Founding quibble.

In his review of my book, "Negro President" ("Piling on Jefferson," Dec. 22), Earl M. Maltz proves himself a virtuoso of the quibble.

1. He argues that it is false to say that the Constitution's three-fifths clause gave a man 300 extra votes for owning 500 slaves. It did not give the votes to him directly, but to his district's voting representation. Big difference.

2. He says that Jefferson did not lose the "real vote" because, if a hypothetical system were followed instead of the actual one, Jefferson would have won. By "real votes" I do not mean hypothetical ones, but ballots that were actually cast. The very historians Maltz praises in his review agree with me.

3. He says I repeat what is known, but the response to my book from reputable historians shows that even some of them were unaware of the consequences of the three-fifths vote. The general public was even more surprised by them. The men Maltz says originally documented these consequences have themselves lamented the fact that those results are not generally recognized. Two of the men he pits against me--William Freehling and Leonard Richards--have read and praised my manuscript, saying it was necessary for making these consequences more widely acknowledged.

4. It is absurd to question the anti-slavery credentials of Timothy Pickering, the champion of Toussaint L'Ouverture who was idolized by William Lloyd Garrison. Pickering and Hillhouse were firm allies throughout the Louisiana Purchase period. They were two of only five senators who voted against the purchase treaty as unconstitutional, and they later schemed to have New England withdraw from the Union in protest against the purchase. It is true that in votes over laws implementing the treaty, Pickering voted for some and against others, as he felt that they implied constitutionality (or did not) in the treaty. But he never wavered in his opposition to slavery. Even his critics, with all their charges, never believed that of him.

Garry Wills Department of History Northwestern University Evanston, Ill.

EARL MALTZ REPLIES: In responding to my review, Garry Wills employs what might be described as a strategy of confession and minimization. "Negro President" reduces the three-fifths clause to a grotesque caricature of itself? Big deal. Misstates the position of a prominent figure on slavery in Louisiana? A mere quibble. The central "insight" is not original? Well, it is still news to somebody.

Of course, each reader can make his own judgment of the importance of my criticisms. I would merely point out that the problems cited in the review were chosen not only for their independent significance, but also to exemplify the appalling sloppiness that pervades Wills's book. (Other examples of analogous problems are cited in reviews by eminent historians Gordon Wood and Forrest McDonald.) Yet it is this general sloppiness that remains the most disturbing feature of the book.

One final thought: Mine is not the only negative review to which Wills has responded publicly. If, in the future, he puts as much effort into meeting the demands of his craft as he has into defending this book, "Negro President" will no doubt be an aberration.

NATIONAL REVIEW encourages letters to the editor. Letters should be submitted by e-mail to [e-mail] or by fax to [phone] or by mail to Letters Editor, NATIONAL REVIEW, 215 Lexington Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016. Please include your full name, address, and daytime phone number. Letters will be edited for space and clarity.