A couple thousand people in a few tiny outposts scattered across the land equivalent of over 800,000 square miles is unpopulated by any reasonable definition. Even assuming your unsourced population figures are accurate (and I'm not at all inclined to believe that they are without a source given your lengthy history of fraudulently fabricating court decisions, quotations, and even civil war battles to suit your argument), the population density alone is virtually negligable so as to render a description of "unpopulated" accurate. To make a semantic dispute out of it also indicates your affliction with a severe anal retentive disorder, and one that has been festering for quite some time.
The term I originally used, "sparsely," is accurate. Though you wish to downplay the actual number of people who resided there, there was a substantial population which continued to grow during the war. You can compre the 1860 census figures to the 1870 census figures yourself.
"... and I'm not at all inclined to believe that they are without a source given your lengthy history of fraudulently fabricating court decisions, quotations, and even civil war battles to suit your argument."
I thought I told you not to spread your lies here. Do you get the finger? Sorry, Freudian slip.
"To make a semantic dispute out of it also indicates your affliction with a severe anal retentive disorder, and one that has been festering for quite some time."
Since you seem not to claim any medical training, I assume you are familiar with the terminolgy by experience. You are falling quickly into your old bad habits. Lose the argument; start the trash talking. Like I said before, you long ago ceased to be a serious poster here.