JES,
I appreciate that you obviously put some thought into your post. While I agree with some of what you said, and do not think we are as far apart as it may sometimes seem, I do still want to try to clarify a few points.
I agree that Mssrs. Morrison and Paul are "passionate" about Merion. But their "passion" has obviously gotten in the way with their ability to accurately analyze and convey the facts. Productive historical research requires that the researcher maintain a critical distance from the material or else the entire process will become useless. Just look at their inability to accept that CBM had any influence after the NGLA visit, and look at how they have even downplayed this. Just look how rude, obnoxious, and defensive they become when anyone challenges their views, even if with the most objective of facts.
You start a thread that in essence throws mud in the face of the Merion membership. And you do so as speculation hoping to start a discussion.
With all due respect, this is not all the case. Far from intending to "throw[] mud in the face of the Merion membership," I started this thread because I found an interesting article which I think sheds a tiny bit more light on the proud history of Merion. I hope I have not offended the Merion membership in the process, as this was not my intention. I have intentionally said a few things to Mr. Morrison, but nothing uncalled for by his boorish behavior.
You may not see it this way, but when you speculate that CBM was more involved in the earliest years of Merion East than he is or was given credit for you are insulting Merion's membership. Merion, more than any club I am familiar with, embraces it's history and traditions (and justifiably so) to the fullest degree.
No, I certainly do not see it that way. I think too highly of the Merion and its membership (past and present) to believe that they would want to misrepresent their history.
After all, it was largely Wilson and Lesley who acknowledged that MacDonald was involved, and we should not lightly substitute our own evaluation and judgment in place of theirs. You make these accusations because you have brief footnotes recognizing his advisory role and written snippets of hole characteristics that resemble some of what he (CBM) was doing. You need more than that.
If you have not done so already, you may want to look at these sources in the contexts in which they appear. If nothing else, I suspect that after so doing you will understand that it is inaccurate to lump all of these acknowledgements together as footnotes or snippets.
I just don't think you can take the "evidence" you and TM have put forward to mean CBM deserves more credit than has been granted.
I agree. And surely there is not enough evidence to justify taking away credit given to him by the likes of Wilson and Lesley. It is not me who is trying to revise Merion's proud history; it is Mr. Morrison and his cohorts.
When you take TEP's and Wayne's words about not giving credit to CBM for anything on the ground at Merion as "sweeping his influence under the rug" I can see why. I can confidently say that what they mean is that until something specific is produced how could you possibly assign anything to him.
I too believe that they mean what you describe. But this demand for additional corroborating evidence is a wild goose chase.
First, we already have solid evidence that CBM was involved—
The words of honorable men who were perfectly situated to assess and acknowledge CBM’s influence and involvement. Yet the other side of the table demands that we do not trust these men’s words unless the words come appended with a thorough explanation of exactly what was meant by each word, and a laundry list of everything to which each word applies.
For example, when Lesley, the chairman Merion’s green committee credits CBM with advising on the layout in a major article, they demand evidence of everything CBM advised and whether the advice was followed. And if no such evidence exists? They deny that CBM advised on the laying out of the course. Nonsense! We do not have enough information to second guess Lesley, much less a compelling reason:
-We have no reason to doubt Lesley’s knowledge, judgment, and veracity;
-Lesley was in a much better position to determine if CBM deserved credit for advising on the layout of the course;
-We only have a miniscule fragment of the information Lesley had when wrote his article; and
-MacDonald’s involvement would not likely have produced any of the physical evidence they claim to seek.
Would we doubt Mr. Keiser if he publicly credited an architect for advising on the layout of one of his courses? Would we insist that he back up his claim by producing a laundry list out the architect’s entire contribution to the layout? And what if, through the passage of time and unavailability of the parties involved, the evidence was no longer readily available? Would we conclude that the architect really was not really much of an advisor at all? I would not. But if Mr. Morrison and Mr. Paul wished to remain consistent, they would.
You must admit that the terms "advisor" and "approval of the grounds" are pretty vague to assign credit to.
Given the reputations of the authors and the contexts in which they were writing, I beg to differ.