Herb--

I am more than willing to talk about books on an individual basis.  But unless we have strong positive reason to believe otherwise, I think we have to take what people say in writing about their purposes in writing at face value.  Obviously some people lie in writing.  But unless I have good strong positive reason to impugn someone's motives, I think we have to take what they say about why they write what they write seriously.  

So what positive evidence do you have to substantiate your claim that *every* author who writes stuff that you do not like about Thomas Jefferson ("anti-Jefferson" after all, is in the eye of the beholder) is doing so for the unseemly and dissumulative reasons you describe below?  

Unless you somehow have access to what is inside these people's minds--or unless you have some other good reason to believe that they are all villainous politically correct anti-American slime-trailing scumbags (let's just call'em as we really see them, why don't we?) I'd really appreciate it if you would scale back your rhetoric.  

I am happy to talk about these works on a case by case basis.  But you are making unsubstantiated and unsupported sweeping generalizations.  

Kevin

---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 14:51:29 -0500
>From: Herbert Barger <[log in to unmask]>  
>Subject: Re: Historians as Liars? (was Re: New Presidential Descendant Claimant)  
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
> In my opinion people who author, anti TJ  books
>can easily be seen as part of a large politically correct, historical
>revisionism agenda 
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