--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "josepharose" <josepharose@y...>
> You made a statement about how, "Meigs reported what Grant said to
> him and did not contest Grant's assertion."
> When I alerted you to the fact that Meigs did not *report* Grant's
> claim but only noted it in his private journal, you did not reply.
That was due to a sense that this was becoming a counterproductive
conversation. Silence does not always imply assent or surrender; it
may simply mean one chooses to move on.
> Unless you have some further evidence or argument, then one can
> conclude that one of the foundations of Catton', Simpson's, and
> Simon's conclusions that Grant intended the ridge to be taken is
> based on nothing but thin air.
So you believe. I think people can conclude otherwise; indeed, I
know they have. Look at the poll. Look at the biographers you
mention. Only one poster voted for your favorite, McFeely, and you
never replied to my highlighting of his error (assent or surrender?
In light of your silence, one can only conclude that McFeely's a
badly flawed book ... see how this works?). Everyone else voted for
Simpson or Catton. Unless you have some further evidence or
argument, then one can only conclude that you are in the minority on
the quality of these books.
> When Meigs did report the next day, in his official dispatch--which
> IIRC was republished months later--he made no mention of what Grant
> told him. That implicitly contests Grant's assertion.
That's illogical. It may mean that in the rush of the moment, he did
not offer as full an account as he did later.
> There is *nothing* there which shows that what Grant told Meigs was
> thought by Meigs to be true.
And there's nothing that suggests that Meigs thought that Grant was
lying; by not contesting Grant's claim but reporting it, Meigs seems
to have found it unobjectionable, and others may conclude that that's
because it is true. You cite accounts from two decades later,
whereas Shanks and Meigs wrote rather close to the event. Perhaps
the sources upon which you build your case are shaky. However, as
I've read in the archives what you said on this matter before, I
think it best simply to declare that I disagree.