One of those hairsplitting issues with which copy editors have long been preoccupied is the convince/persuade distinction.
The main argument for it has been that one is convinced of something; one is persuaded to do something. That is, one does not follow convince with an infinitive.
In a number of posts I have attempted to draw a distinction of intensity of meaning, that convince, with its tie to conviction, suggests something stronger than persuade: I can be persuaded to do something even if I am not convinced that it is a good idea.
As far as I can tell, this argument has been thoroughly ignored every time I have made it.
Consider my pleasure the other day when, reading Joseph J. Ellis's American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic,* I came across John Marshall's comment on the debate between Patrick Henry and James Madison over Virginia's ratification of the Constitution: "Mr. Henry had without doubt the greatest power to persuade. … Mr. Madison had the greatest power to convince."
So there.
Of course, the battle was lost a long time back. The Oxford English Dictionary gives "to persuade" as one meaning of convince, identifying it as a U.S. usage and dating it from 1958. The American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel accepted convince with an infinitive by seventy-four percent in its 1996 survey. Bryan Garner rates convince to as just one step short of fully acceptable on his Language-Change Index.
So rewriting convinced … to is one of those little distinctions with which copy editors have been accustomed to waste their time, more dog-whistle editing. And, in fact, I have long since abandoned that effort when I sit in the editor's chair.
But in my own writing, for my own satisfaction, I will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Chief Justice Marshall.
*An excellent book. If you don't know it, you should read it.