I recognize the fact being claimed. What the comment doesn't explain is what statement in the diary is modified or contested by the fact being claimed, and so I asked.

Perhaps it is talking about the reference to the decision of Parliament whether reconquering the breakaway colonies was worth the blood and treasure, but then making the point that it would only cost blood and treasure to reconquer those colonies that had rebelled seems pointlessly pedantic and would contribute nothing to the argument being made. It should be obvious that when talking about the blood and treasure to reconquer BNA its referring to that part of BNA that would have required reconquering.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.