Almarin Cooley Richards

[John Fazio]

(07-31-2016 03:33 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 01:37 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Laurie:

Thank you.

Please do not burden yourself by being a middleman (middlewoman?). Just politely inform the critics that I would love to hear from them, but that I will naturally expect their points to be supported by facts, sources and reason. I'm still waiting for Dave Taylor's, which I asked for when it came to my attention that he found fault with my April presentation. Inasmuch as this is almost August, I have to assume he is quite busy.

John

It’s true I have been quite busy, John, but I usually find time to read the posts here even if I can’t take the time to respond.

I would like to take the chance to apologize to you for harsh manner in which I tweeted about your presentation during the last Surratt conference. While I do admit that those are my feelings and that your style of history is one that I have a strong aversion to, I perhaps could have been more gentlemanly and diplomatic in expressing my views. I’m sorry for tweeting so “off the cuff”. Perhaps I was channeling the current Republican presidential nominee.

None of my criticisms are directed at you personally, John, merely your way of interpreting history. You are an amiable man and I have enjoyed our talks. I also hope your book is a success even though I disagree with much that is written in it.

In reference to your request for me to express my specific criticisms here, I’m afraid for such a task I do not have the time. I have done so about specific points of contention in the past, like here for example. My major criticism of your work, John, is the sources in which you put your blind faith into. You put use so many unreliable sources from decades after the events and parade them as equal and superior to contemporaneous sources. Your embrace of A.C. Richards’ error laden exaggerations of his exploits exemplifies this greatly. But I will not debate you, John. I have learned very quickly that debating with you is not worth the effort. You are, like a dear friend of mine, a wonderful debater, John. As I have said in the past, I have no doubt that you were a very talented lawyer. However, I would say of you (as you might say of me from your perspective), that you are too convinced of your own theories and beliefs that you will never change your view in spite of more reliable contrary evidence. To actively debate you in the manner you would desire would be a Herculean task that would take the end of time. My dear friend, the master debater, is one of those individuals who will continue to debate even long after his own point is proven incorrect or unsound, until the other participant ceases debate due to frustrated exhaustion. In this way my friend perceives that he has not only won the debate, but must also, therefore, be correct. I see a lot of my friend in you, John. If you want to call my lack of argument a symptom of cowardice or even interpret it as evidence that my view is unsupported by facts, that’s your prerogative. But I, and many others, will know that the desire not to debate you is not because my evidence is unconvincing, but because I know it will never convince you and therefore you would never end the debate.

John, I respect the work that you put into your research, I always have. But we will forever differ in our approach to history and the way in which we express our interpretations to others. You are comfortable writing phrases like, “Therefore, it was this, and only this” and believing it when it comes to history. I will never be able to write that about history, John. I may be comfortable in my supported beliefs, even so much to state them without including room for clarification or explanation, but I know that there will never be anything in this world that I will know for 100% certainty. Even if I was alive back in 1865 and witnessed some of these events, I could not claim anything for 100% certainty because I know that I am a human being and that human beings are imperfect.

Though I may disagree with your style of historical interpretation, John, and you with mine, I still wish you the best and do not want there to be any animosity between us. Again, I’m sorry for the tone of my tweets during your presentation last year and ask for your forgiveness.

Sincerely,

Dave Taylor

Dave:

In my long life--now approaching dotage--I cannot remember having seen, much less received, a more gracious letter. There is, however, nothing to forgive.

Still, I will say that whenever you have some free time, I would like you to advise me of at least some of your differences with my book. And if you do not find the time, or are not so inclined, that will be OK too.

Animosity?! No way.

John