Mike,
I think TMac's essay mentions the location, and infers it means Crump is in charge of the venture, rather than being given the task of the venture, and site finding. And yes, Carr's account makes it sound as if they didn't start looking SE of Camden until after the seaside was dismissed. So, he was a preist, so I guess TMac won't accuse him of being a liar. I can understand that!
However, I don't know that this doesn't reconcile with Crump having noted the land earlier, then followed the general original desires of the group to look at the seaside, and when that fell through, to go back to Clementon for another look at the dream land he once saw (or something close to it, as who knows exactly what site he saw from the train window) No doubt the final decision was made after many site walks, but I never had the impression that Tillie wrote that, only that the general land forms struck Crump as something great for golf.
Perhaps he was just telling Tillie that it was ironic that he ended up on land he once saw from a train window, and Tillie, with his writers eye, realized that was a nice story. A nugget of truth that makes a good headline. If that is all TMac is saying, then there may be some truth to that.
Of course, we won't know, and it really doesn't matter. I agree with his original assessment that there is and can be truth to all parts of the site discovery story and that its hard to single out one definitive truth, because things just really don't happen in nice neat packages most of the time.
BTW,
Like Ian, I went back and re-read Patrick's original premise. I will go with Ian's answer.