She says, "By the end of the war, Washington’s General Orders allowed no more than one woman to draw food rations for every fifteen men in a regiment. Some, no doubt, came for a taste of adventure."
But, she provides no evidence that some came for adventure, and I don't see how it adds to her thesis. She seems to make moves like this one or two times a chapter.
She's a good historian: she is adept at marshaling evidence and has an uncanny knack for grasping startling insights. I don't see why she makes (what I consider) unforced errors like this.
No comments:
Post a Comment