treatment of every important original source, it seems unnecessary to further notice his treatment of minor "original sources" or his numerous errors in other matters.
Dr. Mowry asserts that his "Marcus Whitman" is a "history," and that "from first to last it deals with facts," and very positively denies that it is "an embellished story."
Just how he "deals with facts" is plainly shown herein, and one cannot help wondering what sort of a book he would have produced if he had exercised his intellect in the production of an "embellished story" instead of "history."
It is said that a friend whom he did not wish to disoblige having persistently importuned President Lincoln to write a notice of a book, which he could not conscientiously commend, Lincoln at last penned the following:
"Having read Dr. Blank's book, I am free to say that, for people who like this kind of a book, this seems to me an excellent sample of the kind of a book they like."
So, for those who think the proper course for a historical writer to pursue with all "original sources" that cannot be twisted so as to support his preconceived theories, is to either ignore or deliberately suppress or misquote them, or to substitute for them the contradictory and demonstrably false "recollections" of their authors written 30 to 40 years later, Dr. Mowry's "Marcus Whitman" may be recommended as a very finely executed specimen of the kind of writing they are willing to accept as historical
