[UPDATE 12/9/2009: See also here. It seems the editor still doesn't "get it" regarding the blogger's point about the citation in the essay, or the fact that transcriptions - or "extracts", as he calls them - while perhaps more reliable, are just that, transcriptions and not original correspondence, even if they are written by the original letter writer. It would appear that some few of the "extracts" in question do include indication of to whom the destroyed letter was addressed. Here, another historian weighs in.]
Some may argue that the blogger is making a fine point (though I’m sure there are some diehards who will say he’s making no point at all). Fine or not, it’s a valid point and one with which I think one would be hard pressed to objectively argue against. Since the blogger in question doesn’t allow comments for his own reasons – no less valid than the reasons I have for allowing them here – feel free to discuss this issue in the comments section to this post. I received a few emails regarding this kerfuffle, but no comments, which I view as evidence of unwillingness (understandable, I think) of the writers to go “on record”.