Neil--

The link you forwarded was quite useful--I have not read Mayer's essay before, and found it generally persuasive and helpful.  I agree very much with most of what he says.  I also took the opportunity to reread the Scholar's Report, which I have not looked at in some time.  Just for the record, I find myself in pretty much complete agreement with Paul Rahe's analysis.  

None of which, of course, speaks at all to Annette Gordon-Reed's latest work.  

When we analyze a scholarly argument, we need to do two things.  We need to apprehend the thrust of the argument itself--what claims the author takes herself to be advancing, and wishes to defend.  And we need to assess the evidence on which the author makes her case.

In the commentary thus far about AGR's latest book, almost all of our attention has been directed to her evidence, and precious little at all to the argument.  We have good reason to be suspicious of some of the evidence.  You and I can agree that the book takes for granted conclusions for which the evidence is, at best, inconclusive.  

But that does not warrant the kinds of claims you and others have made about AGR's argument.  You simply have not examined *that* at all.  If we are going to be fair and objective, we have an obligation either to restrict our criticism to AGR's handling of evidence; or alternatively, to make a good faith effort to state her argument in a way that she herself would recognize as fair and intelligible.  Otherwise, all we are doing is erecting a straw man.  Besides the fun of scoring debating points, what real purpose does that really serve?

I think when you do look at the argument the book puts forward, you will find that it bears little resemblance to the criticisms you have been making.

All best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html