Communications

Moore's discussion of die Readjusters' Washington connection remains sketchy and Jones offers only a brief comparison of the Tennessee and Virginia controversies although he does make an effort to trace the elusive out-of-state bondholders. Overall, Moore is more interpretative and intriguing—in part a reflection of his concern with personalities and ideologies and the greater drama of his topic. Less provocative and more detached, Jones shys away from interpretation and concentrates on providing a straight-forward, factual explanation of the Tennessee controversy. Despite differences in approach and focus, both studies remain noteworthy contributions to the historiography of the post-war South. Terry L. Seip University of Southern California COMMUNICATIONS To the Editor of Civil War History: In your December issue, Howard P. Segal reviewed my book, Inventors of the Promised Land. I was concerned that, though the thesis of the book was stated fully in the introduction and repeated in every chapter, Segal did not accurately report it to your readers. But what distinguished Segal's from all other reviews of Inventors was the contention that the book focused on twelve people who were "unrepresentative spokesmen for America as a whole": David Ramsay, Noah Webster, Charles Brockden Brown, Mason Weems, Jared Sparks, Mercy Warren, Elizabeth Chandler, Sarah Hale, Robert Finley, R. R. Gurley, Andrew Judson, and Charles Finney. This "unrepresentative spokesmen" characterization of Inventors is quite misleading. The book dealt with several hundred people —all contributors to the Columbian Magazine (not simply Ramsay and Webster), dozens of Washington eulogists (not only Weems and Sparks), over one-hundred proponents of the Cult of True Womanhood , dozens of proponents of Liberian repatriation of Afro-Americans (not simply Finley and Gurley), several Northern abolitionists and several Southern proslavery theoreticians, all of the participants in the Prudence Crandall controversy (not only Judson), and most of the founders of Oberlin College (not merely Finney). Moreover, 284 biographical detail was only pertinent in a few specific portions of the book. In these portions, six people, not twelve, were treated in detail: Ramsay, Webster, Brown, Warren, Chandler, and Hale. More important, there was not one sentence in Inventors stating that the hundreds of figures treated were "representative spokesmen for America as a whole." The introduction explicitly disavowed any suggestion that die book dealt widi "the American mind." Rather man considering "spokesmen for America as a whole," the introduction stressed that the book dealt entirely with spread-eagle patriots, generally from upper class families, largely from New England and Pennsylvania, and generally polemicists rather than intellectuals. In retrospect, I realize that an even more detailed profile of the spread-eagle patriots noted in the manuscript was required. But it is disconcerting to learn that my book failed to deal with "representative spokesmen for America as a whole" when I have argued in this and in other publications that there were no such "spokesmen"—that historians delude themselves when they attempt to characterize "die American mind." Greater precision is imperative. Lawrence J. Friedman Bowling Green State University To the Editor of Civil War History: Professor Friedman charges me with three scholarly misdeeds: 1.I misstated his diesis. 2.I ignored all but twelve of the "several hundred people" he treats. 3.I questioned the representativeness of these twelve for America as a whole when they, and the several hundred others as well, were never deemed representative. Let me respond briefly: 1.Professor Friedman nowhere discloses the way in which I allegedly misstated his thesis, unless die remainder of his letter somehow be equated with his thesis. If, as I believe, his thesis is something else, how may I realistically respond? I read his book thrice before composing my review and read it a fourth time before composing my reply. I fail to see the inaccuracy of my summary of his thesis. 2.I wrote that Professor Friedman's " 'inventors' of diis redefined utopia included, most notably, historian David Ramsay" (italics added) and eleven other Americans. I did not intend to exclude other Americans. It is curious, however, that Professor Friedman does not provide such a large figure in his book. Rather, as 285 286civil war history his letter indicates, he examines "an influential but numerically small...