tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post3783798556011564596..comments2024-03-28T04:26:30.557-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: Too Much Paine?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-6724325002031873282010-07-18T19:23:47.730-05:002010-07-18T19:23:47.730-05:00Thanks for commenting, Ken! I haven’t seen your si...Thanks for commenting, Ken! I haven’t seen your six-volume set because it’s not in my budget, and Paine didn’t do much up here in New England, but I know you made your gratitude known. I’m grateful myself to have this interesting window into Paine studies.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-11377100122794295702010-07-18T14:53:59.232-05:002010-07-18T14:53:59.232-05:00Hi J.L. It doesn't take a Paine specialist to ...Hi J.L. It doesn't take a Paine specialist to know that there is not a scintilla of evidence that Paine ever owned a slave and, conversely, that he abhorred slavery. Nor does it take a Paine specialist to figure out that several of the pieces in Burgess's recent work were certainly not written by Paine. These are but two of the more obvious errors in Burgess's very flawed bit of writing. You're correct, though -- Paine still rouses as much emotion as scholarship. Thanks for noticing and posting a link to the review. ps. hope you realize that I prominently acknowledged your very generous contributions (twice, as I recall) in my recent collection. KenKenneth W. Burchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03530469711913663388noreply@blogger.com