Just out of curiosity, why did you feel it necessary to change the Subject Line in your response and why did you refer to Alan by name and denigrate his argument in that subject line? This is just the kind of overly-emotional or unnecessary aggressiveness even in the subject line of your posting, seemingly designed to make this something personal. Just so you'd see how it felt to be addressed by name and to have your position insulted, I changed the subject line similarly.

I completely disagree with your assertions and your reasoning regarding the Louisiana Native Guards. You conveniently bend the facts regarding this unit, which never saw combat except as a U.S. unit and vague assertions of loyalty and militias from other wars. By your reasoning a "militia unit" running around in the woods with paintball guns, who maintain a roster/list and pledge allegiance to the flag, must be considered soldiers of the U.S.

Did any of the Louisiana Native Guard receive pensions as Confederate soldiers? Sorry not one of them, but large numbers of them applied for and received federal pensions for their U.S. service.

I guess we see the LNG brought up again and again, as they were the largest black unit ever affiliated with Confederate state service. They also look very good for the proponents of a large black Confederate force because of the nice photos of these men in their "blue" uniform with weapons and flags.

Homer, I especially don't like the "ganging up" on Alan on this site and the aggressiveness displayed in response to Alan's very mild and reasoned postings. My reaction to your posting is primarily due to my respect for Alan as a recognized, respected and degreed historian. I also know him to be a gentle soul, so I'm sticking my nose in here to stick up for my friend. Alan will probably scold me for doing so.

Well, I broke my promise to my wife again...

Jim