[This update updated at 3:00 PM 12/23/2009] It ain’t over yet. See here and here for yet more updates on the series of posts most recently updated here. I think it’s settled that the “letterbook”, while in McClellan’s hand and in the LOC, is anything but a collection of letters, and in the absence of those original letters all that can be said about it is that it is a collection of McClellan’s impressions of some of the content of letters we may assume were written. While I realize that some folks have made up their minds (some of those minds doubtless made up as soon as it was learned who was involved, regardless of what any of them was actually saying), do read the blogger’s latest posts: it’s obvious quite a lot of work went into them, and their arguments appear valid – even if you don’t approve of the writer or question his motives. As far as I’m concerned I’m not going to be able to reach a decision one way or another until I hear from someone else who has attempted to track down what Prof. McPherson is saying can be tracked down, using his instructions – the citation – and nothing else (the blogger explains why it can’t be done, while the author states that it can). Who’s up for it?