The Lincoln No One Knows

[davg2000]

(05-31-2018 06:44 PM)kerry Wrote:  Yeah, it is "weaselly," and often irresponsible to do that. I sometimes wonder how to avoid it though, when addressing things that don't have a clear answer and kind of call out for one - like Lincoln representing slave owners. It doesn't strike me as especially surprising or complicated, as I assume it was because as an attorney he felt obligated to both take the client and follow the law, but it would be presumptuous to assert it as fact. An "it is possible" is better than an unsupported "therefore," but when you have 5 "it is possibles," it doesn't look good.

I agree. But one beauty (and challenge) of English is that it allows such variety in ways of expression. A way to handle the problem you mention is simply to reduce the number of "it is possible/perhaps" statements from five to, say, two or even three. (Be selective for the reader.) Surely Garrison could have conveyed the spectrum of possibilities with three. But my problem really isn't with Garrison's use of statements--or even assertions--it's with his use of the question format to help speculate: "Was the mystic who was born in obscurity angry during this period?" The only piece of fact here is that Lincoln (a "mystic"?) was "born in obscurity." Then, after admitting that Lincoln's "surviving letters and papers give no clue," Garrison then gives two long, controversial "perhaps" and "maybe" speculative remarks to supply answers to his question. Poor writing.