“Letter” = LoC notebook entry + May McClellan notes from separate LoC collection + dating by editor + editorial decisions and adjustments to texts.

May’s notes do not cover every notebook entry and some entries have dates, but that foruma is shorthand for what a “letter” represents.

I may have been unjust to McPherson and am rethinking his position – how he could honestly have gotten to Sears’ dates without citing Sears.

Thanks from me as well for the follow-up. This was quite interesting.

It does appear that Rotov’s criticism has been answered point by point – It might have been useful, for example, for him to check the respective publication dates before levelling his accusations.

As for the “letters” Sears does directly address the question in his Mac Bio, explaining where the letters come from, when they were copied, and why he thinks they are valid. Frankly, that seems pretty above-board to me, and easily discernable for anyone tracking either Sears’ or McPherson’s source material.

I still view this as a tempest in a teapot, and think Mr. Rotov is way off base.

Dave Powell

Let me second Kevin’s thanks for publishing your informative exchange with Sears. If only every such dispute could be handled with such civility and respect…

Terry

Re: whether the citations can be followed, did Rotov say that they could not on the basis of personal experience? I can’t recall. But we do have Sears saying that they can. And we know Stephen’s very familiar with the collection, and has studied it up close (and extensively). In short, if Rotov has not personally been through the collection, or tried and failed to locate various of these citations on his own, then we don’t have he said / he said of real merit. If he has, that’s another story.

Re: notes vs. excerpts, I don’t recall all that was said about this in the links, and will gladly accept your description. Still, even if McClellan altered the excerpts he transcribed from his wartime letters, they are still excerpts. I’m not sure how Stephen handled this issue, but from a strict editorial standpoint, any such strike-throughs and additions to the letters should be addressed when reproducing / publishing them, either by preserving every word (struck through or not) or, up front, noting how all material intended to be struck by McClellan was left out of the transcribed versions of the excerpted letters.

Terry

As for whether or not they are notes or excerpts, I don’t know if that’s clear either. If you read all the links, you’ll see a claim that the writings include cross-outs and what appear to be changes of content that may be more than just error correction. If that’s the case – and there’s no real way to be certain, is there? – then we have something other than simple “excerpts”.

You’re right concerning what I consider to be the larger point. But I think we’re not going to see any significant change in that regard. All sorts of wonderful rationalizations have been and will continue to be made as to why it’s perfectly OK to call these “things” letters.