I was in the army during Viet nam, (1969-1977) but was never there. But I have talked personally with many who were there and heard their story. Would I be wrong if I wrote their storys? I realize that in a court of law that such a chain of evidence would be considered as hearsay and not admissible, but does that make the stories is any less valid?

Mosby evidently felt a need to defend Stuart. Stuart could not defend himself as he died during the war. Is that any different from those of us who try to defend the honor of the Confederate soldier? We have to be more right in our defence that the detractors have to be in their attacks. For our facts will be questioned whereas the detractors factuality will be accepted on face value because it is the popular opinion and the nature of mankind to find fault and place blame.

Do you not think that would be the same case with Mosby's defence of Stuart? Do you not think that the mythology of blaming Stuart, of Longstreet, of Early, of Hill, was not in full play in the early 1900's and was being written by people who were not there?

The truth in any court case is in the evidence presented, Not by which lawyer presence the evidence. And that is what any "historical writting" is. It is the evidence presented before a court of judges, us. There are many Original sources of reference, which have been highly fictionized. It is for each of us to judge the validity of the evidence presented, not on the basis of who writes it, or when, but on the basis of does it fit the known facts.