http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/us/29lincoln.html?_r=1&src=twrhp

I think you’re due congratulations.

“The way I chose to go through life is, I’m going to default to trusting people. And every once in a while you get badly burned and you have to decide whether that’s worth it, but if you don’t trust people then you go through life missing a lot.”

Seems to me there’s been a lot of trust inherent in this field. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing for the most part. But if this whole controversy means anything, it’s probably that the game is going to get a lot less… fun.

Authenticity is becoming a bear.

Harold Holzer would like all Lincoln scholars to take the blame. Actually, it’s worse: “The entire historical profession should be ashamed for heralding Dr. Lowry without doing a moment’s worth of due diligence.”

That’s ridiculous. The entire historical profession did not herald Lowry’s work. I would have no problem in saying that those scholars who were aware of the Murphy claim and accepted it as true without question might have some explaining to do, and if that includes Harold Holzer as well as his friends Frank Williams and John Y. Simon (both of whom blurbed the work in question), then Harold Holzer’s welcome to speak about them.

Name names, Harold. If you feel responsible, then speak for yourself. Address those groups who had Thomas Lowry as a speaker, and look for what they have to say. Don’t drag everyone else down with you — especially those who were unaware of this “find” until this week

The Pittsburgh Steelers are the finest football team of the Super Bowl Era. Other than that, there’s not much about which I have made up my mind.

“First, you say that the report “apparently” was a big thing (apparently assuming that because it was in the papers, everyone must have heard about it, although you admit that you did not). ”

You’re right in the first place, wrong in the second. Just because something is a “big deal” doesn’t mean everyone has heard about it. But folks around back then indicated that a big deal was made at NARA. And no, I didn’t notice it at the time, but I wasn’t then and am not now a historian or a Lincoln scholar, and was significantly less “into” what for me is a hobby then than I am now.

“Then you say it wasn’t a big deal.”

No, I didn’t say it wasn’t a big deal, just suggested it perhaps was not if, in fact, “nobody” noticed.

“Then you want to know how this evaded the attention of scholars,”

No, I expressed that I am shocked that it DID evade the attention of scholars. Now such shock would be misplaced if, in fact, scholars were unaware of the announcement – keeping in mind that “scholars” is a large group of people, including but not limited to some historians.

“while you give a nearly free pass to the NARA, where you have friends.”

I do have one friend at NARA (others are e-quaintances), but he doesn’t work in that building – he shares my surprise that the fraud was able to be committed and that no one caught the discrepancy with Basler. And I don’t believe I gave NARA any kind of pass. Possible explanations of what happened are not excuses, and some might say they are indictments.

I do take you at your word. And I do have no reason to believe otherwise in the case in point. However, as you have apparently taken offense, I apologize.