GDG- The stone wall: A lurker's conclusion

[Batrinque at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/7/07 10:46:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
gemccandless at hotmail.com writes:

> Since you asked ... I'll give an additional "lurker's conclusion."  BTW, 
> I've greatly enjoyed trying to keep up with the entire discussion about 
> Wright's brigade.  And as always, I am greatly impressed with the wealth of 
> knowledge of the members here. 

I have been a member of three Civil War Round Tables (and a guest speaker at 
a couple others). I believe that if Chuck had presented his theory to a 
typical CWRT, it would have been received warmly and probably have made a number of 
converts.  But the "audience" here at the GDG is of a different nature; a good 
many members not only have deep Civil War knowledge in general and about the 
Gettysburg battle in particular (and many of them have impressive libraries of 
secondary works and primary sources virtually at their fingertips).  There 
are a considerable number of folks who can fire off statements without further 
research that in a 1903 letter a former orderly of one of General Fanshaw's 
aides-de-camp recorded that he overheard the general caution his staff to keep 
his advancing brigade to the left of the red barn (and then they produce 
documents to prove that in 1863 the barn in question was painted a fetching shade of 
sky blue).  

What I am saying is, that the rules of the game around here are tough.  
Anyone, anyone, who presents a new theory had better come prepared not only to lay 
out detailed, clearly sourced evidence in support of the idea, but also to 
openly discuss the evidence that does not fit (and the nature of the beast is 
that there is always contrary evidence).  It is simply not enough to repeatedly 
point to the same one or two points over and over in the hope that critics of 
the new theory will eventually cease asking about the evidence to the contrary. 
 That ain't gonna happen.  This group is not against new ideas, but around 
here the three most important things are evidence, evidence, and evidence.

Bruce Trinque
Amston, CT