Edward, with, all due respect, and realizing that Alan is well equpped to speak for himself, he did not say that Douglas was a liar, he suggested that Douglas' information could most likely only come second or third hand, at best, not likely from his own first hand long term observations in the field, while information from Southern officers in the field were first hand and of long duration, and therefore more worthy of using as a primary source for research, if verifiable. Why would anyone use third hand information, when first hand information is available, and verified?

Your characterization of Alan's position is completely false. However, after falsely accusing Alan of calling Douglas a liar, you then proceed yourself to call Douglas, unreliable, a pawn, a tool and then you say: "What was his authority for anything he said? It was what he was told to say."

Immediately after that you then suddenly switch positions 180 degrees and alternately claim that Douglas' statements now carry the "authority of truth."

Now certainly one man can be thought reliable in one instance and unreliable in others.
But if that is the case, and if you believe your source has deliberately lied or been telling "only what he was told to say" in the past, why even cite any such questionable sources at all? And why on earth call anyone out, even inaccurately, for calling a source a "liar" that you yourself claim is not always telling the truth, and cannot be trusted, whose own words and motives and accuracy and sources of information must therefore be continually and carefully checked?

I can understand the reasoning behind why you say Douglas might be believable in one instance, and maybe not in the other, but your post is just incredible.