to be no doubt in their minds that the relics were his, but that is it.

I appreciate all the interest that this talk has generated, but I still respectfully hold a different opinion from the other contributors. To me, it is the simplest thing in the world: soldiers and officers in the same regiments had to know each other. If they did not, to whom would the officers give orders? If not, from whom would the privates receive orders. This was not IBM, Sanskrit, the Normandy Invasion or the United Nations General Assembly. They did not do business with fax machines over a phone line with someone they couldn't see. These folks communicated through speech and hearing. They knew each other. They had to. Why is this so troubling to so many otherwise astute individuals? I truly do not understand why all the posturing is going on about it.

I think this will be my last note. I would like to point out something to those who accused me of besmirching the reputation the colonel without proofs. I only wondered why he did not take the time to read his own writings before publishing it. There are other ways to describe a man who misses roll call after a battle. You can call him missing. AWOL has a connotation of cowardly behavior and/or outright desertion. Armies do not give medals to a soldier for being AWOL, but they do for men who are wounded in battle in the service of his country. Josiah was wounded twice, and was remembered by Hebert, in writing, only for being AWOL on both occasions.

I guess that is about all I have to say on this subject.