Maurice, I certainly would be prepared to discuss this with you, and would be prepared to apologise for using the data, which is yours, if you are able to specify which is yours, and which is from other sources.
I don't know why you have not been receiving my private messages, as I have been sending them directly to the link to your e-mail address, shown at this page. My e-mail address is at tfoenander@hotmail.com
You know very well I have never plagiarised any material whatsoever, as I have cited the source that I consulted, and have always done so, at all my web sites, including those articles I have written myself, at which I show each and every source of my information, and images shown, so, to accuse me of plagiarism was a downright falsehood. It certainly was not my fault if Marvel had not indicated directly, which data you were responsible for, and which had been given by others, or from other sources he had consulted. As I have indicated all along, I have properly and correctly cited all sources that I consult, and will always continue to do so.
As for Samuel Risien, I agree that just because his name is in the Confederate Veteran magazine, it is no proof of his service. However, if you had read my article on him, you would have clearly seen that he had been a member of a certain United Confederate Veteran post in Texas, and to be accepted as a member, he would have had to have provided proof of his service, either from fellow servicemen, or through documentation.
We know that most Confederate Navy records are far from complete, and this was clearly stated so by none other than Secretary Stephen R. Mallory, in an 1867 letter, when he stated that most of the records of the Navy Department were "destroyed upon, and soon after, the evacuation of Richmond." Although this would have obviously referred mainly to the records of the CSN within the continental United States, it would also have included much of those documents sent in from foreign sources, including documentation sent in by Semmes and his subordinates. As well, even though some items from the CSS ALABAMA were able to be saved, after she sank, it would be logical to assume that most, if not all, paperwork from the vessel, including final muster rolls, and other documentation relating to her personnel would probably have gone down with the vessel, unless they could have been saved in an airtight, waterproof container.
Additionally, a check of much of the records shown in the volumes (especially volumes 2 and 3, Series 1) of the Naval Official Records would clearly show that some un-named personnel had come aboard at Cherbourg, just before the battle (ORN 1, 3, 77 and 80), and it was a well known fact that many times, not only in the career of the CSS ALABAMA, but also of many of the other cruisers, the foreign enlistment act was broken. Semmes and the other commanders of these cruisers would not have been completely truthful about such breaches. After all, it was an offense, and we know that at least three English born CSN officers had to front an English court about breaching this act. The account of these cases are included in the English newspapers of 1864 or 1865.
There are many inconsistencies in the tabulation of numbers of personnel, etc. For example, page 72 of the ORN volume mentioned above lists 61 enlisted personnel taken as POWs, and then paroled or sent to the hospital at Cherbourg, but on page 655, the number is listed as 63 men.
The roster in Marvel's volume names 213 men who had served on the entire cruise, but the roster in Sinclair's volume tabulates the number as 216, including three who are not named (one of whom was Randolph Yonge, for obvious reasons).
You neglected to name at least one other who had claimed service, namely Henry Redden, who had signed an affidavit in late 1862, and also one of the documents included in the ORN. I believe additional documentation on Redden is also included in one of the ALABAMA CLAIMS volumes, but his service may have only been prior to her commissioning, although he indicates at least four months of service.
As I mentioned before, at this very late stage, and with so much documentation lacking, it would be almost impossible to assume that anyone could compile a complete roll of all the personnel who had been on the vessel. One may attempt to collect copies of all documentation on the CSS ALABAMA, from all every available source in the world, such as the Public Record Office, US Consular Despatches for Singapore, Cape Town, etc., Muster Rolls, Newspaper Accounts (including the casualty lists, etc., from the English newspapers), but it would still be incomplete, as so much went down with the vessel, off Cherbourg, and there was also so much secretiveness involved in the enlistment of personnel. Many of the English Naval Reserve personnel who served on the ALABAMA had assumed aliases, and although some were known, others were never confirmed. How many other personnel had used an alias is just a matter of conjecture. Surely some of these had a past to hide, and would never have revealed their true identities, while others would have come clean at a later stage.
I agree, that like the proverbial "Gettysburg veteran," many claimants, such as Philip Drayton Haywood, would have come forward, but it would be absurd to assume that ALL these claimants were frauds.
To discard all later claimants, without a proper and thorough investigation, if possible, is to reject proper historical research.