Johnston's recon

[James N.]

I have stuck to reading original letters and accounts for this project, but thanks for your response.

As I seem to recall, Pfanz based his work on those very "original letters and accounts" - where they exist. Or maybe Humphries et al just made the whole thing up!

 

[speedylee]

As I seem to recall, Pfanz based his work on those very "original letters and accounts" - where they exist. Or maybe Humphries et al just made the whole thing up!

I read Pfanz years ago but I did not use him for reference. I wanted to make my own conclusions.

 

[speedylee]

As did I. It seemed as though you were looking for additional views.

Agreed! I read all three as part of my research. Smith comes closest to my own interpretation, but it is just interpretation at this point. All three are well reasoned and deserve reading and consideration.

You are correct that I was looking for responses. But I've been disappointed that a lot of responses direct me to read something else.

 

[speedylee]

Those sure are fascinating letters Johnston left us.

I would submit that any interpretation on this recon probably needs to start with what Lee meant by "there".

You also should take a closer look at this whole sunrise issue, and what time sunrise was. As noted by two earlier posts, there was no daylight savings back then.

As for the GB Mag 61 article mentioned above, I highly recommend it. The author stuck to interpreting primary sources, just like you're trying to do here - and more to the point, proposed the same route that you are suggesting Johnston took in your post above.

I had not read the magazine piece, appreciate the recommendation.

Your point on Johnson's letters brings to mind a thought that the fewer original letters or reports we have on a topic, the more interesting the ones we do have become.